Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

I have yet to hear a normal and rational answer about WHY anyone need to have an AK-47 at his home (and usually, several of them)

Please, explain to me what kind of dangerous beast you hunt that require such a weapon and what kind of lifestyle not involving the purchase of Sudafed in bulk make it necessity to have not one, but several AK-47

(Because it's legal is not an answer)

They are used often in the South for hunting wild boars. Being low weight and compact, easy to use. Wild Boars is not something you want to encounter unarmed. And there are literally millions of them. Left unchecked, they would devastate the other wildlife. Not to mention crops needed for humans and livestock.

[sarahtasher]

They are used often in the South for hunting wild boars. Being low weight and compact, easy to use. Wild Boars is not something you want to encounter unarmed. And there are literally millions of them. Left unchecked, they would devastate the other wildlife. Not to mention crops needed for humans and livestock.

That's odd, boars where hunted in Europe for centuries without automatic weapons.

[Spiffums]

Can't imagine why. I can't imagine you will fire an AR from the hip, so you'd need to ironsight it to shoot, stock on your shoulder. I can't imagine how is that more practical than a handgun, in a scenario of home invasion, narrow corridors, doors to open, corners to check. Handguns seem more practical in anyway, it's not like you need the firepower, a handgun has enough stopping power.

Seems to me an AR would be more suited for open spaces.

Handguns SUCK at stopping a threat. The one shot stop is a myth.

For the same reason Police use a rifle to clear houses and buildings when they have a choice. More points of contact ensure better hits and less errant rounds. We carry handguns because it's easier to conceal and go about day to day life than a rifle.

If you know you're going to be in a gunfight you'll bring a rifle and friends with rifles. Handguns have always been a compromise. Look at any pictures from the old west and you'll see just as many rifles as handguns.

[szechuan]

People are blaming alcohol manufacturers?

You said Gun Manufacturers.

In this day and age, many people don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions my friend.

Then why do we have Common Sense Laws on Drugs, Entertainment, and other Goods?

[Ghostpanther]

Sorry, but even when you compare to the number of schools. They are not rare.

Sorry, you are wrong. What percentage is 2 or 3 out of hundred of thousands?

[petej0]

It's because they pretend they NEED the AK-47 for their lifestyle. Likewise, it's certainly not illegal to dress in camo fatigues to go to work, but at one point, you are left wondering if some people do not live in a fantasy.

Like all the people who pretend to need the newest iPhone the day it comes out. Or that new game or gaming system, new car, bigger home, bigger TV. Who are you to tell someone else what they do or do not "need"?

[Spiffums]

That's odd, boars where hunted in Europe for centuries without automatic weapons.

No one hunts with an automatic weapon so educate yourself before you post and look foolish.

[Vankrys]

The graph is simply wrong. It does count only gun deaths.
You need to compare all murders/homicides.

For example in France, they have killed 86 ppl with a truck, this is something it will not show up in your graph. But in the end it is still murder no matter weapon used.

Again, terrorist act can't be counted. Terrorist act are not influenced by law regarding guns or trucks control. Gun violence, and not just mass shooting but all gun violence, can be affected by the type of guns that are legally available and better background check.

[szechuan]

Sorry, you are wrong. What percentage is 2 or 3 out of hundred of thousands?

So how many School Shootings in the U.S. equate to 1 school shooting in Australia and or UK??

And does the chart equate the Frequency of mass school shootings too?

[sarahtasher]

Like all the people who pretend to need the newest iPhone the day it comes out. Or that new game or gaming system, new car, bigger home, bigger TV. Who are you to tell someone else what they do or do not "need"?

Again, it's not because you can buy it that you SHOULD buy it.

[Tiwack]

Why does one need a Roll Royce? Or a Ferrari? Or a $1,000 phone? Or a $4,000 computer? Or a 75” television? Or any other thing you really don’t “need”? Or a $300 meal?

The answer is simple. Because they want it and they have the freedom and money to purchase it.

Peace

Don't forget that each of those are sold so you can be free from money and inconvenience. It's exactly the same with guns. Freedom from something rather than freedom to do something. We trick ourselves and fall in love with the ideas we project onto others and sometimes objects as well. Fear is just us seeing the abstract in the known world.

[sarahtasher]

No one hunts with an automatic weapon so educate yourself before you post and look foolish.

I was given the boar answer by one of your pals...

[Ghostpanther]

That's odd, boars where hunted in Europe for centuries without automatic weapons.

Yeah, you can hunt them with single shot shotguns. But not very efficient or successful as when you use a semi-auto, high caliber rifle. Same as I can hunt rats with a BB gun...but, not near as successful as using a shot gun or .22. And the AK-47 and AR-15 which are sold here are not automatic weapons. You do know the difference between a automatic and semi-auto firearm?

- - - Updated - - -

So how many School Shootings in the U.S. equate to 1 school shooting in Australia and or UK?

Can not compare the two. Australia does not face the same issues we have here. No Constitutional right to firearms, no land borders, not near the number of people, cultural differences, etc. etc.

[sarahtasher]

Yeah, you can hunt them with single shot shotguns. But not very efficient or successful as when you use a semi-auto, high caliber rifle. Same as I can hunt rats with a BB gun...but, not near as successful as using a shot gun or .22. And the AK-47 and AR-15 which are sold here are not automatic weapons. You do know the difference between a automatic and semi-auto firearm?

Yeah. One would be only useful to murder a crowd of unharmed people and the NRA keep advocating for it because not having the right to fire 60 bullets per second at random (a completely useless feature for the military) is an untolerable agresssion.

[Ghostpanther]

Can't imagine why. I can't imagine you will fire an AR from the hip, so you'd need to ironsight it to shoot, stock on your shoulder. I can't imagine how is that more practical than a handgun, in a scenario of home invasion, narrow corridors, doors to open, corners to check. Handguns seem more practical in anyway, it's not like you need the firepower, a handgun has enough stopping power.

Seems to me an AR would be more suited for open spaces.

There are cases were a home owner, defended themselves using a AR-15 against multiple armed intruders. I have fired the AR-15 many times and have a handgun. There is a big advantage to the AR-15 against multiple targets.

[szechuan]

Australia does not face the same issues we have here. No Constitutional right to firearms, no land borders, not near the number of people, cultural differences, etc. etc.

Partially Agree.

Can not compare the two.

you can still compare the two and Land Borders are irrelevant when talking about Federal Law.

[petej0]

Again, it's not because you can buy it that you SHOULD buy it.

I agree, which is why many dont. That goes for anything. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Those that do "want" or "need" one for whatever reason, are allowed to, if they can pass the prerequisites. I dont see anything wrong with that. I

I was given the boar answer by one of your pals...

"No one hunts with an automatic weapon" is the key there, not the animal being hunted.

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah. One would be only useful to murder a crowd of unharmed people and the NRA keep advocating for it because not having the right to fire 60 bullets per second at random (a completely useless feature for the military) is an untolerable agresssion.

Lol. Sorry. You just revealed how little you know about firearms. But I do agree Bumpstocks should be outlawed.

[petej0]

Yeah. One would be only useful to murder a crowd of unharmed people and the NRA keep advocating for it because not having the right to fire 60 bullets per second at random (a completely useless feature for the military) is an untolerable agresssion.

The AR15 does not have the capability

[Vankrys]

There are cases were a home owner, defended themselves using a AR-15 against multiple armed intruders. I have fired the AR-15 many times and have a handgun. There is a big advantage to the AR-15 against multiple targets.

which is great in school

Sorry, couldn't resist.