are you confusing semi-automatic and automatic, or do you actually think that that there is no use for semi-automatic?

edit: you mention self defense, so i assume you are just confusing

semi-automatic
each pull of the trigger fires one bullet
anyone can have this (*anyone who can buy a gun)
plenty of uses

automatic
pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing multiple bullets until you release
much harder to own, lots of restrictions
rarely used in crimes
fewer uses, not many people are calling for easy access to these


[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM. Reason : Edit *note]

12/15/2012 4:50:43 PM

Quote :

"I'm not against people owning guns for self defense or for hunting, but I don't think semi-automatic weapons are needed for hunting or self defense. Can someone explain what semi-automatic weapons are needed for?"

Wow. Just think about it... if not semi-auto, what's the next "acceptable solution" to you?

Speaking of "gun control", I wouldn't entirely be opposed to a new system. I haven't vetted most of this, so I'm just going to puke out some words:

Shall Issue gun permits, provided by the states, for the purchase of any firearm (long, pistol, full auto) which every state in the union recognizes and would allow purchases in any other state or country. Requirements of the permit would be class room legal education, class room firearm safety and use, demonstration test, background check, mental health check, and renewed every 5 years (when checks are redone), for a minimal fee. Violent crimes, mental health changes, etc. are causes for revocation or denial for renewal or issuance. In turn, almost all restrictions on open and concealed carry are abolished, except those related to carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Possession of a permit or firearm by a non-eligible person, murder with any object, and use of a dangerous item in any crime is punishable by 50 years in prison (per victim). The drug war ends, drug users aren't sent to prisons/jail. In addition, a repeat offender law (for any serious crime - e.g. violence, major theft, etc.), or stricter laws should be on the books and enforced. Accomplices to non-eligible persons in obtaining firearms, either by negligence or purpose is punishable by 50 years.

Say you have a son and you know he's a bit off/depressed/angry/etc., then you shouldn't allow him access to your firearms. This only comes into play when 1) the person has knowledge of someone being unstable and 2) the firearms aren't taken by force. (not perfect, I know.) So if you have a pissy emo high school son who knows the combination to your safe and he takes possession or uses those firearms in a crime, then you are liable for criminal penalty. If he busts open the safe, you're not. This certainly needs some vetting/work.

Lastly, the ATF is reorganized and re-imagined such that political winds have less impact how the ATF enforces laws, writes regulations, and interferes with the free trade of firearms (ATF currently bans many firearms based on cosmetics).

/puke

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 5:34:59 PM

I think this is a wording issue. The guy used a .223 caliber rifle which is an assault rifle.

It seemed to be semi automatic but I right read it was a fully automatic weapon.

12/15/2012 5:46:17 PM

caliber has nothing to do with the term "assault rifle".

This is not an assault rifle:



and I haven't read up on this, but the media has no idea of the meaning of the terms: semi-auto, automatic, rifle, and assault rifle.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 5:50:55 PM

He used a bushmaster.

12/15/2012 5:55:32 PM

An "assault rifle" is still just a semi-automatic rifle, it just looks like the scary guns you see on movies but it doesn't function like them. In its function it works just like your hunting rifle, in fact you can turn a hunting rifle into an "assault rifle" with a screwdriver and a few plastic parts.

The news may have said that it was automatic, it wouldn't the first time they incorrectly interchanged assault rifle and automatic rifle, but it probably was not an automatic rifle.


As far as being .223, that's smaller than what most hunters have

12/15/2012 5:56:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

embed please

summary: hunting rifle + plastic part = assault rifle
even though the action and function are the same

12/15/2012 5:57:52 PM

an assault rifle is fully auto; not semi-auto. congress can move the goal posts all they want, it doesn't change the fact.





[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 5:58:48 PM

The guy knew what he was doing. Apparently everyone was shot multiple times.

Eeeeeehhhhhhhh

12/15/2012 5:59:17 PM

Quote :

"I think this is a wording issue. The guy used a .223 caliber rifle which is an assault rifle. It seemed to be semi automatic but I right read it was a fully automatic weapon. "

[Sigh]

Fuuuuuuuuuuck.








I'm totally cool with educating people on firearms. I'm not cool with people who don't know the first thing about guns adamantly arguing on how we should be legislating restrictions against them. I think we need to do something; I'm not sure what more we can do that will help very much, but I'm all for having the discussion.

What's frustrating is that people always want to go after the guns. Even if that was the right thing to do, what in the hell do you want to ban? How will it do any good in practical terms?

12/15/2012 6:00:14 PM

by the brady definition its an "assault rifle", which is why i put in in quotes.

"assault rifle" = semi-auto gun that looks like a military weapon or something you see in movies
assault rifle = automatic rifle rarely used in crimes. actual assault rifle.

the media and anti-gun people don't know what the difference is, that's why they keep showing you pictures of a scary bushmaster. a wood stocked rifle could have been just as effective. (or, you know, the pistols that were actually used)

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:00:52 PM

you are seriously using brady? GTFO with that. Handgun, Inc. is 1,000 times worse than the NRA. They're nearly on PETA levels.

Quote :

"assault rifle = automatic rifle rarely used in crimes. actual assault rifle."

this is correct. anything else is just another firearm.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:02:20 PM

DUDE

I AGREE WITH YOU

I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE THE MEDIA USES

12/15/2012 6:03:30 PM

I think we are splitting hairs.

12/15/2012 6:03:33 PM

Well your friends don't think so. Slap a "scary" looking stock on anything and it becomes a WMD and needs to be banned.

^^ok, ok. doesn't sound like since you keep posting it. quotes or not, you didn't explain the media part until just now. just call it what it is.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:05:02 PM

not really, just a few posts ago someone was asking why anyone would need a semi-automatic rifle

its an important distinction that all comes down to some people not knowing what the hell they are talking about, which is how we end up with dumb, completely arbitrary rules and laws that don't actually increase safety (oh my gawd, they can put their thumb through the stock like a pistol! heaven forbid! etc...)


it's not splitting hairs, its not semantics.

its a simple, basic, important distinction that is misunderstood.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:06:16 PM

The confusion and fear-mongering over firearms is exactly what the anti's want and how they get stupid legislation to pass. Many pro-gun folk are often scarred and mislead into thinking that certain bans or laws are needed on these tactics alone. Hell, I've read a pro-gunner's 'explanation' on why the magazine ban was needed and what good it could do again. It was easy to read through all of the incorrect information, asinine assumptions, and general stupidity... they sounded just like the words from anti-gun media members and congressmen from the early '90s

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:09:04 PM

Well he did murder 26 people in a relatively short time.

Is this not concerning to you?

12/15/2012 6:10:09 PM

Quote :

"Is that adjusted for population."

Yes. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate :

US Homicide Rate per 100,000: 4.2
UK Homicide Rate per 100,000: 1.2

From the same data source, using the full table, murder trending in the US per 100,000:

         US    UK (Britain and Ireland)
1995: 8.1    1.6
1996: 7.3    1.5
1997: 6.7    1.5
1998: 6.2    1.6
1999: 5.6    1.6
2000: 5.5    1.7
2001: 5.6    1.8
2002: 5.6    2.1
2003: 5.7    1.8
2004: 5.5    1.7
2005: 5.6    1.5
2006: 5.8    1.5
2007: 5.7    1.5
2008: 5.4    1.3
2009: 5.0    1.2
2010: 4.8    ?
2011: ?       ?

? - Unavailable, so not sure where the wiki page gets 4.2 for the latest US number

12/15/2012 6:12:10 PM

^^It is very concerning. We need to figure out how and why, and learn from that. If a system failed somewhere, it needs to be fixed. But the tool used is irrelevant to the solution.

If this guy would have bombed the school, we'd be talking about mental health, this guy, etc. You wouldn't start banning readily available items that can easily make huge bombs.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:12:24 PM

^^^yeah... with pistols

and at VT the shooter even used a .22 pistol as one of the two guns, basically smallest weapon you can get


the news keeps talking about the bushmaster because they know exactly the type of emotional response it elicits from people who don't know better. they know that you think it is a scary automatic assault weapon and they want you to think that.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:12:27 PM

Quote :

"the news keeps talking about the bushmaster because they know exactly the type of emotional response it elicits from people who don't know better. they know that you think it is a scary automatic assault weapon and they want you to think that."

ding ding ding

12/15/2012 6:14:17 PM

But what is its purpose outside of military and police operations?

12/15/2012 6:14:48 PM

what is what's purpose? a firearm? sport, self-defense, and hunting.

god help me if you say a semi-auto.

answer this: Just think about it... if not semi-auto, what's the next "acceptable solution" to you?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:15:31 PM

and it works, as made clearly evident by people asking why you would ever need a semi-automatic gun for hunting and self defense or saying the shooter used an assault weapon. they are totally confused.

12/15/2012 6:15:42 PM

No

What is the purpose of having a bushmaster?

12/15/2012 6:18:01 PM

What is so special about a bushmaster? You know, there are a lot more makes and models other than bushmaster.

Again, sport, self-defense, hunting.

What is the purpose of the internet?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:18:50 PM

there is no reason why someone needs an AR-15. there is also no reason someone needs a toyota camry, swiss cheese, red shoes, [insert anything you can buy here]. people buy them because they like them and want them, not because they need them. its why most people buy most things.

there is also no reason why it should be banned simply because it looks a certain way or because you don't know better and think its automatic. why is a rifle with a wood stock okay but one that looks like that not?

what it comes down to is this: gun control is okay when it is reasonable and not arbitrary. banning a gun because it looks a certain way is completely arbitrary. if you want to ban a gun or weapon, you need an actual real reason.

and you also need to understand that gun control won't stop massacres. if you ranked the guns that people want to ban, the small .22 rifle or pistol with a 10-rd magazine is probably on the bottom of that list... and yet Seung-Hui Cho carried one in the VT massacre

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:22:14 PM

I cant have a grenade
I can't have LSD
I can't have raw milk.

Are you saying all things should be legal just bc they exist?

Also people are still murdered but murder is still illegal. Saying shootings will still happen even if guns were more difficult to obtain is silly pants.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM. Reason : H]

12/15/2012 6:23:24 PM

Quote :

"what it comes down to is this: gun control is okay when it is reasonable and not arbitrary. banning a gun because it looks a certain way is completely arbitrary. if you want to ban a gun or weapon, you need an actual real reason."

12/15/2012 6:24:43 PM

Actually, you can have a grenade... you just have to do some training and a lot of paperwork.

Aside from that, there is no expressed right to grenade ownership.

You can't have LSD because of a power hungry government that's created the largest criminal network and resulted in more crimes than anything else - a drug war. I'm all for you having LSD.

And you can have all the raw milk you want; again this is stupid, power hungry government doing shit just to do it. I'm all for raw milk legalization, where do I sign up?

^^Well for one, firearm ownership is a constitutional right. Could some changes be made on obtaining firearms? Sure, I posted some of my thoughts earlier on this page. But you're singling out one firearm for cosmetic reasons, and saying it should be banned.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:26:26 PM

I agree with you. Banning guns isn't the option but harsher gun laws and restrictions won't hurt.

Forcing people to go through a process to obtain a weapon isn't preventing that person from obtaining that weapon.

Also most drugs are illegal bc of our population Wanting them to be. I'd assume a milk lobby is why raw milk is illegal. This is the government acting out the will of it's people.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : Y]

12/15/2012 6:27:58 PM

so you agree that there is a reason a person might want a semi-automatic rifle and they should be allowed to have it, even if they want a bushmaster or some other military look-alike

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM. Reason : have we crossed the bridge yet?]

12/15/2012 6:29:36 PM

^^I've already stated that a new permit system would be a good method. Read my post way up there. I, and most people, wouldn't mind an easy to navigate, relatively inexpensive, and sensible process to obtain a firearm. However, there a nuances. One being standardized permitting and issuance laws. Another being a requirement for "Shall Issue". Another being that it applies to all firearms. Another being that it shouldn't take a substantial amount of time or effort on your part (other than education, demonstration, etc.). Another being that it is a timely process that doesn't allow rouge states/issuing entities to purposely delay issuing permits just because.

Quote :

"Also most drugs are illegal bc of our population Wanting them to be. I'd assume a milk lobby is why raw milk is illegal. This is the government acting out the will of it's people. "

Drugs are illegal because of fear mongering and a power, money hungry government. people today 'want' drugs to be illegal because of this fear mongering, etc. And what the people want isn't always what should be. I mean, "the people" just voted to deny basic civil rights to a sizable portion of the NC population based on backwards thinking and religious stupidity. This isn't a democracy and pure majority rules democracy is a dangerous thing. I know less of the raw milk thing; but it's not the will of the people if it's the milk lobby; it's the will of big money from big companies.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:30:36 PM

We don't have to cross bridge. I was merely asking what the purpose of the gun was.

12/15/2012 6:34:03 PM

The same as any other gun.

12/15/2012 6:34:40 PM

and you understand it now?

12/15/2012 6:35:10 PM

Should any item be illegal to have?

12/15/2012 6:35:16 PM

sure, as long as the restrictions are non-arbitrary

do you understand now that the bushmaster is just another rifle?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ?]

12/15/2012 6:36:17 PM

Quote :

"What is the purpose of having a bushmaster?"

Bushmaster is one of many manufacturers of rifles that are patterned after Armalite's AR-15 rifle. The military and some law enforcement agencies use a version of this rifle that has a fully automatic option. The vast majority of civilian AR-15 pattern rifles are semi-automatic and function just like other hunting rifles that have been around for 100+ years. The exceptions are extremely difficult to obtain because they require a federal tax stamp, 6 month waiting period, law enforcement approval, etc. They are irrelevant to this discussion. The AR-15 is popular among sport shooters and hunters because it is extremely ergonomic, customizable, easy to work on, and can be modified to serve a wide variety of uses. It is most commonly found in .223 Remington, but can be chambered for a variety of cartridges. .223 is not nearly as "powerful" as the most popular deer hunting cartridges like .30-30 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, etc.

Watch this video:



[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM. Reason : thread moving fast]

12/15/2012 6:37:07 PM

I'm asking you which items in today's world do you personally think should be illegal to have.

12/15/2012 6:37:18 PM

As long as the restrictions are non-arbitrary and there is a demonstrated need for the item to be illegal, that there is no other alternative, that making the item illegal is determined to have a meaningful positive impact, and through the test of time, all of those conditions are continually met.

I think personal ownership of nuclear bombs should be illegal.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:38:09 PM

Is that it?

12/15/2012 6:40:19 PM

as an example, a nuclear bomb should be illegal for someone to have. are the reasons obvious enough for you to understand that they are not arbitrary

do you understand why banning a semi-automatic ar-15 variant but not a wood-stocked more powerful rifle is an arbitrary restriction?

when you want to ban something its on you to give a reason why it should be banned, its not on everyone else to give a reason why it shouldn't. That's how freedom and rights work.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 6:40:26 PM

Are just going to go all Geniusboy now and just keep asking questions because you've lost the argument and don't have a solid footing now? Or more aaronburro and try to frame the argument into some silly semantics corner?

12/15/2012 6:42:07 PM

I also think ICBMs should be illegal for private ownership.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM. Reason : forgot the M]

12/15/2012 6:42:30 PM

I never said anything should be banned. I'm just asking questions.

Haha. Both!!!!

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM. Reason : !!!!!]

12/15/2012 6:44:21 PM

so the geniusboy route

got it

12/15/2012 6:44:47 PM

Well the, "why does someone need xyz" narrative is very often just code for, xyz should be banned. If that's not your intent, I suggest making that clear.

12/15/2012 6:46:04 PM

Also Im not sure how I lost or won anything here.

I just find being so pro gun is comical. As a resident of new york I don't really have the option to buy a gun. There is no gun culture outside of gang bangers and mob guys.

^ sorry bro

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 6:52 PM. Reason : H]

12/15/2012 6:49:38 PM