New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

i will make the assumption that the OP is for breed specific legislation and is pro life as well.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

What is an assault rifle and what makes them so scary to you? And you cant just walk into a shop buy an automatic weapon and leave ($4000 is about the cheapest plus a 6-12 month wait an ak 47 or m16 is $20k ish) they aren't being used in crimes...i think there's only been 2 murders siNce the 1930s with registered legal machine guns(250000ish legally registered and owned)

The problem is the crazy focking evil people. There is no way to stop them they will always find a tool to carry out their goals. Look at 9/11 who thought crazy evily bastards turned a plane into a weapon/bomb.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Bimmer App

I am not going to waste hours arguing here but an "assault rifle" is not any more dangerous than any other gun 99% of the time.

An AR15 is a much smaller bullet than any hunting rifle. The fact that it is not bolt action makes it quicker to shoot, but there are tons of hunting rifles that are semi auto and not an "assault rifle." A reload takes 5 seconds. In addition, one could easily just carry 5 hand guns and empty each of them.

The fact is, if you are winning to die to kill others, the weapon choice is not going to matter. How hard would it be to floor your car into a crowd a people? Pipe bomb in a mall? Walk into a small store full of people and chain the door shut and start a fire with gas and lighter? etc.

300,000,000 guns and 300,000,000 people in the US. As terrible as these shootings are, have you heard of 300 deaths in the last five years? That would be .0001%

150 people per year die from peanuts.

Guns are not the problem, people are.

According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.


Hundreds of other mass murderers have perpetrated their crimes without firearms. Frenchman Pierre Riviere killed his mother, sister, and brother with a bill hook in 1835. In 1932, Julian Marcelino, a Filipino immigrant of relatively small stature, managed to kill six and wound 15 on a Seattle street using only a pair of blades.

As a Libertarian I believe people should do whatever the fuck they want

Someone saying "assault weapons are the problem!!!"

I immediately know they are idiots and have no clue.

You are a product of the media and politicians fear mongering

Hands and feet kill more people every year than long guns, "assault weapons", etc

Lol.

Originally Posted by Constantine

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

As a Connecticut resident,'in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms' I have not seen an assault weapon used. I do know that having seen these tragedies that bad things can happen to good people. Being good people myself,I want every variable to be slanted in my favor for the sake of my own survival and well being. I also want the ability to protect and defend myself from people who are not capable or willing to act responsibly. That means carry firearms and use good judgement with respect to where I am and what is going on around me. Especially since criminals commit crimes more often than noncriminals,I feel there is no need for a knee jerk reaction to gun control.

sent from my ATARI sc1224

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Also, an AR-15 round is a glorified .22 caliber round.

Glorified in a sense that the velocity is extremely high because the casing is packed with a sh!t ton of gun powder. .223 is brutal.

for now...

Will launch into defense if needed

Originally Posted by Constantine

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

You're confused in terminology.

Assault rifles, by definition, are capable of either fully automatic or burst fire (i.e. you pull the trigger and three bullets come out). What was used in CT was, by the definition of anyone familiar with guns, not an assault rifle. Perhaps what you mean is the term "assault weapon," which is a made-up term by a bunch of people with no knowledge of firearms and was used in a piece of legislation in the 90s that literally made as much sense as white-only drinking fountains.

What you seem to be arguing against are all semi-automatic rifles. From a functional standpoint, the AR-15 used in CT is no different than the average wood-grain hunting rifle that some fat redneck is currently holding in the woods as he waits for a deer or other animal to come along.

So is your argument against all semi-automatic (i.e. one pull of the trigger = one bullet comes out) rifles or only against the ones that are black and military-looking?

I have a hard time believing this gun



is more dangerous than this gun



simply because it's black, when they are functionally and ballistically similar.

Let's also consider that the shooter wore all black gear, though he did not attack at night. Did the black garb he wore enhance his attack at all? Perhaps aesthetically (people wearing all black tactical gear are visually scarier than people wearing linen suits, for example), but I would argue that he would've been equally as effective (I hate using such a callous term, but that's what it is) if he had been wearing a linen suit. Does this mean we should ban black clothing because it's the preferred garb of violent deranged people?

Now, I'll readily admit that I'm a gun owner who will carry a concealed weapon if it ever becomes legal in my state, and I will also readily admit that I have certain reservations about guns and CCW permits. And I would be happy to discuss those reservations with anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of firearms.

What I will not engage in, is a discussion that is equally ignorant to assuming all black youths in baggy jeans and hoodies are dangerous because of the way they look.

Also, without diminishing the atrocity of what happened in CT, let's remember that 27 people are killed every day by drinking and driving. If you're arguing for total prohibition of "assault rifles" but not alcohol, forgive me for thinking you're actively ignoring MUCH larger societal issues.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

Glorified in a sense that the velocity is extremely high because the casing is packed with a sh!t ton of gun powder. .223 is brutal.

Yeah but weak compared to 7.62 x 39 which is just as common in assault weapons. Unlike the. 223/5.56 that will just go through you or piss you off, you have a high velocity .30 cal that will obliterate your insides because it tumbles on impact. Id rather get shot by the .22 on steroids.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

This is ****in stupid. If "citizens" can go buy and own an assault rifle.. Who says they won't be the next gunmen? Now they have an assault rifle and at any time can walk into a building and begin shooting.

You're a moron, I'm actually sad that you are supposed to represent the best and brightest our military has to offer. smh

Originally Posted by v8 5

This is still heeeelarious. Our own MILITARY POLICE don't know the history and principals of our nation.


**** it, I'm moving to China. They're doing better anyway.

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

Originally Posted by Act of God

You're a moron, I'm actually sad that you are supposed to represent the best and brightest our military has to offer. smh

Same to you.

Yes, I absolutely could. See this thread for reference on why.

5 Years of data will be collected on US Civilians to look for "Suspicious behavior"

The intent of weaponry and the 2nd amendment wasn't just personal defense, but civil defense. Our founding fathers were well aware of the effects of an oppressive governing body.

Originally Posted by Constantine

That makes sense. Follow that train of thought.

Also, if an assault weapon is virtually no worse that a hand gun, why is the military, SWAT teams etc not just using handguns?

They use the fully automatic versions, which are banned for civilian use.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You are seriously the biggest idiot here. This is an opinion thread. I state my opinion and you tell me I'm wrong? Seriously if you're that ignorant and think you have the right to tell some that THEIR opinion is wrong.. Re-evaluate your purpose in life kid.

The problem is, that your opinion appears to be the most ignorant bucnh of catach phrases assembled into a sentence.

Really, I should not be able to own an AR-15? I can't own an AK either right? So, what is stopping me from having a 33 round mag in my glock, or is that too much as well?

Is my gun going to magically jump off the shelf and kill someone? Does the AR-15 know it is an AR-15, and think it must kill people, or does it come down to the person holding it?

When is an AR-15 more dangerous than another semi auto rifle, or pistol? Does the fact that the rifle is black and scary have to do with it, or is it because it holds a distinct advantage over other dark and scary rifles?

See, your opinion is just that, yours. My opinion is that you are a walking talking idiot, who uses catch phrases to assert his opinion. Get over it. You are a minority in this country (no this is not racial) and will forever deal with the fact that others have these weapons, and will continue to get these weapons, and any legislation you put on the table, and the total number of gun free zone signs you place, will never matter to a person looking to commit a crime with a gun, of what ever shape, size, caliber and color. You can disarm the entire population of good guys, and the bad guys will still look for their advantage, and own a gun, even if they are not allowed to. They will use those weapons while committing a crime, because they do not care.

If you are naive enough to think anything will change for the better with legislation that disarms the country, I can't help you. I just hope nothing ever happens to you, where you need a gun. Hell, if you feel so strongly about it, post your picture, so I can carry it around in my wallet, and refuse to help you or your family with my gun if I ever see you being robbed. I'll stand, point and laugh, hell I'll even call the cops for you. Sound good?

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

Do you even know what an assault rifle is?

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a better argument than this.

Originally Posted by dwass325

You're confused in terminology.

Assault rifles, by definition, are capable of either fully automatic or burst fire (i.e. you pull the trigger and three bullets come out). What was used in CT was, by the definition of anyone familiar with guns, not an assault rifle. Perhaps what you mean is the term "assault weapon," which is a made-up term by a bunch of people with no knowledge of firearms and was used in a piece of legislation in the 90s that literally made as much sense as white-only drinking fountains.

What you seem to be arguing against are all semi-automatic rifles. From a functional standpoint, the AR-15 used in CT is no different than the average wood-grain hunting rifle that some fat redneck is currently holding in the woods as he waits for a deer or other animal to come along.

So is your argument against all semi-automatic (i.e. one pull of the trigger = one bullet comes out) rifles or only against the ones that are black and military-looking?

I have a hard time believing this gun



is more dangerous than this gun



simply because it's black, when they are functionally and ballistically similar.

Let's also consider that the shooter wore all black gear, though he did not attack at night. Did the black garb he wore enhance his attack at all? Perhaps aesthetically (people wearing all black tactical gear are visually scarier than people wearing linen suits, for example), but I would argue that he would've been equally as effective (I hate using such a callous term, but that's what it is) if he had been wearing a linen suit. Does this mean we should ban black clothing because it's the preferred garb of violent deranged people?

Now, I'll readily admit that I'm a gun owner who will carry a concealed weapon if it ever becomes legal in my state, and I will also readily admit that I have certain reservations about guns and CCW permits. And I would be happy to discuss those reservations with anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of firearms.

What I will not engage in, is a discussion that is equally ignorant to assuming all black youths in baggy jeans and hoodies are dangerous because of the way they look.

Well said. The hypocrisy reminds me of the FDA.