Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Jason P said:

Godfather. said:

disagree, I agree there should be some laws and back ground checks but have you done the home work to get a fully automatic gun ??? pretty spendy.

Godfather.

And how many mass shootings have occurred due to an automatic gun?????????

????????

????????????

automatic weapons are already illegal to own unless you do a mountain of paper work and a huge fee not to mention an additional back ground check but that aside mass killing don't happen due to automatic weapons they occur do to people and if a nut case wants to kill he/she will find a way, a little history should tell you that....on top of all that I think this auto gun show is a bunch of bullshit used as a distraction by the government and the media.

Godfather.

History should also tell you that if people don't have access to machine gun style weapons, they won't kill nearly as many people when they do flip out.

Do you even know what a machine gun is. Does anyone know that keeps talking about Assault weapons and automatic weapons. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. One pull one shot, just like a Pistol. I am for tougher laws but not an all out ban. Please educate what you want to ban. I feel like I have the same argument with the Anti Pot people that know nothing too and want to keep that prohibited.

Exactly...said this earlier too. How are you going to ban something you know nothing about...

I'm pretty sure the people who have anything to do with gun regulation know everything they need to know about it... Unless you guys know something about Degeneratefk that I don't, it really doesn't matter if he or she understands the intricacies of the weapons. Believe it or not, most people do not need to know that shit to form an opinion on whether or not assault rifles should be sold in stores. Semi-automatic, automatic, whether or not someone calls a semi-automatic a machine gun because they aren't obsessed with the minutiae of the fucking weapons in question.... it TOTALLY doesn't matter, and I think that when any gun supporters starts pulling this shit out it is simply a massive red herring that they are throwing into the debate. Yes, the actual law makers need to know so they can write some good, detailed legislation. Joe schmoe does not need to focus on that shit to understand the issue or the big picture.

This is completely, "TOTALLY" wrong, there has been example after example of lawmakers trying to make talking points on guns spouting off wrong information. As I said earlier, CO lawmakers technically made the most used hunting shotgun illegal because it "could be converted into one with a higher round count". If you want to be taken seriously by those who own firearms, even those that do not have the "scary" ones, then technicalities do matter. It may not matter to you, but those making the laws are not nearly as educated as you think...or they are trying to dumb down to their voters' level.
Example: You make 30 round "clips" illegal...then technically that would not have any impact on 30 round "magazines".

You mention "scary" ones", and this line of thought is either ignorant or dishonest.
I see it all over FB, and it is annoying. If you are as informed on weapon design as you claim to be, you know that the modifications that make it "scary" were invented and added to military rifles for utility reasons. They make the weapon more effective, you don't seriously think the military uses mods and attachments because they look scary do you? I feel like the pro-gun crowd is often using their more intimate knowledge of firearms to slip lies past people who don't know any better.
Don't be dishonest and pass on the misinformation in the vein of "the only difference in these 2 rifles is one looks scary" and "there is no such thing as an assault weapon" when you know perfectly well that they are untrue.

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Jason P said:

Godfather. said:

disagree, I agree there should be some laws and back ground checks but have you done the home work to get a fully automatic gun ??? pretty spendy.

Godfather.

And how many mass shootings have occurred due to an automatic gun?????????

????????

????????????

automatic weapons are already illegal to own unless you do a mountain of paper work and a huge fee not to mention an additional back ground check but that aside mass killing don't happen due to automatic weapons they occur do to people and if a nut case wants to kill he/she will find a way, a little history should tell you that....on top of all that I think this auto gun show is a bunch of bullshit used as a distraction by the government and the media.

Godfather.

History should also tell you that if people don't have access to machine gun style weapons, they won't kill nearly as many people when they do flip out.

Do you even know what a machine gun is. Does anyone know that keeps talking about Assault weapons and automatic weapons. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. One pull one shot, just like a Pistol. I am for tougher laws but not an all out ban. Please educate what you want to ban. I feel like I have the same argument with the Anti Pot people that know nothing too and want to keep that prohibited.

Exactly...said this earlier too. How are you going to ban something you know nothing about...

I'm pretty sure the people who have anything to do with gun regulation know everything they need to know about it... Unless you guys know something about Degeneratefk that I don't, it really doesn't matter if he or she understands the intricacies of the weapons. Believe it or not, most people do not need to know that shit to form an opinion on whether or not assault rifles should be sold in stores. Semi-automatic, automatic, whether or not someone calls a semi-automatic a machine gun because they aren't obsessed with the minutiae of the fucking weapons in question.... it TOTALLY doesn't matter, and I think that when any gun supporters starts pulling this shit out it is simply a massive red herring that they are throwing into the debate. Yes, the actual law makers need to know so they can write some good, detailed legislation. Joe schmoe does not need to focus on that shit to understand the issue or the big picture.

This is completely, "TOTALLY" wrong, there has been example after example of lawmakers trying to make talking points on guns spouting off wrong information. As I said earlier, CO lawmakers technically made the most used hunting shotgun illegal because it "could be converted into one with a higher round count". If you want to be taken seriously by those who own firearms, even those that do not have the "scary" ones, then technicalities do matter. It may not matter to you, but those making the laws are not nearly as educated as you think...or they are trying to dumb down to their voters' level.
Example: You make 30 round "clips" illegal...then technically that would not have any impact on 30 round "magazines".

You mention "scary" ones", and this line of thought is either ignorant or dishonest.
I see it all over FB, and it is annoying. If you are as informed on weapon design as you claim to be, you know that the modifications that make it "scary" were invented and added to military rifles for utility reasons. They make the weapon more effective, you don't seriously think the military uses mods and attachments because they look scary do you? I feel like the pro-gun crowd is often using their more intimate knowledge of firearms to slip lies past people who don't know any better.
Don't be dishonest and pass on the misinformation in the vein of "the only difference in these 2 rifles is one looks scary" and "there is no such thing as an assault weapon" when you know perfectly well that they are untrue.

I disagree and think the opposite is true. I think that the anti-gun crowd is constantly making arguments with the sole purpose of making them seem more "scary" to those that do not have much knowledge of firearms. I just saw a ridiculous post from Michael Moore on Facebook saying the .223 bullet should be made illegal because "it spins" when hitting a target...wow. There are reasonable and dishonest arguments on both sides of the platform. I never said that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault weapons like the M60, M249, Tanks, m16s are used all the time by the military. Muskets were assault weapons back in the day. Any gun can be used in an assault...I just feel like it is a poor definition that people that really want to ban all guns use.

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Jason P said:

Godfather. said:

disagree, I agree there should be some laws and back ground checks but have you done the home work to get a fully automatic gun ??? pretty spendy.

Godfather.

And how many mass shootings have occurred due to an automatic gun?????????

????????

????????????

automatic weapons are already illegal to own unless you do a mountain of paper work and a huge fee not to mention an additional back ground check but that aside mass killing don't happen due to automatic weapons they occur do to people and if a nut case wants to kill he/she will find a way, a little history should tell you that....on top of all that I think this auto gun show is a bunch of bullshit used as a distraction by the government and the media.

Godfather.

History should also tell you that if people don't have access to machine gun style weapons, they won't kill nearly as many people when they do flip out.

Do you even know what a machine gun is. Does anyone know that keeps talking about Assault weapons and automatic weapons. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. One pull one shot, just like a Pistol. I am for tougher laws but not an all out ban. Please educate what you want to ban. I feel like I have the same argument with the Anti Pot people that know nothing too and want to keep that prohibited.

Exactly...said this earlier too. How are you going to ban something you know nothing about...

I'm pretty sure the people who have anything to do with gun regulation know everything they need to know about it... Unless you guys know something about Degeneratefk that I don't, it really doesn't matter if he or she understands the intricacies of the weapons. Believe it or not, most people do not need to know that shit to form an opinion on whether or not assault rifles should be sold in stores. Semi-automatic, automatic, whether or not someone calls a semi-automatic a machine gun because they aren't obsessed with the minutiae of the fucking weapons in question.... it TOTALLY doesn't matter, and I think that when any gun supporters starts pulling this shit out it is simply a massive red herring that they are throwing into the debate. Yes, the actual law makers need to know so they can write some good, detailed legislation. Joe schmoe does not need to focus on that shit to understand the issue or the big picture.

This is completely, "TOTALLY" wrong, there has been example after example of lawmakers trying to make talking points on guns spouting off wrong information. As I said earlier, CO lawmakers technically made the most used hunting shotgun illegal because it "could be converted into one with a higher round count". If you want to be taken seriously by those who own firearms, even those that do not have the "scary" ones, then technicalities do matter. It may not matter to you, but those making the laws are not nearly as educated as you think...or they are trying to dumb down to their voters' level.
Example: You make 30 round "clips" illegal...then technically that would not have any impact on 30 round "magazines".

You mention "scary" ones", and this line of thought is either ignorant or dishonest.
I see it all over FB, and it is annoying. If you are as informed on weapon design as you claim to be, you know that the modifications that make it "scary" were invented and added to military rifles for utility reasons. They make the weapon more effective, you don't seriously think the military uses mods and attachments because they look scary do you? I feel like the pro-gun crowd is often using their more intimate knowledge of firearms to slip lies past people who don't know any better.
Don't be dishonest and pass on the misinformation in the vein of "the only difference in these 2 rifles is one looks scary" and "there is no such thing as an assault weapon" when you know perfectly well that they are untrue.

I disagree and think the opposite is true. I think that the anti-gun crowd is constantly making arguments with the sole purpose of making them seem more "scary" to those that do not have much knowledge of firearms. I just saw a ridiculous post from Michael Moore on Facebook saying the .223 bullet should be made illegal because "it spins" when hitting a target...wow. There are reasonable and dishonest arguments on both sides of the platform. I never said that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault weapons like the M60, M249, Tanks, m16s are used all the time by the military. Muskets were assault weapons back in the day. Any gun can be used in an assault...I just feel like it is a poor definition that people that really want to ban all guns use.

While I am sure that's true in some cases, in the vast majority of cases people understand tactical weapons are different from hunting and defense weapons, even if they say clip instead of magazine.

Not sure I understand your clip vs magazine argument. Specifics make all the difference in the world if you are wanting to ban something. What about a hunting or "defense" gun is fundamentally different? Semi-automatic? I use different guns for different hunting environments. If I am shooting long distances I use a long rifle. If I am walking through brush infested with wild hogs, I use a semi-auto. I think intent is the thing. If someone assaults someone, then their gun is now a weapon used in an assault...I find that people in general do not know shit.

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Jason P said:

Godfather. said:

disagree, I agree there should be some laws and back ground checks but have you done the home work to get a fully automatic gun ??? pretty spendy.

Godfather.

And how many mass shootings have occurred due to an automatic gun?????????

????????

????????????

automatic weapons are already illegal to own unless you do a mountain of paper work and a huge fee not to mention an additional back ground check but that aside mass killing don't happen due to automatic weapons they occur do to people and if a nut case wants to kill he/she will find a way, a little history should tell you that....on top of all that I think this auto gun show is a bunch of bullshit used as a distraction by the government and the media.

Godfather.

History should also tell you that if people don't have access to machine gun style weapons, they won't kill nearly as many people when they do flip out.

Do you even know what a machine gun is. Does anyone know that keeps talking about Assault weapons and automatic weapons. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. One pull one shot, just like a Pistol. I am for tougher laws but not an all out ban. Please educate what you want to ban. I feel like I have the same argument with the Anti Pot people that know nothing too and want to keep that prohibited.

Exactly...said this earlier too. How are you going to ban something you know nothing about...

I'm pretty sure the people who have anything to do with gun regulation know everything they need to know about it... Unless you guys know something about Degeneratefk that I don't, it really doesn't matter if he or she understands the intricacies of the weapons. Believe it or not, most people do not need to know that shit to form an opinion on whether or not assault rifles should be sold in stores. Semi-automatic, automatic, whether or not someone calls a semi-automatic a machine gun because they aren't obsessed with the minutiae of the fucking weapons in question.... it TOTALLY doesn't matter, and I think that when any gun supporters starts pulling this shit out it is simply a massive red herring that they are throwing into the debate. Yes, the actual law makers need to know so they can write some good, detailed legislation. Joe schmoe does not need to focus on that shit to understand the issue or the big picture.

This is completely, "TOTALLY" wrong, there has been example after example of lawmakers trying to make talking points on guns spouting off wrong information. As I said earlier, CO lawmakers technically made the most used hunting shotgun illegal because it "could be converted into one with a higher round count". If you want to be taken seriously by those who own firearms, even those that do not have the "scary" ones, then technicalities do matter. It may not matter to you, but those making the laws are not nearly as educated as you think...or they are trying to dumb down to their voters' level.
Example: You make 30 round "clips" illegal...then technically that would not have any impact on 30 round "magazines".

You mention "scary" ones", and this line of thought is either ignorant or dishonest.
I see it all over FB, and it is annoying. If you are as informed on weapon design as you claim to be, you know that the modifications that make it "scary" were invented and added to military rifles for utility reasons. They make the weapon more effective, you don't seriously think the military uses mods and attachments because they look scary do you? I feel like the pro-gun crowd is often using their more intimate knowledge of firearms to slip lies past people who don't know any better.
Don't be dishonest and pass on the misinformation in the vein of "the only difference in these 2 rifles is one looks scary" and "there is no such thing as an assault weapon" when you know perfectly well that they are untrue.

I disagree and think the opposite is true. I think that the anti-gun crowd is constantly making arguments with the sole purpose of making them seem more "scary" to those that do not have much knowledge of firearms. I just saw a ridiculous post from Michael Moore on Facebook saying the .223 bullet should be made illegal because "it spins" when hitting a target...wow. There are reasonable and dishonest arguments on both sides of the platform. I never said that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Assault weapons like the M60, M249, Tanks, m16s are used all the time by the military. Muskets were assault weapons back in the day. Any gun can be used in an assault...I just feel like it is a poor definition that people that really want to ban all guns use.

While I am sure that's true in some cases, in the vast majority of cases people understand tactical weapons are different from hunting and defense weapons, even if they say clip instead of magazine.

Not sure I understand your clip vs magazine argument. Specifics make all the difference in the world if you are wanting to ban something. What about a hunting or "defense" gun is fundamentally different? Semi-automatic? I use different guns for different hunting environments. If I am shooting long distances I use a long rifle. If I am walking through brush infested with wild hogs, I use a semi-auto. I think intent is the thing. If someone assaults someone, then their gun is now a weapon used in an assault...I find that people in general do not know shit.

As PJSoul mentioned, it is up to lawmakers to detail the specifics and get it right.
Bans and regulations are not about intent, they are about capabilities.
You know exactly what differences I speak of in comparing traditionally labeled "assault rifles" and those sufficient for hunting and self defense, this kind of equivocation is exactly the dishonesty I am talking about.

Then you do not know what you are talking about. Plain and simple, if you want to ban aspects of my personal property, then be specific about what you want me to get rid of and create a well articulated argument why. Some people say pistol grips, why? Some people say semi-automatics, why? Can I still have a pistol grip on a rifle if it is not semi-auto? Can I have a semi-auto if it does not have a pistol grip and does not have a 30 round magazine inserted in it? This is the reason I have a problem with the "assault rifle" term. You will just go round and round with people that know a thing or two about guns if you do not what you are talking about...because they do. I guess my real argument is that I cannot realistically see a way in which "assault weapons" are going to be banned...so many ways around these poorly written laws.

dudeman said:

The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. I would be willing to bet that most of those consist of one shot being fired.

Address the alarming suicide rate, gang violence and promote gun safety programs to reduce accidents and the death toll will fall.

"Assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not anywhere near the root of the gun violence in this country.

Degeneratefk said:

dudeman said:

The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. I would be willing to bet that most of those consist of one shot being fired.

Address the alarming suicide rate, gang violence and promote gun safety programs to reduce accidents and the death toll will fall.

"Assault weapons" and high capacity magazines are not anywhere near the root of the gun violence in this country.

I'm not sure why gun advocates insist on not counting suicides as violent crime. Maybe if the person that obviously has mental health issues isn't granted such easy access to guns, maybe suicide deaths by guns decrease.

Assault rifles are not the root cause of the gunew problem, but banning them is a good start.

dignin said:

The "mansplaining" has got to stop. Every single comment I (or anyone else) has made about the assault weapon used in Orlando to kill or maim 103 people is being met by a dude who feels the need to "mansplain" to me what an assault weapon is. See this photo? That's me in the center, briefing a squad of military police soldiers. Kiss my a$$. I know that weapon inside and out. It has no place in my home. You want to get your jollies from firing a weapon like that? Then do what I did, AND VOLUNTEER TO SERVE IN THE ARMY. I'm no longer in the Army, and I no longer need to have this kind of weapon handy for any reason.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1184293548294350&set=a.125259017531147.21678.100001411472745&type=3&theater

Degeneratefk said:

I'm not sure why gun advocates insist on not counting suicides as violent crime. Maybe if the person that obviously has mental health issues isn't granted such easy access to guns, maybe suicide deaths by guns decrease.

Assault rifles are not the root cause of the gunew problem, but banning them is a good start.