It was a Chevy … if it was a Ford it would have been totaled …
Did you actually just use the phrase “assault weapons”?
I am not a gun enthusiast. I do not own a rifle. I expect to get details wrong, so I do research. While I am far from an expert, I actually try to read up on these issues, and from more than one side, because I have to know what I’m talking about.
One thing I’ve noticed lately is that the full-auto/semi-auto distinction is sometimes a red herring in public safety discussions. The real issue is how much damage a gun can do. A Glock 9mm is semi-auto, but it’s a puny little pop gun compared to an MCX. You know who I learned that from? Gun users.
You are clearly trying to argue against the imagined anti-gun person who knows nothing and can’t counter your line of bull. But easily 30% of the sentences you, Damuri Ajashi, have posted in this thread are false, nonsense, misleading, or meaningless to any larger point.
I’m no expert; I admit I am somewhat ignorant. But you’re just spouting nonsense and hoping I’m too hopelessly ignorant to be able to tell.
Fuck that guy.
I don’t care about facts or evidence, I just want to ban something!*
And this is part of the reason why discussions on sensible gun laws rarely have productive outcomes, IMHO.
Guns are a surprisingly complex subject and the more you know about them, the more complex it gets. It’s also a hard subject to explain to a layperson who has some degree of bias against them for whatever reason, because of that complexity.
“Power” isn’t a clearcut concept with guns. An AR-15 fires a fairly moderate cartridge by shooting standards; bolt-action rifles chambered for the 5.56/.223 round are extraordinarily common and no-one bats an eyelid at them or calls them “powerful” or anything like that.
Put that same round in a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, however, and suddenly people make it sound like it can punch through armoured vehicles or something. It doesn’t work like that.
To put it another way: It’s been joked before there’s no way the average person would be allowed to own a motor car if they didn’t exist and were suddenly invented today. Letting people drive a literal tonne of metal powered by explosions from a combustible substance, at speeds of more than 100km/h, alongside thousands of other people doing the same thing, with the potential for horrible unpleasant results if anything goes awry? No way, ban them!
Look, I get guns are scary to people who don’t have much to do with them. And people are allowed to be scared by them - but decision-making from fear, especially when it comes to stopping other people from enjoying their sports or hobbies - isn’t usually a great idea.
BrainGlutton, I’m giving you a warning for this. I see little substantive difference between linking to something to take a shot at someone and just taking the shot yourself.
Please tell me there was sarcasm in that statement.
(Underline added)
I’m shocked. Registration followed by confiscation. Isn’t that the assumption being made by the pro-2nd supporters? And isn’t that the claim being repeatedly denied by the anti-2nd collective?
That is one of the stupidest arguments I have heard. You think New York City and Washignton DC have strict gun control laws because the ruling class thinks that gun control works well? Are you nucking futz? You don’t think the political climate in NYC and Washington DC have anything to do with it?
There is always a chance they will find oil in Queensland.
Well its nice that you have such a strong opinion about a firearm that accounts for less than 3% of all firearm deaths in America.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic … the neighbor kid thought it was funny but his mom went ballistic … so we had to be 100 yds away to shoot at each other from then on.
This argument doesn’t do your side very much good no matter how you mean it. Either you are sympathetic to the gun control legislation of the “important” people in which case you’ve missed the point of the United States. This isn’t a feudalistic society, the masses are not subjects. On the flip you might not be sympathetic to the gun control legislation coming from these places. It’s worth pointing out though that these cities are both left of center and you vote for those “important” people.
Even without your comment, you are implicitly endorsing the author’s view. The author cares more about these rare mass shootings than he does about kids accidentally shooting each other to death. So you don’t give a shit that more kids die every year from gun accidents than mass shootings just so long as we can stop the mass shootings? Gotcha.
Well, you’re doing a real bad ob of knowing what you;re talking about.
Your side brought it up in their effort to conflate assault weapons with machine guns. The pro-gun side was happy making fun of you for all the other idiocy your side presents us with.
Then those same gun users should have told you that the glock 9mm (one brand of gun in one caliber) accounts for more gun murders than ALL rifles combined. They are involved in more mass shootings than any other gun.
Rifles in general are more destructive than pistols, this is true whether they have bayonet lugs or are bolt action. Its simple physics. Most explosives are solids that rapidly sublimates into a gas. If the barrel is long, more of the explosive effect is transferred into the bullet, if the barrel is short then more of the explosive effect is expended into the air our of the end of the barrel (if all other things remain equal, and they rarely do).
Imagined? AFAICT, you are a real anti-gun person who doesn’t know enough to differentiate himself from someone who is entirely ignorant. Certainly not enough to make good arguments about gun policy based on that knowledge.
You are. We were discussing assault weapons and you pointed out that assault weapons can “easily” be converted into an automatic weapon if you swapped out its guts for the guts of an automatic weapon. I pointed out that this comment was equally applicable to ALL semi-automatic weapons. If you swap out the guts of ANY semi-automatic weapon, they would become automatic weapons. Then you rolled your eyes at me for pointing out this glaring hole in your criticism of assault weapons and now pretend that you were saying “semi-automatic rifles” all along. I have not heard anyone (other than the honest anti-gun folks who support an Australia type gun ban) propose a ban on semiautomatic rifles until (like you) they are confronted with how fucking retarded an assault weapons ban is.
You can try and the pro-gun folks are pretty sure you WILL try anyways.
You act like you have some sort of control over what happens with guns in this country. The gun control side of the debate is feebly whining about their feebleness rather than making convincing arguments because what they ultimately want is not something that they could get the majority of Americans to support.
I thought he was pointing out that its stupid to try to ban one slim subset of weapons for their lethality when pretty much all guns are pretty lethal.
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame chimes in: