"Reasonably-Suited’ guns…?
Or Bullet Guzzlers…?
Cool. Maybe we bring back the old-fashioned six-shooter, which would suffice quite well for self-defense, and ban everything else besides single-shot hunting rifles.
Sounds like you’re satisfied. Glad we had this conversation.
Now some Democrats are also pushing back.
Senator Manchin (D-WV): “Beto is not taking my guns away.”
Joe Manchin. :rolleyes: Some on the left throw around the epithet “DINO” much too easily, but he is the rare example of someone who qualifies.
I couldn’t tell you the name of a single mass shooter from the past 50 years, in any country. Not one. But I remember each event. So I guess we just fundamentally differ on the what we think the cause is.
As a liberal gun owner, I would like to add a few things. I have an assault rifle. Not an AR15, a mini 30. Cheaper ammo, and larger projectile. The reason that it is classified as such is because it has a 20 rnd magazine and a pistol grip and a an adjustable and foldable stock. These are not features I was seeking. Thone with the walnut stock cost $250 more. I’m not concerned about “gun grabbers” in the least. I live in Illinois. According to most gun nuts this is a hellhole for gun owners. I can buy ammo online and have it delivered to my house. I ordered my assault rifle online and was able to pick it up at a pawn shop near my house the day it arrived in the mail. No 3 day waiting period be cause it took five to get there. I agree that it was a little too easy for me to get that weapon. I’m not sure what the background check entailed. I would melt it down tomorrow if it would guarantee that that would be the solution to the gun problem in this country. I’m not convinced that it would. That being said, in the past two plus years, my confidence that I live in a society in which I will not not need it for self defense has decreased. With certain “prophets” calling for the killing of anti fascists in their beds and such, I feel much safer owning it. Especially considering the fact that the majority of gun owners in this country differ from me politically. Unfortunately, I feel like being left of center puts a target on all of our backs for a certain portion of the radical right. Thus, I’ll hang on to mine for now. There have already been cries for dems to be dragged though the streets and stuff, so…
A six shooter can kill six people in a hurry. A double rig can kill twelve. Add in some speedloaders, and in about 3 seconds you can kill 6 more. Continue until your ammo runs out.
An AR-15 cannot kill people any faster than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle. A Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge, and fires it just as fast. A standard M1911, probably the second most common American-owned handgun, can shoot 8 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. A Glock 19, the most popular handgun, can shoot as many as 6 to 33 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger, depending on the magazine you have in it.
Even the old western lever action rifle like the Winchester model 1873 has a 15 round magazine, and a skilled shooter can shoot the thing just about as fast as an AR-15.
There is nothing special about an AR-15 when it comes to deadliness. The characteristics that make it unique are lightweight design, ease of repair, modular construction, and military features like a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, collapsing stock and other things that have nothing to do with lethality in a private setting.
People who understand guns know these things, and that’s why they get frustrated by people who want to take them away while exhibiting complete ignorance about them.
Also, the AR-15 and other assault rifles are not the problem with respect to gun violence. The vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, because handguns are concealable. It’s hard to walk up to a rival gang member with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. It tends to be noticed.
Anyone who understands the issues knows that banning AR-15’s wouldn’t make a dent in firearms fatalities. At best, you might cause some spree shooter to change his weapon of choice to any number of other firearms equally deadly, or even more deadly. In the meantime, you’d be stripping the constitutional rights from millions of people just so some people can feel good that they ‘did something’, without actually doing anything at all.
Of course, we all know that once the AR’s are gone, you’ll just move on to the next weapon on your list of things to ban. Nobody believes that anti-gunners just want ‘common sense’ regulation. You hate guns, and you want them all gone. Beto just made that clear, when the left cheered his gun confiscation plan and none of the other major candidates for president pushed back against him.
I love guns. They are fun as all hell. But I just dont see them being cool as a good enough reason to justify the evil/idiotic uses/users being able to get them so easily.
This
Nothing I’ve said indicates I’d be satisfied with your proposal. I’m just trying to correct your ignorance.
Jerry Miculek’s trigger finger is probably illegal in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts… 
Ah, the “I’m going to define the other side by picking the most extreme interpretation of their position” approach. Yes, that’s totally intellectually rigorous.
Ooh, can I play? Because in that case it’s been made abundantly clear, here and elsewhere, that what gun fetishists want to go armed everywhere and to have the right to shoot anyone that they can, after the fact, claim they felt posed a threat to them (and as long as the other party is too dead to dispute the shooter’s version of events). Oh, the gun crowd claim they’re all “responsible and law-abiding” but - and again, as has been made clear here and elsewhere - that only applies as long as the law allows them to do whatever they want. The minute anything that might spoil their fun is proposed, suddenly there’s talk of guns “going missing in boating accidents” or even threats of violence against law enforcement. And nobody on that side “pushes back” against those claims, so we can extrapolate those views to everyone who is pro-gun. So much for being “law-abiding” and “responsible”.
(That’s how this works, right, Sam?)
If you had to shoot* as many children as you could in one large school using any easily obtainable gun (shooting inside the school buildings and outside the buildings on the school grounds) and you could only choose one gun what would it be? I can see a case for something like a Glock with extended magazines, and I can see a case for an AR with large capacity magazines. What would you choose? I’m asking because you seem to be implying that all (well, many) guns are equal. I just want to know which gun you think can kill more kids. Can you give an honest answer?
*note I didn’t say kill because I don’t want bombs to be an option, because bombs require more knowledge and skill to get and use.
Of all guns are equal then banning the AR-15 would make gun grabbers happy and have no effect on gun owners.
Unless, of course, all guns are NOT equal.
I don’t doubt they’re marketed that way, nudge nudge, wink wink.
But not because they don’t want to, right?
Remember when only Nixon could go to China?
Perhaps only a Texan can take your guns.
I think in the hands of someone relatively untrained, the most deadly weapon in that circumstance would be a pump shotgun like a Remington 870 with a short barrel. Then when it’s empty (9 rounds), a couple of pistols would let me shoot at least 16 more bullets, and up to 66 more, without reloading.
A rifle is rather hard to use in confined spaces - especially if you are untrained.
You simply can’t legislate safety by banning certain model of gun. There are way too many options.
Nah, they only see the (D)(R.) If gun confiscation is to happen, it has to be done by a conservative Republican.
If there is one thing we can sensibly rely on, it’s that mass shooters are well informed and trained in their weapon of choice. We ought not limit their options.
Or do they just pick the coolest looking fuck-off gun they can get their hands on?
That’s exactly what they do. The AR-15 is used not because it’s the deadliest, but because it looks bad-ass. There are also a whole lot of them out there, so they are relatively easy to find/steal.
But if the AR is banned, there are lots of other guns that look ‘badass’. And all it will take is some action movie where the hero uses twin shotguns or something, and we’ll start seeing shotgun killings. If that happens, are we going to ban shotguns?
London banned all the guns. Then knives became the cool thing to have. Now people are being murdered with knives, and the government wants to ban scary looking knives and make it illegal to carry a knife on your person.
You let them take away all the knives, and next they’ll come for your screwdrivers. Because it’s easier than admitting that you have large scale social problems of your own making,