Glocks and Duckfaces: Americans flaunt their new firearms on Instagram and Twitter. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=massn7;38985953]Actually assault weapons are full auto, or burst fire. Point is if you're going to [i]accurately[/i] use the description "assault weapon" or "assault rifle," it has to be select fire. Safe Semi Full, Safe Semi Burst Full, or Safe Semi Burst. A semi only AR-15 is not an assault weapon. Period. "Assault weapon" is a term the media likes to throw around a lot because it sounds frightening and dangerous and will be more of an attention grabber, when in reality they don't know what they're talking about. Ever since the shooting in Connecticut this term has been thrown around more times than I care to count, and probably used correctly only a handful of times. Knew I'd get ninja'd but fuck it, I'm tired of people getting it wrong.[/QUOTE] The words assault rifle and "assault weapon" are not the same thing. Define "assault weapon".

Also, for you people arguing about full auto. Theres not a chance in hell you can go on a do as much with it as you can with semi-auto. It would literally just spray everywhere, missing your targets by a mile. Guns are a lot more accurate and easier to control in semi-auto.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38985859]I think I and you, we both know that modifying semiautomatic to automatic is a 10 minute job for many many semi-auto rifles.[/QUOTE] Also, there's a pretty fun way to make an assault weapon: Bleach Ammonia What assault weapon is this? Oh, I dunno. [B][U]Mustard Gas[/U][/B] The same weapon that ruthlessly killed thousands in the first world war.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38985935]One is made to insert metal objects into stuff at high velocity and the other isn't, why are you asking me for basic stuff just for the sake of the argument.[/QUOTE] "it doesn't matter how deadly something is as long as it's not a gun!" and anyways you aren't even advocating the restriction of guns based on how easily they can be adapted for full-auto. you are advocating the restriction of guns based on whether they look scary or not. i could get behind manufacturing standards that are put in place to make sure guns cannot be easily modified to become full-auto. i don't care for arbitrary restrictions that don't actually help decrease gun crime.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38985964]Some people who have converted their ~aykayforteesevuhns~ to full-auto have also had the bolt in their gun snap or even explode in their hands.[/QUOTE] You are right, one reason more to ban them. Didn't think of that, thanks.

Well, at least it isn't a debate about feminism. Then this thread would be reaching 12 pages by now.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38985750]So then it's a win win, people get the guns they want, and the people who sell them make money. Why are you faulting us for buying things we want before they (probably won't) get banned?[/QUOTE] If it goes in a cycle, gun manufacturers are just flooding the country with guns nobody wants, but then will buy as soon as talks about banning them come about. A large domestic industry that receives greater attention than even basic things that a civilization should take for granted.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38985971]The words assault rifle and "assault weapon" are not the same thing. Define "assault weapon".[/QUOTE] I just did. For those of us that missed it, an assault weapon is a firearm capable of selective fire. A weapon that can only fire in a semi automatic state is not an assault weapon.

[QUOTE=massn7;38985996]I just did. For those of us that missed it, an assault weapon is a firearm capable of selective fire. A weapon that can only fire in a semi automatic state is not an assault weapon.[/QUOTE] actually you're wrong. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon[/url] you're thinking of an assault rifle which is not the same thing at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38985986]"it doesn't matter how deadly something is as long as it's not a gun!" and anyways you aren't even advocating the restriction of guns based on how easily they can be adapted for full-auto. you are advocating the restriction of guns based on whether they look scary or not. i could get behind manufacturing standards that are put in place to make sure guns cannot be easily modified to become full-auto. i don't care for arbitrary restrictions that don't actually help decrease gun crime.[/QUOTE] Maybe we should start selling plastic explosives , C4 and the likes too. They don't detonate without the detonator and they do make nice figurines when used by artists.

Anyway, guns are fun and thats about it. Had we restricted weapons over time like other countries I could see it being an effective policy right now. But our freedom to have whatever the hell we want has led to there being so many god damn guns any type of ban is useless.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38985988]You are right, one reason more to ban them. Didn't think of that, thanks.[/QUOTE] Then why don't we ban Cigarettes too? Tobacco kills 5 times more people in America than firearms every [I]day[/I]. The only restrictions we have on those is pricing and an age limit, that's about it. Smoking can destroy families and relationships, not just individual lives. But okay, let's ban guns just because it worked in Australia (which, PS, means absolutely [B]FUCKALL[/B])

assault weapon doesn't have a clear definition

[QUOTE=massn7;38985996]I just did. For those of us that missed it, an assault weapon is a firearm capable of selective fire. A weapon that can only fire in a semi automatic state is not an assault weapon.[/QUOTE] No, that's an assault rifle. If you mean to say that "assault weapons" ARE assault rifles, then you should know that they are already banned.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38985988]You are right, one reason more to ban them. Didn't think of that, thanks.[/QUOTE] That is like saying "ban fertilizer" because someone was doing something illegal and stupid (making a bomb) and blew themselves up

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986010]Then why don't we ban Cigarettes too?[/QUOTE] Well heavily restricting their sale to people starting the habit and discouraging it at every turn is actually a very good idea that's currently working quite well.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38985467]Do people even need those guns. I doubt that most of the time they won't even use them, and just let them collect dust in the attic.[/QUOTE] this can be said about a lot of things people buy in general

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38986028]Well heavily restricting their sale to people starting the habit and discouraging it at every turn is actually a very good idea that's currently working quite well.[/QUOTE] [quote= The CDC]Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year[/quote] "working quite well"

bottom line is, "why do people even want guns if they don't need them" etc is a bad place to start any sort of discussion about gun control

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986007]Maybe we should start selling plastic explosives , C4 and the likes too. They don't detonate without the detonator and they do make nice figurines when used by artists.[/QUOTE] do you also support a fertilizer ban? there is no legitimate use for fertilizer outside of commercial farming in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986010]Then why don't we ban Cigarettes too? Tobacco kills 5 times more people in America than firearms every [I]day[/I]. The only restrictions we have on those is pricing and an age limit, that's about it. Smoking can destroy families and relationships, not just individual lives. But okay, let's ban guns just because it worked in Australia (which, PS, means absolutely [B]FUCKALL[/B])[/QUOTE] Many countries are in the process of slowly fighting smoking, European ones in particular. Good point again. (your "ironical" counter arguments are mostly real counter arguments you should rethink them)

[QUOTE=zeldar;38985989]Well, at least it isn't a debate about feminism. Then this thread would be reaching 12 pages by now.[/QUOTE] i hope anita sarkeesian tweets that guns are misogynist i want to see the shitstorm that brews

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986042]"working quite well"[/QUOTE] This is an awful argument that can be applied to just about anything. "Regulations on coal mining aren't working well, people still die". Smoking rates are declining, and have been for several decades, as has lung cancer caused by it.

[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;38986063]i hope anita sarkeesian tweets that guns are misogynist i want to see the shitstorm that brews[/QUOTE] The servers would implode

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;38985712]Of all the great arguments you could have used, you had to pick the worse right? I can't use a TV to shoot down my neighbor or go on a rampage at work. The fact assault rifles are comparable to the latest tv or computer to you boggles my mind.[/QUOTE] Stop abusing the vocabulary, because this isn't about assault rifles. Assault rifles cost 20,000 USD or more now ever since the 1986 ban on all automatic weapons made after that year for non-Class III NFA dealers. Assault weapons are literally the most pointless regulation ever made. Under an assault weapons ban, the AR-10 would be banned, but an M1A wouldn't, just because it has a rifle stock and doesn't look as scary.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;38986054]bottom line is, "why do people even want guns if they don't need them" etc is a bad place to start any sort of discussion about gun control[/QUOTE] I don't think many of these buyers genuinely want guns. They are just exploiting the current situation in hopes of making a profit.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38986057]do you also support a fertilizer ban? there is no legitimate use for fertilizer outside of commercial farming in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Actually modern industrial fertilizer is a big problem (environmental killer, limited) on its own so I gotta say Yes but for a different reason. (I was just mocking you arguments by using them for my point if you didn't get that yet)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38986089]I don't think many of these buyers genuinely want guns. They are just exploiting the current situation in hopes of making a profit.[/QUOTE] I didn't know we were making baseless assumptions here.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986098]Actually modern industrial fertilizer is a big problem (environmental killer, limited) on its own so I gotta say Yes but for a different reason. (I was just mocking you arguments by using them for my point if you didn't get that yet)[/QUOTE] What point are you even arguing over, this isn't advancing a position at all

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986042]"working quite well"[/QUOTE] Compared to before, it actually is. Youth smoking rates are declining for years in the countries that discourage it)(Australia, most of EU and so on)