[OFFICIAL] Gun Control Thread

[Didactic]

It is not a punishment. We are simply determining what is acceptable and what is not. We don't have equal rights laws because we are punishing responsible people for the actions of a "few bad eggs." We are saying it is not acceptable to discriminate. While the Supreme Court may appear to currently have a very liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It hardly means it will stay that way. Owning an assault weapon is no more a right than owning an assault rifle.

Since we cannot make mass shootings impossible. We can at least make it harder for mass shooters to kill as many as they do. An option, and if you have not guessed I think an excellent one, for doing this is lowering their effective rate of fire. Through restricting their access to the kinds of weapons, like semiautomatics, that make it easier for them to kill more people. I'm hardly saying its the only thing we should do. However, it is one of them.

Mass shootings more than make up for their rarity with how much carnage they can inflict. Not only on the casualties themselves, but to entire communities. Again, we can't make mass shootings impossible. However we can make them harder and when the cost of ensuring gun owners' conveniences includes first-graders in their classrooms? Its time to seriously rethink whether that convenience is worth it.

And my opinion of that remains the same after the other myriad; no. The level of safety provided is not enough to justify the abrogation.

[Palmatum]

Looks like Spengler got his through a straw purchase.

http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/194...lliam-Spengler

Ugh...

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 11:38 PM ----------



The William Spengler one? Thought he emptied one of the Bushmaster's "clips."

Oh. I didn't know there was yet another shooting. I meant the school shooting, sorry.

[mjolnir1122]

FACT: Gun people are actually really really huge idiots who think that murder weapons can stave off people with murder weapons "hurr durr if I got a gun he got a gun he get a gun anyway illegal way and me legal way even playing field let's just make it easy for everyone to get"

Imagine ok, just for a second imagine ok if it was HARD to get a firearm and not every inbred twatstain with a mullet could get their stumpy thumbless hands on one. Murder rate up or down? Remember OK, this is the really difficult bit for you I know, but it is HARDER to get a firearm, so less people get their hands on them OK? SO that is LESS people with the capability of killing 30 people in 6.2 seconds ok?

This is not a difficult concept, and yet people forego ockham's razor and add unnecessary contingencies "but what if" ad nauseum. LESS GUNS = LESS PEOPLE KILLED BY GUNS. Simplest math in the entire fucking universe. "BUT WHAT ABOUT KN-" No. BUT WHAT ABOUT AX-" No. Less of those = less people killed by those. But so what the same math applies? All that shit is a distraction made by a simpleton who just likes guns because he likes loud noises and fireworks because he is mentally 6 years old.

Gun people annoy the shit out of me for how little regard they have for human life. You want your loud toys and have actually built up such a wall of self defense and hunting nonsense bullshit you actually fucking believe it yourself. That's how fundamentally screwed up you are, you just like guns so much you ignore the simplest math in the entire world that says people, flesh bones and muscle, DIE so you can have your toys and justify it by saying you're defending yourself against other idiots with the same passion for toys.

God I hope this gets me banned, I seriously can't stand watching you idiots even type out individual words without spiraling into a pit of despair over the fact that it's still legal for your kind to procreate.

Holy mother of God. How's that media baby formula working for ya?

The murder rate with ANY semi-automatic firearm has gone up 1 percent, yes one percent, since 1980. That is from the Justice Bureau, not Universities who are full of professors who think that Communism is what we need.

Your "fact" is an opinion. How much do you actually know about firearms themselves? Did you know that it is nearly impossible to actually get your hands on a legitimate assault rifle? Assault Weapons are a bullshit term that the left wing throws around, but has no actual definition. A true "assault weapon" has a very large magazine capacity and a fully automatic function. Semi-automatic means that you have to squeeze the trigger every time you want to fire a single bullet. Assault Weapons require several permits and licenses, and go for upwards of 15,000 bucks. Did you know any of that? I'm going to guess not, seeing as how even most pro-gun people don't

The first part of your second paragraph is about the only thing I agree with you about. If I want to purchase a firearm, I have no problem forfeiting my right to patient-doctor confidentiality to do so. If I have any sort of mental issue that could one day potentially turn me into a gun toting maniac, then I should not be allowed to purchase one plain and simple. Heres the problem though, most people think that everyone with a gun is exactly what you said, a twatstain with a mullet. You don't think of State legislatures or county officials carrying a firearm do you? How about that guy in the nice suit? No you probably think that all gun owners have a mullet, wear overalls, and bang their sisters and cousins. Thats what the media portrays gun owners as.

What pisses me off is that most people also think that everyone who owns a gun doesn't have the slightest clue as how to operate it. That isn't the case either. Ofcourse there are people out there who own firearms and don't have the slightest idea about how to operate, let alone gun safety, or even how to assess a potentially dangerous situation. But personally, I haven't come across anyone who owns a firearm that does not know the same, if not more, than law enforcement.

What also pisses me off is the tired logic of less firearms means less people get their hands on them. Since when do criminals obey the law? Because meth and cocaine say hi! Majority of confiscated or turned in firearms will not be destroyed, but will be locked up instead. That does not really provide much protection for anyone, now would it? Guns would end up staying in the hands of criminals, but be taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens? How the fuck is that supposed to protect my family and I?

Obviously you have some math problems as well. Over in England, armed robberies during daylight hours when people are home have gone up 39% since they banned firearms. To protect your own personal property, you don't need to shoot to kill. Most of the time if the burglar so much as sees you with a firearm, they're going to get the hell out of there seeing as how for them, a robbery charge can now possibly turn into a murder charge instead. Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has also kept crimes committed with a firearm very high in places where people cannot even legally purchase a firearm, such as NYC and Chicago. Again, how does your math fit in here, considering that there aren't less guns, but no guns at all in these areas?

Gun people who have little regard for human life annoy me too, trust me. What also annoys me are people who don't want you to have the ability to protect yourself. That mentality means that you have more of a regard for the life of the criminal than for me and my family, people who contribute to society and help try to make this world a better place. Owning a gun isn't about having disregard for human life. When you purchase your first firearm, you are assuming the responsibility to protect. PROTECT. Not show it off, not fire at innocent bystanders, not fire it because you think someone looks suspicious. It is a mechanism for defense. The only time it should ever be used offensively is if the Government were to become tyrannical and begin slaughtering it's own citizens. If you do not have any regard for human life, then you should not own a firearm, because you then obviously do not understand the basic concept of owning a firearm. Never point the muzzle at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

I really hope that you don't get banned. Even though you have grouped up everyone who is pro-gun under one flag, and taken all possibilities of exceptions out of your post, it does not take away from the fact that you have an opinion, and you have the right to express that opinion.

[SirRobin]

Oh. I didn't know there was yet another shooting. I meant the school shooting, sorry.

Sandy Hook? Have they flip flopped again? I've heard the Bushmaster was used, then I heard it was left in the car, then I heard it was used, he had two pistols, he had four pistols, he tried to buy his own Bushmaster but couldn't. Seriously, its not that hard to tell shells apart and there should be at least twenty-seven in that school.

[Palmatum]

Sandy Hook? Have they flip flopped again? I've heard the Bushmaster was used, then I heard it was left in the car, then I heard it was used, he had two pistols, he had four pistols, he tried to buy his own Bushmaster but couldn't. Seriously, its not that hard to tell shells apart and there should be at least twenty-seven in that school.

No idea. From what I gathered from most reports was that it wasn't used... But no doubt there are media outlets that will claim he turned up in a Dreadnaught and fired a las cannon at will.

[vastx]

Sandy Hook? Have they flip flopped again? I've heard the Bushmaster was used, then I heard it was left in the car, then I heard it was used, he had two pistols, he had four pistols, he tried to buy his own Bushmaster but couldn't. Seriously, its not that hard to tell shells apart and there should be at least twenty-seven in that school.

Yeah, he did use the Bushmaster.

[mjolnir1122]

Stereotype aside, he has a point.

How many of the ridiculous amounts of firearm murders in the US each year are committed with fully auto rifles?

Less than a thousand... I wonder why! Probably because they aren't as accessible, how 'bout that...

But no! You keep your firearms to protect yourselves from criminals with firearms that get firearms so easily because they're so easily accessible.

As long as the endless circle of violence kept alive by perpetual ignorance and intransigence is kept on your side of the pond, fire away.

You need to take into account the price of said firearms. Fully automatics were expensive before and after the regulation. However, semi-autos? Expect them to go up a couple hundred bucks max on the black market.

I will not be able to search this entire thread to see if this is covered, but the bill being introduced is calling to ban guns that HAVE THE CAPABILITY to carry 10 or more rounds of ammo, regardless if you don't own any upgrades. This means that everything except for some revolvers, some handguns, a couple of shotguns, and a couple of rifles, are banned. Even most hunting rifles nowadays at least have the capability of carrying 10 shots. So even though it isn't "technically" a full on gun ban, it still is pretty much a full on gun ban. Obama has also been quoted on saying that if this bill does not pass, that he will sign the U.N. Small Arms treaty, which would ban all guns and outlaw hunting.

This is the gov't's loophole, and that is why so many people are so against gun control. The Government now has a way to ban guns without technically violating or abolishing the second amendment. And with the rate the gov't is growing, and the increasing number of "social equality solutions" they are proposing, it really does seem that next year could be the start of a subtle socialist regime. Again, that is why people are so against it.

[Grizzly Willy]

I would like to see this quote.

[mjolnir1122]

I would like to see this quote.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...t-of-the-deal/

Not even close to what I was looking for, but it does give you the gist of things. My father-in-law printed out the article, so I'll ask him for it tomorrow so I can copy the link and paste it over here.

to clarify though, "small arms", in the language used in the document, are essentially the same as in the bill that will be introduced in January. The outlawing of hunting comes from another part of Agenda 21, but would be incorporated into the document, in regards to wildlife preservation.

[SirRobin]

You need to take into account the price of said firearms. Fully automatics were expensive before and after the regulation. However, semi-autos? Expect them to go up a couple hundred bucks max on the black market.

I will not be able to search this entire thread to see if this is covered, but the bill being introduced is calling to ban guns that HAVE THE CAPABILITY to carry 10 or more rounds of ammo, regardless if you don't own any upgrades. This means that everything except for some revolvers, some handguns, a couple of shotguns, and a couple of rifles, are banned. Even most hunting rifles nowadays at least have the capability of carrying 10 shots. So even though it isn't "technically" a full on gun ban, it still is pretty much a full on gun ban. Obama has also been quoted on saying that if this bill does not pass, that he will sign the U.N. Small Arms treaty, which would ban all guns and outlaw hunting.

This is the gov't's loophole, and that is why so many people are so against gun control. The Government now has a way to ban guns without technically violating or abolishing the second amendment. And with the rate the gov't is growing, and the increasing number of "social equality solutions" they are proposing, it really does seem that next year could be the start of a subtle socialist regime. Again, that is why people are so against it.

Well, again, just because a bill is introduced one way. Hardly means that the legislation coming out the other end will look much like it. The FAWB, as far as I recall, was changed a lot before it passed. Which, again, reinforces the need for pro-gun to be a part of the conversation. Not stick its head in the sand and spout quotes that were never actually said.

Since whatever legislation is passed would certainly end up in front of the Supreme Court, with five conservative justices, and even U.N. treaties have to be ratified by congress? I'm not seeing their reasoning to get so upset. If they choose not to participate, then they will only have themselves to blame.

[Grizzly Willy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...t-of-the-deal/

Not even close to what I was looking for, but it does give you the gist of things. My father-in-law printed out the article, so I'll ask him for it tomorrow so I can copy the link and paste it over here.

to clarify though, "small arms", in the language used in the document, are essentially the same as in the bill that will be introduced in January. The outlawing of hunting comes from another part of Agenda 21, but would be incorporated into the document, in regards to wildlife preservation.

I appreciate your consideration in providing the source. I read the article and, while I don't exactly see how the UN could enforce the regulations regarding firearms in the U.S., I do understand the concern surrounding it, as well as the other items discussed in the article.

[mjolnir1122]

Well, again, just because a bill is introduced one way. Hardly means that the legislation coming out the other end will look much like it. The FAWB, as far as I recall, was changed a lot before it passed. Which, again, reinforces the need for pro-gun to be a part of the conversation. Not stick its head in the sand and spout quotes that were never actually said.

Since whatever legislation is passed would certainly end up in front of the Supreme Court, and even U.N. treaties have to be ratified by congress? I'm not seeing their reasoning to get so upset. If they chose not to participate then they will only have themselves to blame.

I completely agree with you here. But that's the problem. Generally, the right wing bends to pressure with these kinds of situations a little too easily. However, when it comes to tax hikes for the rich, they're like freakin pitbulls.

Generally, even though I am a conservative, I utterly despise what the majority of the right has become. I'm not really counting on them to actually stick to their guns, no pun intended, on this bill, no matter how much the NRA throws money at them.

But all in all, I pray that you are correct, because there have been quite a few things as of late, that to me at least, are screaming false flag. And on that note, I pray that I am very, very, very wrong about that.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 10:53 PM ----------

I appreciate your consideration in providing the source. I read the article and, while I don't exactly see how the UN could enforce the regulations regarding firearms in the U.S., I do understand the concern surrounding it, as well as the other items discussed in the article.

The U.S. has been adopting agenda 21 policies since the Clinton era. As of right now, it seems that within the next 10 years we could possibly see the U.S. fully, or at least partially adopt Agenda 21 policies.

The reason the U.N. could enforce firearm regulation in the U.S. is because the U.S. would give them the go ahead. The current administration is buying into the globalization movement slowly but surely. I completely understand the rest of the world's decision in moving towards Globalization, however that was not why this country was founded, which is why I mainly have a problem with it. If we were to fully adopt the U.N.'s Agenda 21, the constitution ceases and we would then be under international law.

As the poster above you stated, congress has the power to ratify U.N. treaties and other documents, and as of right now that's the only way that the U.N. could enforce regulations within our own Gov't.

Also, I'd like to thank you for your civil response. It's not often you find level headed people like that, especially on a heated topic such as this

[SirRobin]

I completely agree with you here. But that's the problem. Generally, the right wing bends to pressure with these kinds of situations a little too easily. However, when it comes to tax hikes for the rich, they're like freakin pitbulls.

Generally, even though I am a conservative, I utterly despise what the majority of the right has become. I'm not really counting on them to actually stick to their guns, no pun intended, on this bill, no matter how much the NRA throws money at them.

But all in all, I pray that you are correct, because there have been quite a few things as of late, that to me at least, are screaming false flag. And on that note, I pray that I am very, very, very wrong about that.

Whoa now. The right wing bends to pressure a little too easily with these kinds of situations? Fiscal cliff, sequestration, debt ceiling, kyoto protocol, etc, etc... Sorry, not seeing it. Now pro-gun is in trouble. Not as much as some seem to think, but they are in trouble. When first-graders die by the score in their classrooms? You've crossed the line. When volunteer firefighters are killed trying to get to a fire? You've crossed the line. There is no going back from that. We've had seven mass shootings in just one year. We've also got four more years of Obama and, possibly, two years of the democrats controlling congress. We could easily have a decade of "what age my child would be if not for Busmaster" ahead of us too. Yes it might not be accurate, but it would be effective.

Unless you find someone a hell of a lot smarter than LaPierre, more accurate than Woolery, and come out with a counter to Feinstein that doesn't sound like an insult to just about everybody's intelligence? Well... Again, you'll really only have yourselves to blame.

Anyone seen any "I'm a gun owner" commercials yet? Wouldn't be surprised if those hit the airwaves soon.

[PizzaSHARK]

No idea. From what I gathered from most reports was that it wasn't used... But no doubt there are media outlets that will claim he turned up in a Dreadnaught and fired a las cannon at will.

That's because he was using a plasma gun.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 01:20 AM ----------

Here's an article that says EXACTLY what I been saying. Only better:

The guy who killed all those people at Sandy Hook Elementary used a Bushmaster AR-15 .223-caliber assault rifle with 30-round magazines.

The guy who killed all those people in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater last summer used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle

And you stop right there, because he's calling an AR-15 an assault rifle. He doesn't know what he's talking about, so you can ignore anything else he says.

[xylophone]

Sandy Hook? Have they flip flopped again? I've heard the Bushmaster was used, then I heard it was left in the car, then I heard it was used, he had two pistols, he had four pistols, he tried to buy his own Bushmaster but couldn't. Seriously, its not that hard to tell shells apart and there should be at least twenty-seven in that school.

He used the AR, carried a Glock and a Sig and later the cops found what looks like a Saiga 12g in his trunk.

[Grizzly Willy]

That's because he was using a plasma gun.

People underestimate the plasma pistol. A full charge on that and a single bullet will take care of just about anything.

[PizzaSHARK]

People underestimate the plasma pistol. A full charge on that and a single bullet will take care of just about anything.

Implying that Orks even need such things.

[ugotownd]

This is about the NEED to have this type of weapons. Sure you NEED a concealed hand gun. In fact you are protected to have one. But you do you REALLY need an AR-15. lets recount

A: You cannot take it outside. Not like you can hide it under your coat.

B: If you take it outside to hunt. Because with each trigger it releases more bullets then say a hand gun for max impact its clearly not designed for hunting.

C: You can carry weapons. But no one has provided a legit reason why you need this weapon other then ..the freedom to choose.

I linked this a few pages back. But words simply do not do justice. Lets review this video again so you can see EXACTLY what an AR-15 does and you tell me after watching this video if this is the sorta weapon you would have in the back.



Also Dems want to Ban magazine as I updated the home page to reflect this. Magazines that can contain more then 10 bullets in them. That to be more then fair. If you need to defend yourself then you only need a few bullets do this.

ROFL first thing in thee video weapon not allowed to the public. That's a manufacturer's video no less but since you know nothing about guns you wouldn't know that. You are really starting to look more and more ignorant on the subject with every post you make.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 08:19 AM ----------

But..before I head to bed. I wanted to point out something simple. In this response much like the other gun fanatics you completely and utterly ignored my rational questions. I asked if you forgot. I can repeat it.

Why does ANYONE need an assault rifle?

I'm pretty sure I posted this in fine detail several times. Even BEFORE the video. So the video did catch your attention. YET you found yourself open enough to object that is the wrong type of weapon. Even using cussing. I never understood cussing to be quite frank. I can have a civil and calm discussion without blowing my top off.

You reminded me of this poster who I was jokingly said he was on roids because he yelled at me in all caps. Again he ignored all questions why he needs this death machine and rather focused on my words. Well excuse me for not being the gun expert cleaning my guns and putting it back in one piece. I am however a member of society and as a member of society I have certain rights to my safety.

Again most of your post comments about my understanding of the weapon. As if that discounts this weapon the 223 Bush Master AR-15 was used to ambush the fire fighters killing TWO of them. Used in New Town murders killing 20 kids and 7 adults. The movies wounding several people. What do they all have in common.

The AR-15.

I have been repeating this several times. Forget that the Oxford dictionary defines the AR-15 as an assault rifle or get over the you tube video. Why do you need it. I think the answer is quite clear you don't. Whats interesting is the hostile attacks against posters who have a different view point. Maybe the fear of thinking we're out to steal your guns away or something.

My point still stands and as we speak.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2376838.html

I doubt seriously people go hunting with this type of weapon unless they're looking to hit innocent bystanders. Slandering me does not discredit the entire discussion. I am simply the mes sager explaining what the dems are doing.

Oh yeah as for not for sale to the general public. It actually is. Its stated even so in the video. You just have to go through a ton of paper work. However I am in the Texas area. If I wanted to I could pick up a weapon like this for a quick background check. OR I could go to a gun show and buy it from someone with virtually no record of the sale or anything.

And its LEGAL.

Please do us all a favor and try to go buy it. See how fast you get told no. Your posts are actually to the point of comical. It's to bad the empty minded people believe what you say.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 10:06 AM ----------

I found this video quite interesting. Especially the part of how Lanza's dad and the Aurora theater shooter are both testifying for the gov on the same thing. Makes you wonder. Sigh helps if i add the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvolqupMtIw

[FusedMass]

ROFL first thing in thee video weapon not allowed to the public. That's a manufacturer's video no less but since you know nothing about guns you wouldn't know that. You are really starting to look more and more ignorant on the subject with every post you make.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 08:19 AM ----------



Please do us all a favor and try to go buy it. See how fast you get told no. Your posts are actually to the point of comical. It's to bad the empty minded people believe what you say.[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 10:06 AM ----------

Actually in Texas the only thing you have to be is age 21 and pass a background check. It's that easy. Anyone telling you otherwise is not telling you the full truth. Why when trying..and I use word trying lightly to make a point. Some(Not all) Pro Gun people will try to mock and act condensing. Its really not that difficult at all.

Every State is unique and different. Some are harder to get a weapon then most. But in this state I could go buy a shotgun its as easy as walking into a store and passing a ten minute back ground check and fitting that weapon into my car. While I am deeply flattered by you saying my posts are comical however they bend in truth not in fiction.

So I really sincerely do not know what is comical about them. I'm not talking about an AR-15 from the video. Then again this is another distraction from me seeing the entire picture. As Mitt Romney once said during the 3rd debates..attacking me is not an agenda.

[PhaelixWW]

Additionally, nothing keeps the FAWB from being updated and improved to include what you think would be better as well.

But I don't want the bad with the good. Just like I wouldn't vote for a bill that gave money to schools if it had an addendum that let corporations dump toxic waste in city sewers. I'd want to wait for a bill that had only good, or at least one that had a small enough level of bad that I could stomach. The FAWB isn't that, even if they add the items that I'd want.

If gun owners do feel that that would be better then by all means get a republican to stand up and do so. Has any congressman countered Feinstein's proposal yet with something that may actually be more effective?

Yes, well, I'm as ticked off with Republican politicians with pro-gun blinders as I am with Democratic politicians with anti-gun blinders. Like I said before, I'm a Democrat. I voted for Obama. I just don't agree with a FAWB.

However, by and large, it is legal gun owners either committing these mass shootings.

Honestly, the legality of how these weapons were obtained is largely irrelevant. Nobody is really trying to argue that mass killings are commonly the work of hardened criminals. Mass killings are are the work of the insane. You never see it coming. And if the people around the gunman don't see it coming, then a background check can't, either. We've covered this territory.

If I was a legal gun owner and others were misusing legally acquired firearms to commit mass shootings? I would sure as hell want something done about it.

And I'm sure they do. You know, the normal thing you'd want to see when someone does something horrible: accountability for the perpetrator. Only in most of these cases, the perpetrator commits suicide, leaving nobody to blame. So people tend to blame the tool instead, and talk about blanket bans.

Emotion-driven politics is part of how this country came to exist in the first place.

Funny, I don't remember the part of the Constitution that says "Death to the Brits!"

Emotion definitely had its place in how this country came to be, but the writing of the Constitution came later. In fact, for such a time, right after a massive revolution, the Constitution is a remarkably sober, forward-thinking piece of reason and logic. The framers of the Constitution didn't let themselves be driven by fear.

So you were not counting semiautomatic handguns at all? Interesting, because the chart referenced weapons used, not casualties caused by. By that I mean, we know weapon types used in mass shootings from MJ. Do we know the casualties caused by each weapon type? While revolvers and shotguns may show up in mass shootings. From what I recall, the semiautomatics, whether pistol or rifle, do a lot more shooting in them.

The proposed ban, against which I'm arguing, happens to be an assault weapons ban, not a semi-automatic weapons ban. The statement I made was relevant to that argument.

Which does nothing to change the fact that it was still okay for her to keep a semiautomatic rifle accessible to a mentally disturbed twenty year old that she was apparently trying to get committed. So still a gun control issue.

As I said, we have no idea how accessible the firearms really were. Being committed doesn't necessarily mean you're a psycho killer. Just because she tried to have her son committed doesn't mean she expected him to be a significant danger to himself or others. Or maybe she really was just a horribly negligent person and we should blame her for the deaths. If you think that she utterly failed to protect the gun, then the weak link in this blame-chain should be her, not the weapon itself.

Again reinforcing the need to restrict access to the kinds of firearms that make it easier for mass shooters to kill more people.

Your repeated arguments imply that you don't think anything short of an outright ban will be at all effective. Seems awfully defeatist to me.

First of all its not "limiting rights" since, as shown before. The 2nd Amendment does not need to be changed or ignored, simply better understood.

Understand the difference between "limiting" and "eliminating". If the argument was for banning all firearms, then the word would be "eliminating". What you're talking about, a selective ban, is "limiting". Whether it's a legal limitation or not is up to the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but it's still a limitation.

There is little ignoring going on when it comes to other gun crimes.

The only thing worse than ignoring is a smoke-screen, making you think that something is going to help control gun crime when it won't. For the only significant federal gun control legislation to come about to be an ineffective AWB is just... insulting. It punishes too many of the wrong people and doesn't significantly hamper the ones it should; all while making the average Joe think that the right thing is being done.

When these people are deciding on shooting weapons they decide on the AR-15. It fires the shortest amount of bullets in the least amount of time.

Wrong. It is capable of firing the same amount of bullets in the same amount of time as any other semi-automatic weapon.

Most mass killings are used by this weapon.

Wrong. See previous statement:

If you keep ignoring the facts, then I will keep reporting them.

Assault weapons are not the most favored guns used in mass killings. Assault weapons are used in less than 25% of mass killings and less than 5% of firearm homicides. Alternately, handguns are used in more than 60% of mass killings and more than 70% of firearm homicides.

You keep saying the majority of Gun Violence. I'm talking about mass murders. Not shooting a person or two. But killing five or more people. The one in the movies the shooter used an assault rifle. The same weapon was used in NewTown. It might not be a majority but compared to the one or two deaths hand guns result in compared to the number of deaths assault rifles.

I'm pretty sure they are almost even.

Wrong. Not even close. See table further down this post.

This is about assault rifles. Weapons designed even if semi or automatic to shoot the most amount of bullets.

Wrong again. Civilian AR-15s, which are all that are being used, are only semi-automatic, and thus have the same rate of fire as any other semi-automatic weapon. Learn faster, please.

How is one officer for every school going to go? Doesn't this prove it wont stop a shooting.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. And it's an argument you can never, ever win, as there are countless more stories of police officers stopping shootings than there are of police officers allowing a shooting to happen.

One story is hardly "proof".

As for assult Rifle the President has called them assault rifles. The shops call them assault rifle. If you Google their defined meaning that's what they are. But this discussion is not what I know.

No, if this discussion were simply about what you know, then it would have been over on page 1.

Its about if these weapons should be in the hands of the public.

And see, that's the problem. If you can't even understand the characteristics of the firearms under question, then you can't hope to have a meaningful opinion on any discussion about their regulation.

And please don't bring up the "protecting your home" crap. I'm doing perfectly ok protecting my home with no firearms whatsoever.

And you're perfectly okay making that choice for everybody else in the country, too, aren't you? Even for some people who may not be as physically capable of fighting off an attacker as you think you are. Would a 5' tall 100lb girl in the wrong part of town get the same consideration?

"but they said when they wrote it we can carry guns" oh please just shut up.

Unless you're single-handedly capable of defending every person in the country, don't tell other people to shut up.

Lets look at this. People like to claim that an AR-15 is NOT used in a MAJORITY of the High Profile Murder. Lets count them so far Columbine used an AR-15. In the movies they used an AR-15. In NewTown actually the ONLY weapon he used was the AR-15.

No, let's look at this, mass killings from Columbine 'til now:

DATE	LOCATION	KILLED	WOUNDED	WEAPONS USED
12/14/2012	Newtown, CT	28	2	1 AR-15, 2 handguns, 1 shotgun
09/27/2012	Minneapolis, MN	7	2	1 handgun
08/05/2012	Oak Creek, WI	7	4	1 handgun
07/20/2012	Aurora, CO	12	58	1 AR-15, 2 handguns, 1 shotgun
04/02/2012	Oakland, CA	7	3	1 handgun
12/25/2011	Grapevine, TX	7	0	2 handguns
10/12/2011	Seal Beach, CA	8	1	3 handguns
09/06/2011	Carson City, NV	5	7	1 AK-47
08/07/2011	Copley Township, OH	8	1	2 handguns
07/07/2011	Grand Rapids, MI	8	2	1 handgun
01/08/2011	Tucson, AZ	6	13	1 handgun
08/03/2010	Manchester, CT	9	2	1 handgun
01/19/2010	Appomatox, VA	8	0	1 high-powered rifle
09/18/2009	Naples, FL	6	0	1 knife
07/18/2009	Fayetteville, TN, et al.	6	0	1 knife
01/27/2009	Los Angeles, CA	7	0	1 handgun
04/03/2009	Binghampton, NY	14	4	2 handguns
03/29/2009	Carthage, NC	8	2	2 handguns, 1 shotgun
03/10/2009	Kinston, AL, et al.	11	6	1 AR-15, 1 SKS, 1 handgun, 1 shotgun
12/24/2008	Covina, CA	10	3	4 handguns
09/02/2008	Alger, WA	6	4	1 lever-action rifle
06/23/2008	Sterling, IL, et al.	8	0	1 blunt weapon
03/02/2008	Memphis, TN	6	3	1 handgun, 1 knife
02/14/2008	DeKalb, IL	6	21	3 handguns, 1 shotgun
02/07/2008	Kirkwood, MO	7	1	2 handguns
12/05/2007	Omaha, NE	9	6	1 AK-47
10/07/2007	Crandon, WI	7	1	1 AR-15
08/24/2007	Marble Falls, TX, et al.	6	0	1 handgun
04/16/2007	Blacksburg, VA	32	17	2 handguns
02/12/2007	Salt Lake City, UT	6	5	1 handgun, 1 shotgun
12/16/2006	Kansas City, KS	7	0	1 handgun
10/02/2006	Nickel Mines, PA	6	5	1 bolt-action rifle, 1 handgun, 1 shotgun
06/02/2006	Indianapolis, IN	7	0	1 assault weapon
04/08/2006	Leola, PA	6	0	1 blunt weapon
03/25/2006	Seattle, WA	7	2	1 handgun, 1 shotgun
01/30/2006	Goleta, CA	8	0	1 handgun
03/21/2005	Red Lake, MN	10	7	2 handguns, 1 shotgun
03/12/2005	Brookfield, WI	8	4	1 handgun
03/11/2005	Atlanta, GA	4	1	1 handgun
11/21/2004	Birchwood, WI	6	2	1 semi-automatic rifle
03/12/2004	Fresno, CA	9	0	1 handgun
08/27/2003	Chicago, IL	6	0	1 handgun
07/08/2003	Meridian, MS	7	8	1 semi-automatic rifle, 1 shotgun
08/01/2002	Washington, D.C., et al.	10	3	1 AR-15, 1 handgun
08/26/2002	Rutledge, AL	6	0	1 shotgun
02/04/2002	Winslow Township NJ, et al.	6	1	1 handgun
08/30/2001	Sioux City, IA	7	0	1 hammer, 1 knife
08/20/2001	Sacramento, CA	7	0	1 knife
12/26/2000	Wakefield, MA	7	0	1 AK-47, 1 handgun, 1 shotgun
09/04/2000	Ava, OH	6	0	1 handgun
03/25/2000	Martinsville, IN	7	1	1 vehicle
11/02/1999	Honolulu, HI	7	0	1 handgun
09/15/1999	Fort Worth, TX	7	7	2 handguns
07/27/1999	Atlanta, GA	13	13	4 handguns, 1 hammer
07/12/1999	Atlanta, GA	7	1	1 handgun
04/20/1999	Columbine, CO	15	24	1 semi-automatic rifle, 1 handgun, 2 shotguns

Aside from the fact that, obviously, an AR-15 wasn't used in Columbine, let's notice that very few of these mass killings feature an assault weapon of any kind. In fact, the highest body count belongs to a gunman who used only two handguns.

The two fire fighters ambushed were responding to a call and its confirmed someone bought an AR-15 for this man. That's pretty new and important information since people argue most mass murders do not contain this weapon.

While the death of two firefighters is tragic, it doesn't constitute a "mass" killing. If you want to start talking about all 2-death shootings, the chart above would look... ungainly. And it wouldn't change a thing. There are, on average, around 20 non-assault weapon shooting homicides every day in the US. If the media blasted us with every shooting death, we'd never stop watching the news.

Can we at least admit there is a problem with placing high powered military assault rifles in hands of the general public. If you say no. Look at all the recent killings. We do not want to take away the right to carry a concealed hand gun. Just the Military type of weapons. I know Military Assault weapon term is not going to agree with everyone.

Yes, because you keep using it incorrectly. Sigh.

But the President used it. I look it up online and that's what it means. It's a distraction from the real situation.

This whole AWB debate is a distraction from the real issues of gun violence.

Its odd Canada has about one third of the weapons that America does and they have about a murder every year.

I'm sorry, what? You can't seriously be trying to say that...?

That is ONE murder a year.

Holy crap, yes you did...

And that's maybe even a murder. Some years they have none.

What... I don't even...

<long, frustrated pause>

Okay. Here's the thing. I know it's a shocker, but... brace yourself.

Canada has more than one murder a year.

Let's investigate this. First, Canada has about one third of the number of guns per capita. Not one third total. Second, there are actually around 600 homicides a year, around a third of which are using firearms. Third, most of those are handgun homicides, just like in the U.S.

Because with each trigger it releases more bullets then say a hand gun for max impact its clearly not designed for hunting.

<drags hands across face>
Semi-automatic means that each time the trigger is pulled, a single round is fired, just like a handgun. And something having more impact than a handgun means that it's not designed for hunting? This just gets better and better.

Lets review this video again so you can see EXACTLY what an AR-15 does and you tell me after watching this video if this is the sorta weapon you would have in the back.

Do you ever get tired of not being able to tell the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic? Because... I'll be honest: I'm kinda getting tired of repeating the distinction. Fully automatic firearms are almost completely unavailable to civilians and are not the ones being used in recent killings.

Feedback from Pro Guns rights people who say ..you didn't even watch your own video is getting sad. Is not a solid counter argument.

Sure it is. It should be fairly telling that nobody else in the pro-AWB crowd is rushing to defend your posts. They don't want to touch it, because they know that you're just misunderstanding... like... everything about firearms.

This weapon is easily obtained by your state like say Texas and if they allow you to pick up an AR-15.

Wrong again. Fully automatic weapons, like the one in the video, are not easily obtainable anywhere in the U.S.

You actually answered NONE...not one of the questions I proposed you to answer.

NOT ONE.

The answers have been said before. You've just ignored them.

Why does ANYONE need an assault rifle?

As has been said before, it's not about "need". Nobody "needs" a handgun either. And yet you've said that handguns are okay. Even though you've repeatedly ignored the facts that handguns are far more likely to be used to murder, more commonly used in mass killings, and fire at the same rate as those weapons that the AWB seeks to ban.

People "want" these firearms for the same reason they want many other different kinds of firearms. For sport marksmanship mostly, with a little bit of hunting and home defense in the mix because... they can.

Again most of your post comments about my understanding of the weapon. As if that discounts this weapon the 223 Bush Master AR-15 was used to ambush the fire fighters killing TWO of them. Used in New Town murders killing 20 kids and 7 adults. The movies wounding several people. What do they all have in common.

What they have in common is the fact that you've cherry-picked your data to fit your predetermined hypothesis. If you added in all the rest of the data, you'd see a much different picture.

Whats interesting is the hostile attacks against posters who have a different view point.

When your posts lack a factual basis, then it's not just a different point of view. And as long as they continue to lack a factual basis, you should expect others to continue to counter them with facts.

I doubt seriously people go hunting with this type of weapon unless they're looking to hit innocent bystanders.

Bystanders? Hunting? Because groups of hunters like to set up diametrically opposed firing zones when hunting? Or go hunting in the middle of a crowd?

And hunters use semi-automatic rifles all the time.

Slandering me does not discredit the entire discussion. I am simply the mes sager explaining what the dems are doing.

Ugh, first of all, look up the difference between slander and libel. Second, if the "messenger" attempts to change the facts being explained, that's called propaganda.

FACT: Gun people are blah blah blah...

FACT: Broad, sweeping generalizations about a large group of people are rarely true. And resorting to them is the sure sign of a failing argument.

LESS GUNS = LESS PEOPLE KILLED BY GUNS. Simplest math in the entire fucking universe.

Sure, it's simple. It's even true. But why stop there? Less human interaction = less violent crime. So let's all lock ourselves up, one person to a room. Then we could eliminate all violent crime.

You see, there's a problem where simple math is concerned when it corresponds to humans. There's nothing simple about humans. As with broad, sweeping generalizations, the problem is that you tend to ignore the other factors involved.

Gun people annoy the shit out of me for how little regard they have for human life.

And people who try to imply that I have little regard for human life annoy the shit out of me. The idea that all gun-owners are blood-thirsty maniacs is just parochial. And the idea that anything but a tiny fraction of gun owners are violent is just ignorant of the facts.

God I hope this gets me banned...

You're not the only one.