|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?
Like I said you won't get any pushback from me on making it more difficult to get more devastating weaponry. The problem is that most people trying to sell the legislation (lord knows who's actually writing these bills) don't have a clue what they are talking about. Similar to when they were trying to legislate ATM fees but several openly admitted that they either had never used one or could count how many times on their fingers. They had no clue that for people with 25 bucks in their bank account it was costing them $5 just to get their own $20 back.
Besides having no concept of what being that broke is like, they didn't even really understand what ATM's do or what would be a fair vs exorbitant fee, same with guns. They have no idea what they are trying to regulate so when people push back they end up sounding like idiots and no one wants a gun law (even if it's actually good) if the person trying to convince them to support it sounds like a clueless moron.
As I've said a few times now, the reason we're "stuck" is because this limbo is money in the bank for the people who sponsor both sides of the aisle.
|
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?
I'm gonna call bullshit on this.
If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.
|
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.
Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...
|
On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general. Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...
Like GreenHorizons is saying, people would do a lot better in these conversations if they had half a clue what they were talking about. When your car breaks down do you go to the mechanic and chastise him about how he is using the wrong terminology for the engine and tires and you have better definitions? It is alright that you don't know everything about guns, but don't pretend that you do and then get mad at people when tell you that you're wrong.
|
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.
There are plenty of ignorant gun owners, but it is a red flag.
On June 15 2016 05:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 15 2016 03:49 m4ini wrote:On June 15 2016 03:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Pistol rounds aren't as devestating as rifle rounds and he would have to reload the pistol more often, leaving him vulnerable more times. Nah he wouldn't have to reload more often, you just take multiple pistols with you. On top, you can get extended mags. You're right with the damage though - a rifle is certainly deadlier. Everyone trying to argue that it isn't, is a deliberate liar. Especially in packed crowds where a single round can and will easily hit and penetrate multiple people, whereas a pistol won't. Simply being a "pistol" doesn't make it less deadly. There are other aspects one has to consider. See video for an example of a pistol that easily could have done more damage, though not as a result of rounds passing through victims. + Show Spoiler +or if one thinks shotguns by nature are less dangerous than something like a AR 15 + Show Spoiler +You may understand the nuance (I don't know) but some people just think pistols and shotguns are less dangerous than AR-15's because they believe the hype without having any context beyond battlefield or movies. Did you just show videos of fully automatic weapons as an argument as to why pistols and shotguns are not less deadly than an assault rifle, because it's semi-automatic? Why not add a minigun, a 50cal machine gun and a 120mm smoothbore to that comparison? Would make as much sense.
@m4ni well the shotgun isn't automatic and is completely legal in many states (I don't know about Florida off hand). The point was that simply being a pistol doesn't make something safer than an AR-15 so I don't know what you're trying to say? The video doesn't show the potential devastation as clearly but here's a completely legal semi auto pistol.
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.
Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.
Now if only politicians on the left were capable of realizing that.
|
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.
Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.
|
On June 14 2016 13:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night. You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself. you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened". i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way. I think the jist of the argument has more to do with the fact that the benefits of cars are massive, if not absolutely ridiculously astronomical. By comparison, AR15's are fun toys which also happen to be potentially disastrously deadly. It doesn't really compare at all. Cars are a tradeoff. You get amazing benefits that translates to massive wealth for the entire population of a country, but you also get the deaths, the pollution, etc. With semi-automatic rifles, you only get drawbacks, and the benefits border on irrelevant.
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
On June 14 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night. You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself. you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened". i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way. Where I think this argument breaks down is that the left isn't appropriately looking at what the causes of gun violence and then acting on reducing those factors, the right is accurately pointing that out until the left does try to get at a real problem then they prevent it yelling about the second amendment or spending. Again (and this should be getting more and more obvious), it's because the whole point is to keep fighting about it, not to do anything real to stop it. It's hard to believe Democrats in the senate (more importantly, their advisers) are still as clueless about guns as they sound every time they talk about regulations, if they aren't intentionally giving Republicans red meat to point at and say "SEE! They have no idea what they are trying to regulate" they are far too incompetent to be trusted to "write" the legislation anyway.
partisan stuff aside, i actually agree with you and agree that better regulations need to be passed.
i mentioned these a few times in my previous posts as examples of useless legislation.
i don't think a single person has actually addressed the above, and yet everyone continues to rant about how we need more regulation. we don't need more regulation that essentially results in (whether by design or not) banning firearms because they look/sound scary. we need better, more effect regulation that make sense while not infringing on peoples' rights.
On June 15 2016 00:20 Ayaz2810 wrote:
It won't chamge. Gun culture is like religion. Children are indocrinated early, and then are so loaded up with propaganda, that they just follow in the family footsteps without the critical thinking skills or both sides of the story needed to not be a fuckwit.
see, this kind of stupidity is why i do the whole car culture vs gun culture thing. i don't do it to compare approaches to policy.
|
i'll just put this here instead of triple posting.
On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.
Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.
assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain.
what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon.
On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general. Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...
these last few pages have been really bad.
owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.
|
owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.
My Kimber was a birthday present from my (older) sister 12 years ago. She's been a police officer for the S.P.D. (Seattle) for almost 2 decades, so the guns are registered for obvious reasons. 
She taught me and my gf everything there is to know about the guns we own, how to handle and store them properly.
I may not know a lot about rifles, but I have seen the damage a rifle like that can do first hand and trust me it's terrifying and for me that's the most important part there is to know.
|
On June 15 2016 09:49 dontforgetosmile wrote:i'll just put this here instead of triple posting. Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.
Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate. assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain. what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon. Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general. Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire... these last few pages have been really bad. owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.
Can you point to a federal law or regulation that defines "assault rifle"?
|
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?
|
On June 15 2016 10:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:49 dontforgetosmile wrote:i'll just put this here instead of triple posting. On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.
Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate. assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain. what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon. On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general. Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire... these last few pages have been really bad. owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon. Can you point to a federal law or regulation that defines "assault rifle"?
nope. because the legal term is actually machine gun. mistakes were made.
On June 15 2016 10:58 Belisarius wrote:
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?
that wasn't directed towards his lack of knowledge, but his attitude towards it.
|
On June 15 2016 10:58 Belisarius wrote:
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?
I'm not, but tell me again the name of that rifle, that guy from Port Arthur used and what Australia's response was after that massacre?
I can't seem to remember...
|
Of course I know my country's own response. Why is that relevant?
EDIT: wait I'm pretty damn sure I was supporting you but whatever
|
It is relevant because that guy used a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine to execute 35 innocent people and wound 23 more that day! Australias reponse was what any sane nation would do, there was no gun lobby blocking any attempt on legislation. That's why it is relevant!
EDIT: wait I'm pretty damn sure I was supporting you but whatever
Sorry bud, it's been a long day, I might have misread your post, but Port Arthur was a turning point for your country...and ...here we are discussing gun legislation in the U.S....again
|
EDIT: alright perhaps we're both just misunderstanding each other.
Yes, I'm aware that Port Arthur was an AR-15. Yes, I'm aware that other countries' various adventures with gun control are relevant to the US's situation.
But it's rarely helpful when an outsider comes into any of these threads and posts a sermon on why X solution that worked in their country is going to work in the US, so I'm not planning on doing so.
|
Throughout social media, there has been a sudden increase in the number of "shots fired" at Republicans because of the (tragic) shots fired inside the gay club.
And rightly so. Republicans need to take responsibility for perpetuating the hatred of LGBT and other minorities, which in turn helps create an environment where they're targeted and killed. No new bills, no new proposals, no new reactions besides "thoughts and prayers lulz". The core principle of prejudice is found in both religious fundamentalism and the modern Republican Party. And the death toll increases every day because of it.
The evil Republican party. Which does not currently target gay people nor hate Ellen, or Neil Patrick Harris, and even loves their own homosexual named Milo. You have a gay Muslim democrat in Florida, and it is the Republicans fault. Ah yes, all that rhetoric towards gay people made him marginalized and thus he really wanted to kill some people. Amazing that his shot selection was at other gays, and not at the Republicans he hated so much that vilified him so. Oh yes, it's their rhetoric that confused him and made him also hate gays.
These mental contortions are complete madness.
|
Glad to see you're back, for however short that time may be 
I expanded further on that post in later comments, if you'd like to read up on them too.
|
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval.
Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons.
And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same.
Q: My freedom!!
A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before.
Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place
A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club.
Q: It won't fix the whole problem
A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective.
At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society.
|
On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them. Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head. No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval. Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons. And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same. Q: My freedom!! A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before. Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club. Q: It won't fix the whole problem A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective. At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society.
Just thought I'd clear something up.
The AR-15 is an excellent rifle for hunting smaller game such as smaller deer and most smaller wild hogs. This whole idea that 'semi-automatics' are too much for hunting are for people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal in their life. The reason why most hunters carry a semi-automatic pistol if they are not utilizing a semi-automatic rifle is because a good hunter knows that a pissed off animal sometimes doesn't get put down by one or even two rounds, especially if it has anywhere from 300-400+ lbs on you.
The AR-15 also due to its modular nature can be fitted for a wide variety of different calibers, scopes, grips, etc. without much expense outside of the parts themselves. This makes it a very popular weapon among smaller game hunters who don't have the luxury of affording multiple different caliber rifles and the upkeep that comes with them. It's actually the cheapest Rifle to upkeep and maintain while also being flexible due to the numerous amounts of parts that are available to it on the after market for it.
There are far more uses to the AR-15 then you think outside of sport shooting. It's the most effective method of wild hog/prairie dog control that we have at the moment. And before you say 'fucking prairie dogs?" let's just remember that prairie dogs were responsible for the plague outbreak that happened recently in the United States. Yeah. The fucking plague. I mean, you could potentially just blow the hell out of their nests and shit but that's actually pretty damaging to the environment.
I most certainly agree on the premise that it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon like the AR-15 that is potentially extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. It should be far harder to obtain one, and there should be no reason for anyone to need a drum magazine. However, I just want to let people know that there are actual legitimate uses for the weapon ranging from security contractors, hunters, as well as self defense for those who live out on the country against smallish predators such as coyotes and bobcats (where it is absolutely necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
