The Gun Control Thread

[BigBadBrian]

There is no such thing as assault weapons. Assault Weapons is a political term thought up to scare the public.

Watch the PowerPoint on the excellent website lesfunk posted: www.assaultweapon.info

[Seshmeister]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

It's a bit of a fake argument to say that because a weapon can only fire 60 or 100 rounds a minute it's not an assault weapon because there are guns that can be fired quicker than that.

My understanding is that well trained killers i.e. the military are trained not to fire in full auto mode any way.

To constantly block any changes to gun control and then argue that the tiny changes are ineffective is a bit lame.

Calling these weapons 'modern muskets' as a defence is laughable.

[ZahZoo]

BBB how is debating the semantics of the term "assault weapon" really going to sway people into believing an AR-15 or AK47 is anything but a light duty combat weapon designed specifically for close range combat. What is combat... people attempting to kill other people.

So let's call them "combat weapons" then... and quit this damn foolishness.

I support the 2nd amendment and believe people have the right to own weapons. But I don't support any foolishness that the 2nd amendment grants people the right to own an armory of high capacity, semi-automatic combat weapons with armor piercing or designed for highly destructive kill capability ammo.

If people want to hunt game, target practice or even desire a firearm for protection... that's fine with me as long as they exercise a high level of responsibility in usage and secured storage. I do not support individuals having weapons and ammo specifically designed for combat and warfare.

I believe that balance can be struck... through reasonable gun control with no grandfathering either. State militias such as the National Guard maintain armories and responsibly manage, store and maintain combat weapons. I believe that fits the intent of the 2nd amendment. I don't believe civilian citizens should have the right to own and possess that much fire-power.

[ZahZoo]

Uh oh... Sesh and I appear to be on a similar page. No good can come of this...

[jhale667]

Agree the semantic debate bullshit is lame. NO ONE outside of the military or LE needs a gun that can shoot 60 to 100 rounds a minute, bottom line.

[ELVIS]

Also what would have happened if half the people in that dark Colorado cinema had been armed?

OK, Piers Morgan...

[ELVIS]

Agree the semantic debate bullshit is lame. NO ONE outside of the military or LE needs a gun that can shoot 60 to 100 rounds a minute, bottom line.

What do you protect your self when law enforcement turns bad ??

And I already laid out perfectly sane examples why one would "need" an "assault rifle"...

But who are you to tell me what I or others need...

You need Jesus, but I'm not for an executive order to help you find him...

People "need" food water and shelter...

We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs...

[ELVIS]

And BTW, the semantics are not lame...

Proper terminology is necessary to identify weapons...

And an AR15 is in no way a Military type weapon...

[jhale667]

You need Jesus...

Wrong. You need help.

[lesfunk]

We can argue about High capacity magazines and "weapons of war" , "assault weapon" or whatever catchphrase we choose but we are still ignoring the fact that 0.6% (that's nearly 1/2 of 1 %) of gun related violence is committed with these semi auto rifles.

The media loved the sensational crazy white guy with a Rambo gun stories so much that we never hear about the hundreds of Black kids getting shot by handguns in the inner cites everyday. Not to mention that our Presidents own city of Chicago has pretty much become murder capital of the USA. I guess their stories don't carry the political weight of those lily white little rural communities that get the public really pissed off.

I am disgusted and sickened as much as everyone else about this horrible act in Sandy Hook. Little kids writing letters to the President and scripted heartfelt speeches tug at the heartstrings but do little to nothing to curb real gun crime.

[ZahZoo]

And BTW, the semantics are not lame...

Proper terminology is necessary to identify weapons...

And an AR15 is in no way a Military type weapon...

No way eh? Really? In factual terms, please explain to me when this weapon evolved into something other than a military combat weapon?

I don't tend to rely on wikicrap but this does appear to be accurate and to the point.

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle 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. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

[lesfunk]

The musket was a military weapon at one point.
So were bolt action carbines.
Shotguns are used in the military today. As are handguns.
Everything is a military weapon for fucks sake. Lets just ban the black scary ones to make the sheep feel safer for a while while we shred the Constitution and consolidate our power one step at a time.
The gullible and uninformed elite will trumpet our cause from their moral high ground

[PETE'S BROTHER]

The musket was a military weapon at one point.
So were bolt action carbines.
Shotguns are used in the military today. As are handguns.
Everything is a military weapon for fucks sake. Lets just ban the black scary ones to make the sheep feel safer for a while while we shred the Constitution and consolidate our power one step at a time.
The gullible and uninformed elite will trumpet our cause from their moral high ground

guns, right?

[Kristy]

I'm guessing if the NRA got to put an armed guard into every classroom most of them would be retired cops.

Wrong! An janitor armed with sawdust can somehow miraculously throw it into he eyes of the shooter is all that's needed here.

[ZahZoo]

I know, Les... what we call them really isn't important. In the bigger picture targeting elimination of only certain weapon types isn't all that important either.

The simple fact is, living in the US with the highest level of weapons per capita than any other place on the planet... leaves us with also the highest rate of loss of life from guns in non-war circumstances.

The most compelling statistic is those areas of the world with the least amount of guns have a significantly lower death rate from gun usage than those that have more guns. Now that doesn't mean murder rates and deaths from something other than natural causes are less in those places... just deaths from guns.

So eliminating the guns won't stop killings... could reduce it. But the bigger debate is... what can we do as a society to stop the killings?