Terrorism Thread: It's Not Just Muslims. That's What They Want You to Think.

[Deejay]

Day, what are you actually against here. Do you think AR-15's or similar weapons should be allowed on streets? Are you against us regulating them or forcing people to register/take annual tests to possess them?

[Eurell]

The point is that banning semi-autos isn't "addressing the root cause" whatever that is, when people can use handgun or yes even a knife if there is no defense/deterrence at the location.

I feel like I've conceded/proposed very sensible points I don't know why I'm being addressed like I'm some gun nut.

You're being addressed as though you attempted to make a terrible point by bringing up a knife attack that took 8 people to do only twice the damage.

If you're argument is that getting rid of guns will only reduces casualties by 75% per attacker, lets fucking do it.

[Day]

Day, what are you actually against here. Do you think AR-15's or similar weapons should be allowed on streets? Are you against us regulating them or forcing people to register/take annual tests to possess them?

I honestly don't have a problem with semi-auto rifles, but I can obviously understand why people do. I'm not an avid shooter/gun owner but I did grow up hunting using .223, .243 etc that were semi auto.

Handguns seem to be a bigger problem than rifles in the grand scheme of things, but still as cliche as it may be they don't fire themselves.

I am totally for better background checks, registration, and sharing of criminal information. Whatever would have prevented someone like Cruz from owning one or having them confiscated whatever.

[Roranora]

archi you used 'much' too many times I think, cause it didn't stick

[Day]

You're being addressed as though you attempted to make a terrible point by bringing up a knife attack that took 8 people to do only twice the damage.

If you're argument is that getting rid of guns will only reduces casualties by 75% per attacker, lets fucking do it.

What about the other example? 1 person 2 handguns. I feel like you are only reading what you want to read out of my posts. I'm not being extreme in any way.

[Roranora]

the other example illustrates the difference with access to firearms..

[Deejay]

I honestly don't have a problem with semi-auto rifles, but I can obviously understand why people do. I'm not an avid shooter/gun owner but I did grow up hunting using .223, .243 etc that were semi auto.

Handguns seem to be a bigger problem than rifles in the grand scheme of things, but still as cliche as it may be they don't fire themselves.

I am totally for better background checks, registration, and sharing of criminal information. Whatever would have prevented someone like Cruz from owning one or having them confiscated whatever.

Realistically, as long as people have a hard on for the 2nd amendment, our only real path to change is regulating the weapons rather than banning them altogether. As long as we are all for REGULATION then I think we should focus on that as a collective.

Arguing over whether or not they should exist just seems like a waste of time.

[Day]

the other example illustrates the difference with access to firearms..

Indeed, but alas it wasn't a semi auto rifle which seems to be the focus of "gun control"

[Salodin]

Day, the point is to reduce the rate of mass shooting, and when they happen to make then less deadly. No one is proposing an end to violence with a ban on guns.

If banning all manners of weapons and accessories reduces violence, that's a win. It doesn't need to solve all the problems, it needs to be a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Roranora]

Indeed, but alas it wasn't a semi auto rifle which seems to be the focus of "gun control"

c'mon, you know handguns are by far the most deadly but also apparently super cool. rifles look extra mean

it's more empty posturing all the way around; we're not yet serious about gun control legislation let alone meaningful gun control legislation

*continuously cynical since Sandy Hook*

[Dimmauk]

If we ban assault rifles and hand guns, then how will i protect myself from the government? Oh wait, they already have better fucking weapons.

Should we ban assault weapons and hand guns from the military cause it the fair thing to do?



THIS IS FUCKING STUPID!

[Surealistic]

If we ban assault rifles and hand guns, then how will i protect myself from the government? Oh wait, they already have better fucking weapons.

Should we ban assault weapons and hand guns from the military cause it the fair thing to do?



THIS IS FUCKING STUPID!

the other argument i laugh at is "WE ALL MUST SUPPORT THE MILITARY AND THE TROOPS... until i decide to shoot them because i dont like the government anymore"

derp derp derpity derp derp

[archibaldcrane]

I mean in 2014, 5 dudes with knives killed 30 some people and injured 100 in a china train station. VA tech was a coupe handguns. If we really want to find the "the problem" I'm not really sure it lies with the weapon choice.

I don't think there's any one simple solution but various options to help deter and defend have been discussed over and over and over.

I'm all for better background checks, better enforcement when multiple calls are called on a gun owner, would be fine with banning bump stocks, large capacity magazines but I honestly don't know how much any of that will help.

Our violent crime rate is identical to the Western wealthy English speaking analogue nations of New Zealand and England.

Our murder rate is 4 times as high.

Access to guns is the problem. Our population's desire for violence is not abnormal.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

Indeed, but alas it wasn't a semi auto rifle which seems to be the focus of "gun control"

People focus on assault rifles because they can be banned without amending the constitution.

Handguns can't.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

The root cause isn't weapons, it's the fact that it's all males.

#girlscankilltoo

#imwithelizabethbathory

[Andalusian girls]

the sole purpose for inventing guns and for guns existing is to end the life of another being

yeah but another being can be a delicious rabbit not a high school kid u know

[Zetanio]

yeah but another being can be a delicious rabbit not a high school kid u know

nah he doesn't.

[Thunder]

lot of "civilian guns can't contend with US military" being said and that's not particularly well thought out and not getting any pushback here. None of that expensive tech (aircraft carriers, aircraft, tanks, etc) is what will be able to search your home for contraband, keep people from organizing, throwing people in jail/internment camps, or taking guns away. Boots on the ground do that and if my google-fu is correct there are essentially 3million between active military, reserve military, and police, while there are a hell of a lot more gun owners

so, the argument that little ol bubba and cletus can hold off subjugation when there are several million of them vs just [at max] 3m police (some will awol to side with bubba, others will awol because fk literally going into hostile territory [detroit, lul]) is pretty good, I'd say

oh and the 2nd amendment stuff where "if the forefathers had more foresight" is pretty weak, imo, as well. People could own private cannons and there were already some funky guns being invented in the early 1700s. Puckle gun, Kalhoff repeater (fastest firing? perhaps, idk). They should definitely have had the foresight

I think the best arguments for gun control still are going to be focusing on violence, ratios comparing US populations to other populations, ease of access, stuff like that

[Cail]

Do you still run faster with a knife nowadays?

http://i.imgur.com/12tB25C.gif

[Brill Weave]

I rarely wade into the discussion on firearms but I will do so today. I'm a lifelong liberal that is a card carrying member of the NRA. I also believe in the 2nd Amendment when applied intelligently. Which it currently is not.

Semi automatic weapons are available. And will always be available. Weapons such as the AR-15 have been available to the public since the mid 60's(I think.) You can ban the sale of all future weapons but it doesn't address the thousands upon thousands already out in the civilian market. The AR-15 and other variants are based upon a rifle that was made specifically to kill another human being. 99% of active service members have been trained in it's usage.

I've got several buddies who run the gamut of liberal, conservative, independent etc that all served. To a man, all agree that this type of weapon serves zero purpose in civilian life.

I like to consider myself as being a reasonably intelligent person. I understand the need and desire for private firearm ownership. I grew up around guns and learned gun safety when I was very young. I've always supported the NRA(perhaps foolishly so.) Many NRA members like me are open to banning the sale of semi auto rifles.

The problem is that we are drowned out by the zealots who think Red Dawn is about two days away from occurring.

It's not. When I see the ridiculous commentary that civilian gun ownership works as a deterrent to tyranny I laugh my ass off. Compared to the full on military version the AR-15 amounts to little better than a plinker. If there were ever a point in time where the civilian populace started an armed uprising against the US government it would be over before it started.

Why is that?

Because civilians don't own AH-64's or M-1 Abrams. If you want to keep your rifle because it's fun to shoot, just own up to it and admit it. I don't believe anything will change. If nothing changed after Sandy Hook, when kids under the age of 10 were butchered, nothing will change based on this. I hope I'm wrong. Truly.

The first step is banning the sale of semi auto military replica rifles. The first major issue is that there isn't one set of laws across the country. The government has allowed state governments to set their own standards. Using Pennsylvania as the example. Any purchase or transfer of a sidearm requires the sale to be reported to the Commonwealth. By that standard you would think that applies to all firearms right? Wrong. Pennsylvania does not require any documentation or approval for the transfer of a shotgun or rifle. An AR-15 classifies in my state as a rifle.

In other words Pennsylvania has NO idea who has what, outside of sidearms. Kind of frightening isn't it?

I'm not talking confiscation, I'm talking immediately banning the sales of these weapons. They serve no purpose. Once a ban on sales takes place, the REALLY hard part comes up. Which is confiscation. Which will never happen on US soil. Not in a million years.

Sorry for the wall o' text.