Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

Not really. The rest of the world functions without the use of assault rifles. This is indisputable. Why do you need them so desperately? And, y'know, to regulare who can drive it. Because if you aren't mentally sound or physically able to drive a car then you don't get a license. Because you could kill someone. You could bring the gun out to them and they can do it outside. Just a thought. Or, you could just schedule it yourself and if you choose not to then they confiscate your weapons.

I live in New Jersey. In fact, I'm less than a mile away from Camden itself. You don't have to tell me about our gun laws and how crime continues despite that. But like I said before, arming more people is not the only answer to fighting against armed criminals, especially when it carries the risk of exacerbating the problem. If you want to stop gun crime, you have to combat it without using more guns. Again: I'd rather more research and promotion go towards less-lethal devices that still retain high stopping power. Defense requires stopping power. It does not require lethality.

Again, define an "assault weapon".

Your argument can be boiled down to "Laws don't work". If we stoop that level of reasoning, then what's the point of arguing? Abolish law. Anarchy reigns supreme! Depends. Am I jumping through some massive mental holes to try and justify the ownership of assault weapons and firearms that have, on several occacions, been used to kill and injure children? Yes? Then call me crazy and stupid all you like. Because that's some batshit crazy and stupid shit. I'm using the AR as an example. I don't think anything other than hunting rifles should be allowed, and they should be heavilty regulared.

You are not interested in debate, you are only interested in masturbating to your self-deluded sense of moral superiority. Stop it.

I'm not saying that giving guns to people will prevent crime or criminals, but restricting guns certain opens room to have more victims of it. And in any case, criminals will find their firearms regardless of laws. Also I think you are now the closes facepuncher that lives near me, neat.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/110384/f4647335-ee93-4570-8a17-70613cf39d67/image.png they look kinda like this and can fire a lot of bullets really really fast that was so hard phew There's a lot of cars out there but all of them are being inspected and put back on the road every day. Don't see why you're making such a big deal out of doing that to your toys.

Where did you get "these specific laws in this specific manner" = "all laws are trash"??

I'd say wanting less people to die is pretty morally superior, no matter if we're talking assault weapons or choking hazards.

Dude, are you going to actually debate or just degrade yourself to trolling now?

What is a "hunting rifle" and regulated how? And why? Are hunting rifles being used to kill tons of people? His argument is NOT that "Laws don't work". His argument CANNOT be boiled down to that. That means you didn't read his argument what so ever, and you are just wasting every single persons time who discusses this issue with you. If I boiled it down, in all honesty, you don't sound like a person who has any issue with saying "I have ALL the answers" which I know I cannot ever trust a person who thinks that of themselves. No matter they're political alignment or ideology. You refuse to even desire to be diplomatic about these issues for whatever reason, and the reason above is the best I can surmise. You don't want to talk about the issues. You want to lecture. There's nothing to teach you. Nothing to tell you. Just for you to tell everyone else how the world works. That's not how you win any arguments, or even end up making a coherent point.

school shooter school shooter what did i remove to solve the problem? 4/5 brain surgeons are stumped!

It's about the implication you're making. It's a "it's hopeless, so why bother" attitude, and it's frankly disgusting.

AR-15s are hunting rifles

So your definition is that it "looks scary", am I correct Coydog?

What guns are you referring to, exactly? I feel like there's a breakdown in who considers what as assault weapons. I said what I consider assault weapons and therefore should be banned from civilian use, but you make it sound we've been talking about other guns? I don't deny that criminals will always find their guns, but restricting guns will only open more victims to criminal gun use so long as we don't create other tools to fill that hole. Again, you don't necessary need a gun to stop someone with one. One of my biggest desires in this whole mess is further R&D into less-lethal weaponry.

Because it inherently is a dangerous tool. Ladders kill people, falling out of bed kills people, even food it's self kills people. The difference is all these things are tools to better your quality of life overall. All these things have become safer and safer every generation. The fatality rate was obssesive when cars were first mainstream. Cars in the 40s didn't even have seatbelts, most steering columns would literally impale you if you got into a fender bender. Getting hit by an solid steel car in the 40s would obliterate you even at slow speeds. But over the years more and more safety features have been added for the driver and the pedestrians. A gun's sole purpose is to cause bodily harm and destruction. You don't see guns become less and less lethal over the years.

can we get a /s please, this has been going on for too long now for you to actually be this delusional

https://www.google.ca/search?q=mini-14&safe=off&client=firefox-b-ab&dcr=0&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=w1I2hTCbuJJ83M%253A%252Ce53uYUhMBAHYsM%252C_&usg=__e-sx4j9jkPIcvN-W83WhpeMvjG4%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7nIHE-4XaAhVY22MKHThoDBQQ_h0IzgEwCw#imgrc=w1I2hTCbuJJ83M: Which variety of those identically functioning guns is an "assualt weapon"? Is it based on the looks? They all fire bullets equally fast. They all fire equally damaging rounds. But you're basing this on how the gun looks. Not any objective, functional qualities of the gun in question. Do you see why people aren't taking that answer seriously? Why "Assault weapon" was a term created as a buzzword? A media created tool?

they look kinda like this and they dont shoot a lot of bullets nor do they shoot them very fast oof https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/110384/04f87358-cd53-44dc-9259-4d920a42d320/image.png As for how to regulate them, just look at any country where weapon regulation HAS worked. Y'all pointing to cities like New Jersey - did it occur that maybe these aren't the best examples of gun regulation? There's nothing to teach me that I haven't already been told, and what I've been told has been utter malarkey.

A civilian owned AR-15 doesn't fall under YOUR category of an "assault weapon". Less lethal options are only really available at their desired effectiveness to the police forces. You can't get a taser as effective as a poilice one, nor can you get a mace in all areas. Less lethal weapons doesn't mean much to me. It's not about having people armed, I don't want that, I'm not arguing for that. I'm not a "Pro-gun" poster. I'm just sick of seeing ineffective methods that have been tried, and failed, be tried again because that's what "feels right".

Alright, let me clarify. If the gun goes "pewpewpewpewpewepwepwepwepwepwepwepweppewpewpewpewpewpewpew" *cshk chsk... KSHRK* "pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpepwpew" then it's bad and nobody needs one. if the gun goes "pew" *cshk chsk... KSHRK* "pew" *cshk chsk... KSHRK* "pew" then it's fine, and hunters should be allowed to have it if it makes them feel better, but it should be heavily regulated Does that make it easier for you?

sorry, but you're really just making yourself look stupid at this point. So far you've managed to prove you know next to nothing about firearms and have successfully shown that you're trying to get zingers in without actually debating anything of merit.

If you honestly believe you have nothing you can learn on a subject at any point in your life, then you're a very, very limited person. Have fun being at the peak of the dunning krueger curve. I'm done trying to help even discuss your own rudeness with you. You keep doing you. It'll keep making people on the left(like me) less inclined to be associated with the view points you've pushed. Thanks.

Pot, kettle.

If me being vehemotly against the idea of kids getting shot to death in school makes you feel like less of a left person then I'd say that says more about you than it does me, but aight

You are the problem that is preventing a solution. Those "pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpew" guns? Kill a statistically insignificant amount of people per year Banning things based on what people """""need""""" and """""don't need""""" is such an incomprehensibly stupid way on enacting legislation that I cannot even fathom it. Do we create a whitelist of pre-approved objects? The only things you can own are what you """""need"""""? Obviously the danger posed by these objects doesn't matter at all, because once again: Rifles kill a statistically insignificant amount of people per year

A civilian AR-15 is a rifle that's semi-automatic. That's actually something that I said did count as an assault weapon in my post. And with you bringing up how less-lethal options are currently only really available to police; like - doesn't that strike anyone as the opposite of how things should be? Like, we civilians should be the ones with mace while it's the police with the guns, not vice versa.

this argument really sucks because there are so so so many more people using cars, so much more frequently - hours at a time across the globe no shit there are more people that are gonna die because of tools of transportation. apples to oranges whataboutism.

I should reiterate this post: