The Gun Control debate thread

[Mayhem]

I'd like to ask a question to any actual users of firearms, particularly those with military experience.
Although the Orlando shooting was a different gun, many news reports initially said it was an AR-15 showing how prevalent it is in the our minds when it comes to civilian firearms.

I know the AR-15 is the civilian variant of the M-16, with the primary difference being semi or fully automatic fire. My question is, exactly how much of a difference of this actually make? Obviously your finger might get tired after a while, but for short bursts is the difference that significant?
My point of asking this is because I have to question if such guns, for all intents and purposes are essentially military grade and shouldn't even be considered for civilian use.

The honest answer is there is no difference. I did 8 years in the Army, BTW.

I've actually thought that full auto or three round burst capability to be inconsequential. You're no more lethal, and possibly less so, than with semi-automatic.

As far as "civilian use", that's a whole raging debate all by itself.

 

[sean miguel]

A: Ace, are you still trying to make this discussion about heavy weaponry one about total annihilation of any firearms in private hands? Serious?

Back to the discussion at hand: Your senators have voted, and some have failed you.

"suspected" of terrorism? Not even charged or convicted?

Can we apply that standard to other instances please?

Wow, the fucking twist knots and double standards being applied by some.

I'm in favor of preventing anyone who has ever actually bombed a building from receiving tenure at a university. At the very least.

 

[Supafly]

"suspected" of terrorism? Not even charged or convicted?

Can we apply that standard to other instances please?

Wow, the fucking twist knots and double standards being applied by some.

I'm in favor of preventing anyone who has ever actually bombed a building from receiving tenure at a university. At the very least.

No, I am serious. As long as you are suspected of being among other posibilities - to be a terrorist, it would be madness to allow such people get hands on firearms until things are sorted out.

You seem to live in something like the wild west or somewhere. The right of your citizens to stay alive vs. the right to own firearms are an easy thing to solve.

 

[sean miguel]

No, I am serious. As long as you are suspected of being among other posibilities - to be a terrorist, it would be madness to allow such people get hands on firearms until things are sorted out.

You seem to live in something like the wild west or somewhere. The right of your citizens to stay alive vs. the right to own firearms are an easy thing to solve.

And again, the FBI probe on the Orlando club shooter turned up nothing. So based on just being suspected at some point he should've been prevented from buying a gun? Was it something his imam said?

Waiting for the cries of profiling, racism, religious bigotry.

 

[Supafly]

Just because procedures are not 100% perfect does not mean they shouldbe completely abandoned, or what?

 

[Supafly]

 

[sean miguel]

He's stupid and his brain is addled. The two don't necessarily correlate, but in his case both apply.

 

[sean miguel]

He acknowledges the 2nd amendment was meant as a check against a tyrannical government. If that's the case, does it matter what weaponry is being used given technological advances? If it's a check against a tyrannical government? No, the check was legitimate only when it involved muskets, apparently.

 

[sean miguel]

The government can so outpass you (with drones for instance) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete.

 

[Elwood70]

The government can so outpass you (with drones for instance) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete.

It doesn't matter, because the government always has the well-being and best interests of its' people-


Damn, I couldn't even finish typing that without laughing..

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Jim Jeffries is to comedy as Oscar Schindler is to comedy.

 

[tvstrip]

"suspected" of terrorism? Not even charged or convicted?
Can we apply that standard to other instances please?
Wow, the fucking twist knots and double standards being applied by some.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the wording is "Under investigation by the FBI", which to me is concerning.
On the surface, yeah, it sounds good. You wouldn't be under investigation if you weren't doing anything terrorist related right?

Not quite. For one, you could be under investigation for something other than terror. It's been pointed out (ironically) that Hilary Clinton wouldn't be able to buy a gun under those rules.
Like you said, there is a big jump between "suspected" and "charged". I haven't seen any figures, but I'd say that list must be massive. I think a better option would be to just scrutinize gun applications from these people more closely instead of outright banning them.

Even the "no fly list" = "no guns" is problematic. You have people with mistaken identity (same name as a terrorist), which happens a lot more than you think. You can also get flagged for other non-terror reasons too, like missing a flight when you had checked luggage, or testing positive for explosives because you used certain types of hand cream (glycerine). Again, just make it a more thorough check, not an outright ban.

 

[tvstrip]

The honest answer is there is no difference. I did 8 years in the Army, BTW.
I've actually thought that full auto or three round burst capability to be inconsequential. You're no more lethal, and possibly less so, than with semi-automatic.
As far as "civilian use", that's a whole raging debate all by itself.

I'm curious why you think you're more lethal with a semi.

So maybe you can explain this: Gun companies don't want to sell the same military model to civilians because:
A) Lip service to the Armed forces & Police; how bad does it look when civilians could arm themselves to the same standard as them? OR
B) Even they realize the stupidity in giving civilians the same guns that actual soldiers go to real war with.
Or some other reason?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Because when you take a nano second to line up your shot, you'll hit it. Spray and pray greatly reduces the rounds fired, to kill shots, ratio, and in reality, the only thing a fully automatic weapon is good for, is to lay down a volume of fire, to flank a position.

Civilians aren't allowed the same weapons, because of the Federal Firearms act of 1934, and the assault weapons ban from clinton in '86. You can purchase, and own fully automatic weapons, but at a huge price, and strict regulation. However, you are not permitted to purchase any weapons, or parts for the weapon, manufactured after a certain date, which would make current firearms unattainable.


Gun companies don't care if we have military weapons, to them a sale is a sale. It's the government that doesn't want us to have them.

 

[Mayhem]

I'm curious why you think you're more lethal with a semi.

I'm more lethal [one shot at a time] because I am aiming each shot. If my first shot didn't hit, why would I expect any of the others too? One shot at a time means you're not blowing through your basic load near as fast, so resupply doesn't become as critical.

I say one shot at a time rather than semiautomatic because a repeating rifle is one thing, a good bolt action rifle is another.

I think we all know that there are boneheads out there that actually hope for a 2nd Revolution or Civil War or Mad Max American Style. These same mental midgets
think that suiting up with paramilitary arms is going to get them somewhere. To be honest, even if such occurrences happen (and I don't believe for a moment they will), the guys with the assault rifles die first. The people who are going to live are the ones armed with their hunting rifles, taking a shot at a time....then hauling ass before they get drone smacked.

So maybe you can explain this: Gun companies don't want to sell the same military model to civilians because:
A) Lip service to the Armed forces & Police; how bad does it look when civilians could arm themselves to the same standard as them? OR
B) Even they realize the stupidity in giving civilians the same guns that actual soldiers go to real war with.
Or some other reason?

Gun companies don't sell full auto or three round burst capable firearms because it's either illegal or requires a tax stamp that costs money and subjects the buyer to
a strenuous background check; depending on which state. Other than that, the AR-15 is exactly the same as the M-16/M-4 and an AK is an AK is an AK. Again, full auto is just a con that the stupid sell to the gullible.

 

[Jagger69]

....and the assault weapons ban from clinton in '86.

Historical correction, my friend. It was under the Reagan administration that the ban was enacted. Clinton did not become president until January, 1993.

 

[Jagger69]

The government can so outpass you (with drones for instance) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete.

I'd agree with this. If some asshole tries to invade my home my guns should serve as a serious deterrent. Conversely, if the government sends M-1 tanks rolling down my block, I'm pretty much fucked just standing there holding a shotgun for "protection against a tyrannical government".

Hey....if I can own an AR-15 why can't I have a tank? That would be so cool....even if it was just a light armored vehicle like a Bradley or something. Instead, they have to draw the line at automatic weapons. What a buzzkill! I sure could have used a tank during the recent flooding we had here in Texas!

 

[Elwood70]

Hey....if I can own an AR-15 why can't I have a tank?

I'm pretty sure you can have a tank - as long as it's decommissioned.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

I'd agree with this. If some asshole tries to invade my home my guns should serve as a serious deterrent. Conversely, if the government sends M-1 tanks rolling down my block, I'm pretty much fucked just standing there holding a shotgun for "protection against a tyrannical government".

Hey....if I can own an AR-15 why can't I have a tank? That would be so cool....even if it was just a light armored vehicle like a Bradley or something. Instead, they have to draw the line at automatic weapons. What a buzzkill! I sure could have used a tank during the recent flooding we had here in Texas!

You can always try :dunno:

 

[Elwood70]

I want to buy a tank