Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[mrwingtipshoes]

You are seriously saying i need to study? Security forces for 12 years, m-16 marksman, ma-4 trained, m9 marksman, 60 gunner, and 50 gunner. Profficient with m249, m203. And MANY MANY more.

I know the difference between a rifle, and assault rifle, i'm still unsure what is even with your point?

Everythread i post in, you follow me with " do you even, give me examples".. All of which i do, and you still can't comprehend simple logic. So i'm going to assume you are an idiot.

infract me don't care

You are not helping your cause with a list of of unverifiable credentials and you are not helping the cause if gun advocates by making ignorant comments and aggressive insults. The you used the phrase assault rifle which is a select fire rifle an assault WEAPON is something very different it is a semi automatic look a like for an assault rifle.

Please educate yourself and stop making arrogant and ignorant statements that make us look bad.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 01:59 AM ----------

Yes, we ban full automatic weapons, by which you can actually still get a permit, and allowed to own one. So you're FIRST mistake.

Assault rifle is anything that is semi and or full automatic. Not really the modifications. Your mistake again.

Actually i was, Stationed in Moody AFB 824 SFS divsion, which used to be an air combat command base, then went to a Rescue base, from there i was deployed to S Korea for a year, then came back to Scott AFB, for 5 more years, from which i declined to re-enlist.

We do not ban fully autos
The entire action and receiver of the fully and semi autos are different.
I've been stationed somewhere in the Appalachia forests, what's your point?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Yes, we ban full automatic weapons, by which you can actually still get a permit, and allowed to own one. So you're FIRST mistake.

The manufacture of assault rifles for civilian purposes has been banned.

Assault rifle is anything that is semi and or full automatic. Not really the modifications. Your mistake again.

What!? What!?

Assault rifles are selective fire. Semi auto and full. Not "and or."

It's scary how wrong you are here, considering you served.

[Grizzly Willy]

You are seriously saying i need to study? Security forces for 12 years, m-16 marksman, ma-4 trained, m9 marksman, 60 gunner, and 50 gunner. Profficient with m249, m203. And MANY MANY more.

I know the difference between a rifle, and assault rifle, i'm still unsure what is even with your point?

Everythread i post in, you follow me with " do you even, give me examples".. All of which i do, and you still can't comprehend simple logic. So i'm going to assume you are an idiot.

infract me don't care

You can have as much experience as you want, when you say something wrong it is going to be wrong.

[Åmbulance]

The manufacture of assault rifles for civilian purposes has been banned.



What!? What!?

Assault rifles are selective fire. Semi auto and full. Not "and or."

It's scary how wrong you are here, considering you served.

Maybe it's how i'm saying it, is what's getting this all lost in translation. You can buy an assault rifle with single show, or semi. Without the capabilties of full. Then there are rifles with sinle,semi,full.

that's what i'm trying to say. But i'm sure you knew that, you just wanted to play this little tit for tat game with me like you do in every thread i post in.

[Porcell]

Assault Rifle: Select-fire rifle (capable of automatic fire)
Assault Weapon: Manufactured term from the 90s Assault Weapon Ban, as defined by the legislation as a semi-automatic rifle with "scary" modifications

Why doesn't an assault weapons ban make sense? Because the scary modifications do nothing to alter the characteristics or the ballistics or the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle. Collapsible stocks don't make them "more concealable," it adjusts the stock by a few inches to better suit the frame of the shooter. Pistol grips allow for an ergonomic design for holding the rifle and is a function of the way a firearm is designed.

"Assault rifle is anything that is semi and or full automatic. Not really the modifications. Your mistake again." Sorry Åmbulance, but this is incorrect

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 02:07 AM ----------

Maybe it's how i'm saying it, is what's getting this all lost in translation. You can buy an assault rifle with single show, or semi. Without the capabilties of full. Then there are rifles with sinle,semi,full.

that's what i'm trying to say. But i'm sure you knew that, you just wanted to play this little tit for tat game with me like you do in every thread i post in.

Do you mean semi, burst, and full? You aren't very clear in your posts. And when we are discussing terminology, clarity is appreciated.

[mrwingtipshoes]

It's scary how wrong you are here, considering you served.

Judging by his attitude I doubt it's true.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Judging by his attitude I doubt it's true.

I really hope that it is true, because I find it particularly sad when individuals impersonate soldiers just to advance an argument.

[mrwingtipshoes]

I really hope that it is true, because I find it particularly sad when individuals impersonate soldiers just to advance an argument.

As do I. Doesn't matter what side of an argument you're on that's reprehensible.

[Todgruppe]

Every ban "penalizes" the majority to deal with the minority. I don't see how that's a very persuasive point.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 01:11 AM ----------



Do you hold this true in all cases?

What is banned based on what could a statistical/rounding error? Or deemed outliers?

[Wells]

What is banned based on what could a statistical/rounding error? Or deemed outliers?

Home ownership of nuclear materials.

[Todgruppe]

Home ownership of nuclear materials.

Remembered why I normally ignore your posts now.

[Wells]

Remembered why I normally ignore your posts now.

Why? Even fewer americans are killed these days by uranium. Why can't I own it?

Or automatic weapons for that matter. I assume you support a right to automatic weapons?

[obdigore]

Why? Even fewer americans are killed these days by uranium. Why can't I own it?

Or automatic weapons for that matter. I assume you support a right to automatic weapons?

I want my own fully operational M1A2 with munitions. Very few civilians (in the US) are killed by those, so clearly they should be legal too.

[Deadvolcanoes]

What is banned based on what could a statistical/rounding error? Or deemed outliers?

Drugs, exotic deadly pets, magnet toys, and Jarts.

For example, Jarts only killed 3 people and over a period of 28 years, and they were banned.

Of course the counter argument is: none of those items are constitutionally protected rights. But that's what you asked.

[Todgruppe]

Why? Even fewer americans are killed these days by uranium. Why can't I own it?

Or automatic weapons for that matter. I assume you support a right to automatic weapons?

Appeals to ridicule.... fun stuff.

And automatic weapons are legal... ish, so yeah.\

Drugs, exotic deadly pets, magnet toys, and Jarts.

LIES, I played Jarts the other day, albeit they where plastic.

[Wells]

Appeals to ridicule.... fun stuff.

They're not appeals to ridicule. They're examples you don't like.

[Todgruppe]

They're not appeals to ridicule. They're examples you don't like.

They aren't, they are genuine?

[Grizzly Willy]

I want my own fully operational M1A2 with munitions. Very few civilians (in the US) are killed by those, so clearly they should be legal too.

This argument is rather poor, because assault weapons are widely owned but kill relatively little. Nuclear weapons aren't owned by as many, nor are fully automatic weapons. Same goes for tanks. If you could demonstrate that people would be safe with tanks, sure, why not.

They're not appeals to ridicule. They're examples you don't like.

Oh come now, even you must recognize the ridiculousness of comparing a semi-automatic weapon to a nuclear munition.

[Wells]

Oh come now, even you must recognize the ridiculousness of comparing a semi-automatic weapon to a nuclear munition.

Why? The argument is the same. "regardless of how many people have died up to this point this object creates too much risk".

This argument is rather poor, because assault weapons are widely owned but kill relatively little. Nuclear weapons aren't owned by as many, nor are fully automatic weapons. Same goes for tanks. If you could demonstrate that people would be safe with tanks, sure, why not.

He asked what we ban that isn't particularly dangerous.

[obdigore]

This argument is rather poor, because assault weapons are widely owned but kill relatively little. Nuclear weapons aren't owned by as many, nor are fully automatic weapons. Same goes for tanks. If you could demonstrate that people would be safe with tanks, sure, why not.

I was answering a question regarding stuff that is banned because of its potential to cause harm without any proof that it will be used for harm. As far as I'm aware no Main Battle Tank has ever been used by a civilian against other civilians, but it is still illegal to own one that can fire, as well as have live munitions for it.