[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36963586]But he didn't use a fully automatic firearm in the shooting.[/QUOTE]
No but he used a semi-automatic military assault-rifle. Which I also don't see a reason to own.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963570]
I mean really what reason is there to owning a fully automatic assault rifle? I'd much rather save lives, such as those in the Aurora shooting, then own one for personal enjoyment.[/QUOTE]
Full auto assault rifles arent what was used in the Aurora shooting, he used a semi-auto rifle designed for civilians.
You also have to factor in the uselessness of banning them. Not only are the used in a REALLY small percentage of crimes, they are readily available on the black market. And even though they are easy to get illegally, criminals STILL very rarely use them because the are bulky, nearly impossible to conceal, and easier to track than a junky saturday-night-special that can be thrown away after the crime is committed.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963637]No but he used a semi-automatic military assault-rifle. Which I also don't see a reason to own.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't military, it turns out! An AR-15 is a civilian based firearm.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36963609]I have enough dignity in me to admit I knew nothing of guns that are specifically designed for target practice, as you've mentioned, which is why I changed my statement from "all" to "most".[/QUOTE]
That last gun I posted would be considered an assault weapon in states that ban them. You cant say that their only purpose is murdering large amounts of people.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36963653]It wasn't military, it turns out! An AR-15 is a civilian based firearm.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36963651]Full auto assault rifles arent what was used in the Aurora shooting, he used a semi-auto rifle designed for civilians.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
The AR-15 was first built by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite"]ArmaLite[/URL] as a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire"]selective fire[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle"]assault rifle[/URL] for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces"]United States armed forces[/URL]. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_Manufacturing_Company"]Colt[/URL]. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the [B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle"]M16 rifle[/URL][/B]. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle"]semi-automatic[/URL] version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR15#cite_note-7"][8][/URL][/SUP] The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.[/QUOTE]
No one wants to take up my offer? :(
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963570]You people should really read this: [URL]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/URL]
He's against the ownage of military assault rifles and he got good points
I mean really what reason is there to owning a fully automatic assault rifle? I'd much rather save lives, such as those in the Aurora shooting, then own one for personal enjoyment.[/QUOTE]
As I said before in this thread, unless a weapons is fully automatic, there is nothing performance wise that defines an "assault weapon". The term is used as a scare tactic. There is absolutely no place in society for civilians to have full-auto guns, except maybe licensed vendors that allow people to pay to fire them at special machine-gun shoots such as Knob Creek.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36963698]And all you've done is rate dumb and insult other people, as clearly shown in your very first post in this thread.
We can call eachother out all day[/QUOTE]
You fail to understand my implications in that post. Everyone is a tool in the same sense a firearm is a tool. Both can be used to murder people, but it isn't their only applications.
[QUOTE=Resfan;36962231] people go on killing spree's with a axes, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats, hammers, [U][B]or just their hands[/B][/U]. [U][B]A tool, is a fucking TOOL.[/B][/U] How you use said TOOL is up to you.
FYI, if you can't get my implications, a firearm is a TOOL.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36963698] how about we stop this.[/QUOTE]
I've already said that multiple times, that's when you jumped on my back and started screaming in my ear about how I presented no valid argument to this grande debate you're directing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36963711][B]The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle[/B] for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. [B]Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963[/B].[8]The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle.[/QUOTE]
Its only similar in name.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;36963731]As I said before in this thread, unless a weapons is fully automatic, there is nothing performance wise that defines an "assault weapon". The term is used as a scare tactic. There is absolutely no place in society for civilians to have full-auto guns, except maybe licensed vendors that allow people to pay to fire them at special machine-gun shoots such as Knob Creek.[/QUOTE]
wow I actually agree with you on this
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36963653]It wasn't military, it turns out! An AR-15 is a civilian based firearm.[/QUOTE]Scratch the military part then. It was a assault-rifle, I'm sorry I got it wrong. But My point's still stand. I quoted it last page and will quote it again.
[quote][B]What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.[/quote]
Sure people can get it illegally but why is this a reason to just let anyone get one? Read the tweet he explains it good. [URL]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/URL]
Yes. It was designed for military uses then sold to civilians by making it semi-automatic.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;36963731]As I said before in this thread, unless a weapons is fully automatic, there is nothing performance wise that defines an "assault weapon". The term is used as a scare tactic. There is absolutely no place in society for civilians to have full-auto guns, except maybe licensed vendors that allow people to pay to fire them at special machine-gun shoots such as Knob Creek.[/QUOTE]
There's a pretty good range in Utah that I visited that has full-auto firearms, it's a very regulated place.
(The M60 is FUN)
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963748]Scratch the military part then. It was a assault-rifle, I'm sorry I got it wrong. But My point's still stand. I quoted it last page and will quote it again.
Sure people can get it illegally but why is this a reason to just let anyone get one? Read the tweet he explains it good. [URL]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/URL][/QUOTE]
Well go ahead and believe that all AR-15s are marketed to evil people who slaughter babies on the weekend or whatever, but I'll continue to have my AR-15s and enjoy them.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963748]Scratch the military part then. It was a assault-rifle, I'm sorry I got it wrong. But My point's still stand. I quoted it last page and will quote it again.
Sure people can get it illegally but why is this a reason to just let anyone get one? Read the tweet he explains it good. [URL]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/URL][/QUOTE]
NO, it wasn't an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of selective fire, his AR-15 was not.
Someone can buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle in .223 with a wooden stock and it would be just as dangerous.
The illegally bought ones are fully automatic, and that's not why people are allowed to buy them legally, they are allowed to do so because they are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic firearm. Really, a bolt-action could be equally dangerous, looking at the D.C. snipers which I'm fairly sure used bolt-action hunting rifles.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;36963824]NO, it wasn't an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of selective fire, his AR-15 was not.
Someone can buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle in .223 with a wooden stock and it would be just as dangerous.[/QUOTE]
Correct. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle based on an assault rifle design, with slight changes to the internals.
there should be a Mass Debate thread for this if there isn't already
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;36963824]NO, it wasn't an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of selective fire, his AR-15 was not.
Someone can buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle in .223 with a wooden stock and it would be just as dangerous.
The illegally bought ones are fully automatic, and that's not why people are allowed to buy them legally, they are allowed to do so because they are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic firearm. Really, a bolt-action could be equally dangerous, looking at the D.C. snipers which I'm fairly sure used bolt-action hunting rifles.[/QUOTE]It would be as dangerous but only with that first shot. You can't just do followup shots as easily and you can't shoot as many bullets as a hunting rifle before you have to reload. AR-15s are definitely more lethal then hunting rifles and that's the only thing they do better: being lethal.
I just don't get people that so easily to defend them and with so much hatred on those who wants them regulated and harder to get. It can't hurt to just stop defending them and sit down with reasonable people and discuss how we can prevent another day like that day.
I also never said I believe that everyone who uses one is a heartless killer, Of course there are [B]a lot[/B] of people who use them reasonably. So don't just assume I hate all gun owners because I don't. I own guns myself, but those are hunting rifles and handguns meant for sport. @Zilla
So, onto the lethality part of this debate, ask yourself, fisk, what does it matter if you use a 5.56 AR, or a 12gauge pump action shotgun in a crowded movie theater?
A shotgun, at as close range as what Holmes was shooting, would be just as lethal, if not more so than a 5.56 AR. Also, no one in the theater had body armor, so a 9mm is still extremely lethal at the range he was shooting from.
The fact that he had a an 5.56 rifle is pretty pointless at the range he was shooting when he also had two 9mm pistols and a 12gauge shotgun.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36963748]Scratch the military part then. It was a assault-rifle, I'm sorry I got it wrong. But My point's still stand. I quoted it last page and will quote it again.
Sure people can get it illegally but why is this a reason to just let anyone get one? Read the tweet he explains it good. [URL]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/URL][/QUOTE]
I have an AK47 and high powered scoped rifles. Am I going to go on a killing spree? No. Just shut up.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36962648]The fact that some people might have to give up their little hobby for a chance to possibly deter crime and murder even [I]a little[/I], is enough reason to enact a more strict gun control system.
The retarded "IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!" argument people use it absurd. So what? Have you ever thought about the possibility it may be an outdated law system that has some compatibility issues with modern times? It was created with militia in mind, you aren't fucking militia. You are mere gun enthusiasts.
Just because you think gun laws won't stop murders from happening is irrelevant. You should at least [I]try [/I]to deter it, by any means possible, not throw your hands in the air and go "nope, wont work lol".
Are you honestly telling me you would rather have a nation full of civilian gun owners, and you would somehow feel "safe", than a nation who puts weapons in the hands of capable and trained government employees like the police and military? Give me a break, your entire argument can be summed up with "I like guns, dont ban them".[/QUOTE]
It was not created with militia in mind. The Supreme Court has overridden that definition of the Second Amendment.
[QUOTE=Resfan;36964105]So, onto the lethality part of this debate, ask yourself, fisk, what does it matter if you use a 5.56 AR, or a 12gauge pump action shotgun in a crowded movie theater?
A shotgun, at as close range as what Holmes was shooting, would be just as lethal, if not more so than a 5.56 AR. Also, no one in the theater had body armor, so a 9mm is still extremely lethal at the range he was shooting from.
The fact that he had a an 5.56 rifle is pretty pointless at the range he was shooting when he also had two 9mm pistols and a 12gauge shotgun.[/QUOTE]You bring a good point yea, but the AR-15 is still effective at a greater range + those ranges.
I get why people want to own this weapons. Hey, guns are fun to shoot of course. But I just don't really agree on owning guns for enjoyment with how it is right know. Not just AR-15s but all guns. I like Swedens gun regulations, not just anyone can buy a gun. You have to be active in a club and actually use at least one of your guns in competitions once in while to keep it. But it's not perfect of course, people still die because of guns.
I just don't feel that it's worth it to own a gun for personal enjoyment over saving lives. But I also don't want [B]all[/B] guns to just be banned completely. Yes I get that x billion people own a gun without killing anyone but having 0 people own a gun without killing anyone is far more worth it to save 100 000 people a year. Dream scenario is of course x billion people own a gun and 0 people die.
If gun regulation helps bring those numbers of deaths down then this is definitely what should be done. If mental help helps then this is also what definitely must be done. My main problem is people who just defend guns mindlessly with the reasons "Drunk drivers kill people" "I own x gun and don't kill people". Is it really so difficult to just accept that gun regulations could help save lives just because you want to shoot guns?
[sp]Also, please don't flame me for gods sake, rating me dumb and telling me to shut up isn't nice and doesn't help. Tell me your point of view instead[/sp]
And also sorry if it's wrong to discuss this here.
The problem with America, is that if you out right ban weapons from the legitimate owners. All the illegitimate owners will know that they can get away with pretty much anything because cops have a piss slow response time and no one would be able to defend themselves.
So no, do not ban weapons out right, kthnxbai.
Better screening is all we really need.
I mean think about it, why do people rob gas stations at gun point? Because they know cops won't get there in time and they assume that the cashier isn't armed. However, when it turns out the cashier IS armed, the robber is in for a pretty bad day.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36964485]You bring a good point yea, but the AR-15 is still effective at a greater range + those ranges.
I get why people want to own this weapons. Hey, guns are fun to shoot of course. But I just don't really agree on owning guns for enjoyment with how it is right know. Not just AR-15s but all guns. I like Swedens gun regulations, not just anyone can buy a gun. You have to be active in a club and actually use at least one of your guns in competitions once in while to keep it. But it's not perfect of course, people still die because of guns.
I just don't feel that it's worth it to own a gun for personal enjoyment over saving lives. But I also don't want [B]all[/B] guns to just be banned completely. Yes I get that x billion people own a gun without killing anyone but having 0 people own a gun without killing anyone is far more worth it to save 100 000 people a year. Dream scenario is of course x billion people own a gun and 0 people die.
If gun regulation helps bring those numbers of deaths down then this is definitely what should be done. If mental help helps then this is also what definitely must be done. My main problem is people who just defend guns mindlessly with the reasons "Drunk drivers kill people" "I own x gun and don't kill people". Is it really so difficult to just accept that gun regulations could help save lives just because you want to shoot guns?
[sp]Also, please don't flame me for gods sake, rating me dumb and telling me to shut up isn't nice and doesn't help. Tell me your point of view instead[/sp]
And also sorry if it's wrong to discuss this here.[/QUOTE]
I have already stated several important uses for the AR-15 in my previous posts. The primary one is varmint hunting where the small caliber rounds and semi-automatic fire make it useful. Also, there are some people that cannot use a manual bolt weapon due to handicaps, and therefore require one that is semi-automatic.
Honestly, I don't at all understand people's fascination with the fact that he was using an "ASSAULT WEAPON", considering that most semi-automatic hunting rifles would be able to fit larger magazines. And in the case of Holme's shooting, his high capacity mag caused a feeding problem and several people were able to escape.
Well I don't want weapons banned. I want something that helps bring the death count down and if weapon banning helps that that's good (bad because no weapons, good because no fucking deaths). It probably wont though but gun regulation could. Make it harder for people to get guns, if you really really want one you'll go trough what needs to be done (Compare to Sweden's gun club shiz(not saying America should adopt this)).
How it seems now though is that gun owners in America just mindlessly defend guns and want everyone against guns to just shut up or disappear which greatly hardens the possibility to fix the problem with people dying from guns.
Ban the ability to buy illegal firearms, put in more screening, make a weapon education class part of the public school system so people can actually learn to respect weapons and life, and arm more citizens with side arms so they can prevent the next shooting.
That's my opinion on the matter.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36964682]Well I don't want weapons banned. I want something that helps bring the death count down and if weapon banning helps that that's good (bad because no weapons, good because no fucking deaths). It probably wont though but gun regulation could. Make it harder for people to get guns, if you really really want one you'll go trough what needs to be done (Compare to Sweden's gun club shiz(not saying America should adopt this)).
How it seems now though is that gun owners in America just mindlessly defend guns and want everyone against guns to just shut up or disappear which greatly hardens the possibility to fix the problem with people dying from guns.[/QUOTE]
If guns are banned, people that had them illegally will still have them. No way to trace or know about something that isn't registered unless cops search EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Banning guns means taking them from people that are doing nothing wrong.
[QUOTE=Resfan;36964736]Ban the ability to buy illegal firearms, put in more screening, make a weapon education part of the public school system so people can actually learn to respect weapons and life, and arm more citizens with side arms so they can prevent the new shooting.
That's my opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE]
[del]Ban the ability to buy illegal firearms?
You know what illegal means, right?[/del]
Miss interpreted
Okay, if we ban, heavily regulate, etc. firearms, it will effect everyone trying to buy them for a legitimate purpose, such as hunting, defense, and as a hobby.
But it will also do precisely dick to those buying them illegally, with the intent to do harm.
And I'll never understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand that point.
[QUOTE=Fisk;36964682]Well I don't want weapons banned. I want something that helps bring the death count down and if weapon banning helps that that's good.[/QUOTE]Except it won't. The issue is a problem with our society, not a problem with the supply of weapons.
[QUOTE]How it seems now though is that gun owners in America just mindlessly defend guns and want everyone against guns to just shut up or disappear which greatly hardens the possibility to fix the problem with people dying from guns.[/QUOTE]No, just gun enthusiasts get tired of trying to make arguments that repeatedly get ignored because their opposition finds them an inconvenience to the point they are trying to make.
[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rastadogg5;36964818]Ban the ability to buy illegal firearms?
You know what illegal means, right?
Okay, if we ban, heavily regulate, etc. firearms, it will effect everyone trying to buy them for a legitimate purpose, such as hunting, defense, and as a hobby.
But it will also do precisely dick to those buying them illegally, with the intent to do harm.
And I'll never understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand that point.[/QUOTE]Honestly, I think the issue is that many gun control proponents see things from a perfect world perspective, which is an inherently flawed concept.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36964852]Except it won't. The issue is a problem with our society, not a problem with the supply of weapons.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, maybe crime wouldn't be so much of a problem if we didn't live in such a backwards fucked up world.
Focus on making the world a better place to live in, and if gun violence is still a problem, then I'll take anti-gun positions a little more seriously.
[QUOTE=elevator13;36961848]im more concerned about people legally stockpiling weapons so that they can go on killing sprees and how the majority of FP is against gun control
not sure how cops play into my statement[/QUOTE]
Reasonable people aren't against gun control. They're against gun bans. And for good reason. A gun ban in America is literally impossible and would do nothing of any good. Gun control is a different issue.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.