Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

So I take it that our incompetent military (after all, DOD is part of the government, and we know the government can't do anything right) really should be fighting wars with revolvers instead of those "scary looking guns," that don't have any firepower or whatever.

Please, please educate yourself before ranting. You're undermining the legitimate arguments for meaningful regulation, and I say that as a believer in gun control.

The shooter here could have inflicted the same damage with a hunting rifle or handguns. The type/look of weapon used here is completely immaterial to the core issues.

That's not a rant, it's sarcasm. I am certainly not talking about look of the weapon. Type of weapon is definitely an issue. You could not kill that many people with a revolver or a shotgun. It would take too long to reload and then the potential victims would be likely to jump you while you do it. Also, rifles usually have a higher muzzle speed and longer range than shotguns or handguns, so they do more damage at greater distance. That's WHY the military doesn't give soldiers shotguns or .22s.

Meaningful regulation would mean that we put tighter control on more dangerous weapons. I'm not very worried about people who only buy a box of birdshot for duck hunting once a year. But if you have 50 AR-15s and 20,000 rounds of ammo, I might be a little curious about what you want it for.

20,000 rounds of ammo is 20 days at the range.

And the military does give .22s to soldiers. The AR-15 is a .22. As is an M-16. A .22.

Banning guns will no more solve these problems than banning Muslims. Both are band-aid solutions that will simply create a pause until fucked-up people figure out something else. Address the real problem. The US is full of fucked up people. People who like to kill. And they will figure out a way. So address fucked up people. Not guns. And not people who can be superficially labeled.

I guess I'm fine with banning AR-15s and the like. But it's interesting how the discussions shifted from "background checks," when the actual background checks did squat to prevent this tragedy.

When you start banning things, please be careful. Nobody wants U.S. turning into Mexico, where all the weapons are with drug cartels. I strongly believe that armed citizens are one of the reasons U.S. remains relatively safe. As safe as a huge and diverse country can possibly be. I know it's tempting to compare yourself to Luxemburg, but please, don't insult anybody's intelligence by actually doing this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a semi-automatic is the best possible gun for protecting oneself in a home invasions. that's why the police use them. That's why registered gun owners have them. If the bad guys have them too, then I want one (preferably with a red scope so I don't miss). Less chance of collateral damage. Less change of blasting through a wall as you would with other long guns.

Personally, I don't mind if you feel the need for something like that, especially if you live way out in the boonies. But it probably won't save you in a home invasion unless you have the gun right next to you at all times, then, statistically speaking, you are more likely to shoot yourself or someone else by mistake than your home is to be invaded.

Your likelihood of being a victim of a home invasion is generally lower than your likelihood of being struck by lightning which means it's actually more reasonable to walk around inside a faraday cage than it is to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow or in your nightstand. Think about how crazy that actually sounds. Let it sink in. And, if you genuinely and seriously DO have some kind of unique risk of home invasion then that's more an indication that you live in a really shitty neighborhood and should probably move, and let the police take care of it.

Meanwhile, the PP is also very much correct in saying that the mere fact of having a gun in your home significantly increases your chances of someone in your home being injured or killed by a gun. It's a sad fact, this is what the data shows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

NP here. I think that your analysis is flawed. It's akin to asking someone why they "need" a website to exercise first amendment rights when they have a pen and paper, in furtherance of an argument that the government should ban websites based on content of speech.

Certain content is in fact banned. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't set up a website that provides detail planning for overthrow of the US Government. You also can't buy a fully automatic weapon. Maybe you can come up with a legitimate need for one, but so far the courts have not overturned that ban.

Until 2004, there was a ban on semi-automatic rifles. It was not overturned by the courts, it expired. That ban could be reinstated, and if it were, there would certainly be a discussion about why you would need such a weapon. Until Scalia died, the Supreme Court would have certainly overturned it. If Clinton is elected and gets a democratic congress too, that ban could come back for good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

So I take it that our incompetent military (after all, DOD is part of the government, and we know the government can't do anything right) really should be fighting wars with revolvers instead of those "scary looking guns," that don't have any firepower or whatever.

Please, please educate yourself before ranting. You're undermining the legitimate arguments for meaningful regulation, and I say that as a believer in gun control.

The shooter here could have inflicted the same damage with a hunting rifle or handguns. The type/look of weapon used here is completely immaterial to the core issues.

That's not a rant, it's sarcasm. I am certainly not talking about look of the weapon. Type of weapon is definitely an issue. You could not kill that many people with a revolver or a shotgun. It would take too long to reload and then the potential victims would be likely to jump you while you do it. Also, rifles usually have a higher muzzle speed and longer range than shotguns or handguns, so they do more damage at greater distance. That's WHY the military doesn't give soldiers shotguns or .22s.

Meaningful regulation would mean that we put tighter control on more dangerous weapons. I'm not very worried about people who only buy a box of birdshot for duck hunting once a year. But if you have 50 AR-15s and 20,000 rounds of ammo, I might be a little curious about what you want it for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

NP here. I think that your analysis is flawed. It's akin to asking someone why they "need" a website to exercise first amendment rights when they have a pen and paper, in furtherance of an argument that the government should ban websites based on content of speech.

Anonymous wrote:Because a semi-automatic is the best possible gun for protecting oneself in a home invasions. that's why the police use them. That's why registered gun owners have them. If the bad guys have them too, then I want one (preferably with a red scope so I don't miss). Less chance of collateral damage. Less change of blasting through a wall as you would with other long guns.

Personally, I don't mind if you feel the need for something like that, especially if you live way out in the boonies. But it probably won't save you in a home invasion unless you have the gun right next to you at all times, then, statistically speaking, you are more likely to shoot yourself or someone else by mistake than your home is to be invaded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

Because a semi-automatic is the best possible gun for protecting oneself in a home invasions. that's why the police use them. That's why registered gun owners have them. If the bad guys have them too, then I want one (preferably with a red scope so I don't miss). Less chance of collateral damage. Less change of blasting through a wall as you would with other long guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

So I take it that our incompetent military (after all, DOD is part of the government, and we know the government can't do anything right) really should be fighting wars with revolvers instead of those "scary looking guns," that don't have any firepower or whatever.

Please, please educate yourself before ranting. You're undermining the legitimate arguments for meaningful regulation, and I say that as a believer in gun control.

The shooter here could have inflicted the same damage with a hunting rifle or handguns. The type/look of weapon used here is completely immaterial to the core issues.