Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[FusedMass]

And my question is "so what?"

If you want to talk about barring violent criminals from owning guns, that's fair. If you want to talk about barring ownership of certain guns just because they're scary? That's retarded.

At what point did I say barring Ownership of Certain Guns because they are Scary.

Hint: I did not

I'd really really appreciate it if you call me out on something then you MUST and you MUST provide an example where I said ban certain weapons because they are scary. It's not the scary part. Though ALL weapons have the chance to end life with the pull of the trigger. It's to ban weapons that can have over 100 bullets in ammo and fire a 100 bullets In less then a minute. (Depending how fast you pull back the trigger)

So do not act like your that native and stop throwing stuff in my mouth and saying it's me. It provided virtually nothing contrustive and much like Lemon who I already ignored for his bizzare personal insults there is nothing to debate.

Also to Rocko9.

The fact that it can be done at all. That IS the problem. What's so hard to wrap you're head head that I'm saying it's possible to do that much like it's possible to modify a shot gun turning it illegal saw off shot gun. Just because you want me from my arm chair and if I cannot do it then it most void my entire arugment is very silly. I assure you there are people who are capable of doing this quite easily.

The REAL question is why you would need that weapon AT ALL. I mean aside from Hunting. (I do not now any animals that you need over 100 shots in less then a minute) so throwing pictures and asking my knowledge is an old as the first post in this thread. Even if you prove your point to me personally you still fail at the largest picture the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the Mass Murders.

Like the one that killed 20 kids. If that does not set you straight what will?

[Grizzly Willy]

Fused, why aren't we going after pistols, which kill more people?

[Rocko9]

The REAL question is why you would need that weapon AT ALL. I mean aside from Hunting. (I do not now any animals that you need over 100 shots in less then a minute) so throwing pictures and asking my knowledge is an old as the first post in this thread. Even if you prove your point to me personally you still fail at the largest picture the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the Mass Murders.

Like the one that killed 20 kids. If that does not set you straight what will?

Needs are irrelevant when it comes to rights

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. - George Washington

[FusedMass]

Fused, why aren't we going after pistols, which kill more people?

I'm glad you asked that question. You take a gun into a crowded mall. It is a 9 mm with ten bullets in it. You started firing widely into the crowd one shot after another. You have to take time to re-load. In those seconds people could get away. If you just came inside a crowded movie or a crowded class room.

You could only fire ten shots before you have to re-load. Compare that to AR-15 you can fire 100 shots before you have to re-load. Also it's because It's an Assault weapons which already had a ban placed on it that expired in 2004. Even former President such as die hardcore Republican Ronald Reagan has voiced his support for assault weapons to be banned.

Quotes from Ronald Reagan Since you want to quote the First President in US History a time period over two generations ago.

I sense a tremendous mood shift that says we’ve got to do something about it ... There are a couple of things emerging. No. 1 people don’t need military assault rifles to protect their home or go hunting. We’ve had bans on all kinds of military weapons. Bans on machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades.

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety

Written by Ronald Reagan

[Laize]

At what point did I say barring Ownership of Certain Guns because they are Scary.

Hint: I did not

I'd really really appreciate it if you call me out on something then you MUST and you MUST provide an example where I said ban certain weapons because they are scary. It's not the scary part. Though ALL weapons have the chance to end life with the pull of the trigger. It's to ban weapons that can have over 100 bullets in ammo and fire a 100 bullets In less then a minute. (Depending how fast you pull back the trigger)

So do not act like your that native and stop throwing stuff in my mouth and saying it's me. It provided virtually nothing contrustive and much like Lemon who I already ignored for his bizzare personal insults there is nothing to debate.

Also to Rocko9.

The fact that it can be done at all. That IS the problem. What's so hard to wrap you're head head that I'm saying it's possible to do that much like it's possible to modify a shot gun turning it illegal saw off shot gun. Just because you want me from my arm chair and if I cannot do it then it most void my entire arugment is very silly. I assure you there are people who are capable of doing this quite easily.

The REAL question is why you would need that weapon AT ALL. I mean aside from Hunting. (I do not now any animals that you need over 100 shots in less then a minute) so throwing pictures and asking my knowledge is an old as the first post in this thread. Even if you prove your point to me personally you still fail at the largest picture the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the Mass Murders.

Like the one that killed 20 kids. If that does not set you straight what will?

Provide a SINGLE compelling reason we should ban weapons that can hold a certain number of bullets?

Provided the person holding it isn't a violent offender or completely psychotic, what does it matter how many super scary bullets the gun holds?

[Rocko9]

Even former President such as die hardcore Republican Ronald Reagan has voiced his support for assault weapons to be banned.

The man was wrong.

[Svifnymr]

At what point did I say barring Ownership of Certain Guns because they are Scary.

Hint: I did not

If you're going to ban a category of firearms by arbitrary cosmetics, while it may be hyperbole, it is still accurate to say "because they are scary" or at least "look scary".

Also to Rocko9.

The fact that it can be done at all. That IS the problem. What's so hard to wrap you're head head that I'm saying it's possible to do that much like it's possible to modify a shot gun turning it illegal saw off shot gun.

No easier than any other semiautomatic of any sort. The AR15 doesn't hold some magical "easy to convert" logo. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, there's methods for all of them, most (including the AR15) requiring a mill and some knowledge.

By the same token, you could just build a gun from scratch with those same machines.

[Sicarus]

Also to Rocko9.

The fact that it can be done at all. That IS the problem. What's so hard to wrap you're head head that I'm saying it's possible to do that much like it's possible to modify a shot gun turning it illegal saw off shot gun. Just because you want me from my arm chair and if I cannot do it then it most void my entire arugment is very silly. I assure you there are people who are capable of doing this quite easily.

The REAL question is why you would need that weapon AT ALL. I mean aside from Hunting. (I do not now any animals that you need over 100 shots in less then a minute) so throwing pictures and asking my knowledge is an old as the first post in this thread. Even if you prove your point to me personally you still fail at the largest picture the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the Mass Murders.

Like the one that killed 20 kids. If that does not set you straight what will?

Yes, it can be done, but you avoided the question of, HOW do you do it?

If it can be done quite easily, and you make such a big deal of it, where are all the news stories about mass murders with modified rifles or shotguns?

Why I would need it? It's my right as a free citizen of the United States of America. Why do you need to constantly speak, or speak out against the freedoms of the U.S., you don't need to, but it's your right.

You're also assuming all owners of AR-15s buy extended magazines and fire them with 100% accuracy at "120 rounds per minute", your "evidence" is rather anecdotal, illogical, and probably made up.

He's asking your knowledge about it because you clearly don't know.

Also, you're lying, just flat-out lying about how AR-15s are the number one choice for mass-murders, pistols are.

And Adam Lanza didn't use a 223 BUSH MASTAR, he used a pistol, I don't remember what kind, but they found the rifle in his trunk, the one he illegally stole from his mother, after killing her.

[FusedMass]

If you're going to ban a category of firearms by arbitrary cosmetics, while it may be hyperbole, it is still accurate to say "because they are scary" or at least "look scary".




No easier than any other semiautomatic of any sort. The AR15 doesn't hold some magical "easy to convert" logo. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, there's methods for all of them, most (including the AR15) requiring a mill and some knowledge.

By the same token, you could just build a gun from scratch with those same machines.

No. It's not. I never not once said they look and the Keyword is Scary. I said their magazines could be changed to different amount of bullets. Then it can modified from a semi automatic to a fully automatic. How in the world can you take I said they look scary when telling you what they can actually do. News Flash unless someone actually say's something.

You can't throw a ton of words into their mouth.

I provided in detail what the weapon does and why it needs to be removed. If you cannot still the fine difference from that and they look scary then there is nothing personally I can do for you.

And back to the AR-15. The very idea that their capable of being turned from normal semi automatic's and converted to Fully Automatic which is as long as you hold down the trigger the weapons keeps firing bullets. Combined with their requiring to need a hundred bullets before you have to re-load. If you cannot tell the difference from the weapon damage from a pistol and an AR-15.

Perhaps this isn't the best place for you to debate that. Just saying.

[Elegiac]

And back to the AR-15. The very idea that their capable of being turned from normal semi automatic's and converted to Fully Automatic which is as long as you hold down the trigger the weapons keeps firing bullets. Combined with their requiring to need a hundred bullets before you have to re-load. If you cannot tell the difference from the weapon damage from a pistol and an AR-15.

You are aware sale and ownership of the components to convert to automatic are already heavily illegal, right?

Also, practically speaking it is just as easy to load three magazines of ten 9mm rounds for a handgun as carrying a thirty round magazine of 5.56 NATO.

[Svifnymr]

I'm glad you asked that question. You take a gun into a crowded mall. It is a 9 mm with ten bullets in it. You started firing widely into the crowd one shot after another. You have to take time to re-load. In those seconds people could get away. If you just came inside a crowded movie or a crowded class room.

Aside from the fact that pistols hold more than 10 rounds? Some have 30+ magazines. Smaller, more concealable.

You could only fire ten shots before you have to re-load. Compare that to AR-15 you can fire 100 shots before you have to re-load.

Of course, you'd see a guy with a rifle walking into the shopping mall, which means you'd have more reaction time.

Also it's because It's an Assault weapons which already had a ban placed on it that expired in 2004.

So the logic is "because it was banned before, it can be banned again!"?

Even former President such as die hardcore Republican Ronald Reagan has voiced his support for assault weapons to be banned.

Anyone can have their own opinion, certainly. It probably doesn't help your point of Reagan's mental status even at the end of his presidency.

[FusedMass]

Yes, it can be done, but you avoided the question of, HOW do you do it?

If it can be done quite easily, and you make such a big deal of it, where are all the news stories about mass murders with modified rifles or shotguns?

Why I would need it? It's my right as a free citizen of the United States of America. Why do you need to constantly speak, or speak out against the freedoms of the U.S., you don't need to, but it's your right.

You're also assuming all owners of AR-15s buy extended magazines and fire them with 100% accuracy at "120 rounds per minute", your "evidence" is rather anecdotal, illogical, and probably made up.

He's asking your knowledge about it because you clearly don't know.

Also, you're lying, just flat-out lying about how AR-15s are the number one choice for mass-murders, pistols are.

And Adam Lanza didn't use a 223 BUSH MASTAR, he used a pistol, I don't remember what kind, but they found the rifle in his trunk, the one he illegally stole from his mother, after killing her.

It's with the s weest Irony that I provide you links proving Adam Lanza used a 223 Bush Master. Since you "can't remember" which weapon he used. Allow someone a tad more enlighten on the subject to inform you. With this logic. I could simply dismiss your entire post as not knowing anything. Since you could't accurately tell the difference if he used an AR-15 or a Pistol.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...d_a_bushmaster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.

The Newtown shooting quickly reignited the national debate over gun control. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pledged on Sunday that she would introduce legislation to reauthorize a federal assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration, but allowed to lapse in 2004. Other politicians, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who leads a national coalition group pushing stricter gun-control measures, also used the shooting to call on President Obama to take immediate action tightening gun laws.

[Wells]

Fused, why aren't we going after pistols, which kill more people?

While I'm not making Fused's argument, pistols have common application for self defense.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 12:45 AM ----------

Needs are irrelevant when it comes to rights

Seeing as you don't have a right to unregulated access to firearms, need is relevant to what is regulated and how it is regulated.

[Elegiac]

While I'm not making Fused's argument, pistols have common application for self defense.

Which excuses the fact that the vast majority of gun related violence is committed with a caliber considered rather weak for self defense.

[Wells]

Well when you're regulating things you have to look at what you're getting for the danger. After all if we only looked at danger we'd ban cars in a heartbeat, but what we gain by having them outweighs it. You could say the same of pistols while claiming that assault rifles are another case and maintain intellectual honesty.

[Grizzly Willy]

While I'm not making Fused's argument, pistols have common application for self defense.

Is the application for self defense enough of a justification to counter the murders committed with them?

[Svifnymr]

No. It's not. I never not once said they look and the Keyword is Scary. I said their magazines could be changed to different amount of bullets. Then it can modified from a semi automatic to a fully automatic. How in the world can you take I said they look scary when telling you what they can actually do. News Flash unless someone actually say's something.

You neglected the part you quoted about how they are NOT any easier to convert to full auto than any other semiauto. Is it because it means you're over-dramatizing things? You also don't seem to understand that any semiautomatic with a detachable magazine can accept different magazines, there is no qualification that assigns the AR15 any benefit in that regard either.

It's purely a cosmetic ban. If you believe otherwise it's because you're closing your eyes to the actual mechanisms of firearms.

You can't throw a ton of words into their mouth.

I provided in detail what the weapon does and why it needs to be removed. If you cannot still the fine difference from that and they look scary then there is nothing personally I can do for you.

You have provided nothing but errors, repeating them to yourself so often you believe them to be true.

And back to the AR-15. The very idea that their capable of being turned from normal semi automatic's and converted to Fully Automatic which is as long as you hold down the trigger the weapons keeps firing bullets. Combined with their requiring to need a hundred bullets before you have to re-load. If you cannot tell the difference from the weapon damage from a pistol and an AR-15.

Perhaps this isn't the best place for you to debate that. Just saying.

Here's a news flash, there ARE AR15 pistols.
The standard magazine for an AR15 is 20 or 30. There are drums that hold 100.
The standard magazine for a glock 17 is 17, there are other magazines that hold 33 as well as a 100 round drum for them.

I've already pointed it out to you that neither is easier to convert than any other, but you of course ignore that. You also never respond when someone points out over and over again that NONE OF THE SHOOTINGS USED A CONVERTED GUN! So how does that mean anything?

[Sicarus]

It's with the s weest Irony that I provide you links proving Adam Lanza used a 223 Bush Master. Since you "can't remember" which weapon he used. Allow someone a tad more enlighten on the subject to inform you. With this logic. I could simply dismiss your entire post as not knowing anything. Since you could't accurately tell the difference if he used an AR-15 or a Pistol.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...d_a_bushmaster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.

Lanza, 20, carried "many high-capacity clips" for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene.

The Newtown shooting quickly reignited the national debate over gun control. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pledged on Sunday that she would introduce legislation to reauthorize a federal assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration, but allowed to lapse in 2004. Other politicians, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who leads a national coalition group pushing stricter gun-control measures, also used the shooting to call on President Obama to take immediate action tightening gun laws.

I said I couldn't remember the TYPE OF PISTOL that he used, it was either a Glock, or a Sig Sauer, or both.

He didn't even use the AR-15, IT WAS IN THE TRUNK OF HIS CAR.

I can easily tell that you didn't even read the entirety of my post, or you're just flat out lying to try and get an already destroyed point across.

Stop lying, and read all the words.

[FusedMass]

Aside from the fact that pistols hold more than 10 rounds? Some have 30+ magazines. Smaller, more concealable.


Of course, you'd see a guy with a rifle walking into the shopping mall, which means you'd have more reaction time.



So the logic is "because it was banned before, it can be banned again!"?




Anyone can have their own opinion, certainly. It probably doesn't help your point of Reagan's mental status even at the end of his presidency.

It's getting really difficult to respond to some posters when they provide logic saying. "Logic it was banned before it can be banned again" when the actual logic is. Their was a certain reason that it was banned for almost a decade. There is a very certain reason that it was kept out of the hands of the public. If you sincerely cannot understand what I meant that it was banned before then after the Ban.

The spike in shootings used in killings to kill. Then I really do not know what to tell you honestly.

Also I did not say shopping mall. I said like you know. Just as well as I do. The more bullets you can fire off in the shortest amount of time less chance of people getting away and general point why does someone need an AR-15 capable of shooting more then a hundred bullets in less then a minute. If you look at the situation logically there was a reason it stayed banned.

There is a reason for this thread and why the Dems are pushing against it. If everyone was fine and Gun Owners were legally and responsible with their weapons. There would be no debate. Case and Point you CAN Modify a Military Assault weapon into a Fully Automatic no amount of pestering me about my current knowledge of weapons will change that.

I also love how you slammed Reagan for AGREEING with people on the assault weapons man as regarding it as his mental status. (I suppose it only when he AGREE's with you that you use him)

To Poster above me

If you want me to. I can find the link where the sole weapon he used was the AR-15. He only used a handgun to kill himself at the end. That's not just me talking that's from witness and from the person who performed the medical report on the kids noting that many of them have been shot more then twice.

Now YOU stop lying. You said he did not use a 223 Bush Master. That is what you said. Now you're trying to say that wasn't the SOLE weapon. When in truth. It was. He killed all of them with one weapon and pistol for himself.

[Elegiac]

Well when you're regulating things you have to look at what you're getting for the danger. After all if we only looked at danger we'd ban cars in a heartbeat, but what we gain by having them outweighs it. You could say the same of pistols while claiming that assault rifles are another case and maintain intellectual honesty.

Again: O reason, not the need.

The Constitution's wording implies that the right to bear arms is basic, for one thing. For another, given that the vast majority of people who own assault weapons don't commit mass murder, the amount of people whose rights are being infringed by such a ban vastly outweighs the practical number of deaths reduced (if any will be).