Or, in other words, why don’t we solve the really big scary, but easy to solve problem first? Ban these miltary grade weapons good for killing dozens or more.
After that, if we still need to talk about deer rifle, or skeet gun we can still have that debate
You don’t know me and I don’t know you, so this doesn’t hold much weight – but I was for banning all guns three years ago, and I’m still for banning all guns now. This argument ISN’T any more relevant now than it was then, you’re right, but now enough people are paying attention that maybe we can get something done.
That isn’t my argument, but you aren’t wrong – banning guns won’t stop all gun violence. So? It will certainly stop ENOUGH of it to justify the inconvenience of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OWN A DEADLY WEAPON, in my opinion at least.
Sure, and Israel can shoot the fuckers who smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip on sight (not that they do, but that’s a whole other argument). I’m not arguing that banning guns will stop all gun violence – I’m arguing that it will at the very least slow it down.
You’re right, banning guns won’t keep criminals from having them. A systematic crackdown by US Law Enforcement against gun ownership WILL. But that can’t happen until guns are illegal.
Thank you, good sir. Whether or not you agree with my point, at least you comprehend my argument.
Cars, knives, alcohol, tobacco, and pools all have real uses other than injuring or killing others with intent. Guns don’t. to me, that’s the difference.
Sure, but all guns are intended for exactly one purpose: to accelerate a projectile towards another at a speed sufficient to injure or kill said target. That’s what guns are FOR. You are right in that not all guns are created equal, but they are all created to kill. I can think of some counter examples – airsoft or paintball guns, say – but no one is talking about paintball guns when they talk about gun control.
Even a hunting rifle is intended to kill. It’s right there in the name – HUNTING rifle. You don’t hunt a deer by tickling it – you hunt it by putting a high-velocity projectile into its body with sufficient force to kill. And if you can do it to a deer, you can do it to a human. To me, it’s unacceptable that in a civilized country, you (or anyone else) has that power.
Yes. Why not? Why does a common man need sufficient power to fight cops or soldiers? Or should we ban either ban the military from using tanks, jets, and nukes or give access to all of those to common people as well?
I think we’re on the same page as far as what needs to be done first. I can team up with you to ban assault rifles and machine guns. But I don’t see a valid reason for a skeet shooter or pistol, either. I can comprehend the arguments for them to a greater extent than the arguments for an M16 assault rifle, certainly, but I don’t think you need a glock any more than you need an AK47.
But let’s at least take the FIRST step, the one we all agree on, together, and ban that AK.
The victims at Virginia Tech, and several other places might take issue with this statement. Handguns and shotguns have been used over three times greater than ANY rifle, not just semi auto rifles since 1982.
Hot damn, I can’t type fast enough to keep up with you guys!
People might make that argument, but it just isn’t true, statistically speaking. People die in accidents all the time. And where do you draw the line as far as recklessness goes? I’d say just having a deadly weapon in the same building as your child is “reckless”. How many kids need to kill each other with their dad’s “unloaded” gun before we can agree that there’s a problem?
Sure, but a taser or pepper spray can help you defend yourself against an assailant without giving you the ability to murder 59 people at a country music festival. Or your wife in an argument. Or your child, when you leave it in a safe, but the kid figures out the combination and decides to show it off to his friend, since it’s unloaded anyways.
Half the time you’re agreeing with me, half the time you are arguing against me. You’re driving me nuts! 
But I agree with your point exactly. No one is saying that a gun ban will prevent ALL deaths. But odds are, it would prevent SOME of them. To me, even a small number is enough to justify not owning a gun. Especially since they’d probably stop more deaths than a “muslim ban” would…
Exactly. Even a pistol designed for self defense or a rifle made for hunting can kill multiple people.
I’m alright with this as a compromise, but I won’t forget that you promised we could at least TALK ABOUT the second issue when the time comes, rather than saying “Now is the time to come together as a country, not politicize this!”
Babale:
Well, I think you are completely wrong to be going after skeet rifles, target rifles, home defense handguns, etc. in that debate I’ll fight you tooth and nail and say terrible things abou you as a person and wonder how someone can be so impervious to reason and nonsensical. And you are more than welcome to do the same to me.
Confine the immediate debate and legislation to auto and semi auto rifles though and we can be best friends, partners and buddies, and solve the problem of mass killings with these crazy weapons that should never have been allowed in the hands of civilians.
Could save a lot of lives and make the country a safer place.
Now if only we get all gun nuts and all gun control fruitcakes to agree…
No… that’s called circular logic. It fails to address the single most important part of my post. The primary weapon used in the Port Arthur massacre was a 20 year old AR-15 orignally promoted, and sold, as a hunting rifle. What you’re proposing is the outright banning of guns to prevent the one in a million chance that someone in possession of a semi-automatic rifle will go on a shooting spree. And it literally is a one a million chance because there are literally millions of semi-automatic rifles already in circulation in the United States.
As for the claim that a systematic crackdown by US Law Enforcement against gun ownership WILL stop criminals from having them? Seriously? There are 300 million people in the United States… just what sort of police state do you think you’re living in, that the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation are going to be completely sought out and handed over?
Very tough too kill 50-60 people and wound 500 more with handguns or shotguns. Again, I am not trying to solve all problems here. Someone with a couple of handguns or a shotgun might get up to a dozen people or so. He might also get that with a car by driving into a parade or by making a pipe bomb or by running into a school with a machete. The problem of the madman trying to kill several people in a rampage is going to remain.
The only problem I am trying to solve right now is the biggest one. How to stop that guy from killing scores of people. Take away assault weapons which I define as auto and semi-auto rifles and you do it.
You’re not wrong. Let’s get one debate settled and then move on to the next. I admit that my position might be more extreme than most, but can we at least get as far as, say, England, and ban all firearms except for pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles, and then move on to discussing whether we even need those? It seems like too many people in this country are of the mindset, “First they came for the M249s, but I said nothing, because I wasn’t a Squad Automatic Weapon…”
Well, Babale, what are you doing on a minor message board? Get busy repealing the Second Amendment. Get back to us when you have 38 state legislatures on your side.
Clearly you have convinced yourself that the ONLY way to use a semi automatic rifle is to empty the entire clip, all 10 rounds or 35 rounds, in one burst. Semi automatic rifles have been on the scene for a hundred years. Clearly you are so unaware of rifle design that you believe a rifle designed for use as a ‘hunting rifle’ is OK, but a military spec rifle isn’t - notwithstanding they can both be semi automatics which share the same ammunition.
So while we’re at it should we interpret freedom of the press to only apply to 18th century technologies rather than radio, TV, and the internet?
And this… again, you’re wrong. By far the majority of firearm deaths are homicides, one or two at a time - almost exclusively by handguns. The number of handgun homicides per annum dwarfs the number of mass shooting spree victims, not by just 100%, or even 1000%, but by orders of magnitude.
Claiming that a mass shooting spree is ‘the biggest one’ is self serving logic. I could claim I have a gold plated unicorn living in my bathroom - still doesn’t make it true.
Defining a self loading rifle as an 'assault weapon" (coz that’s what a semi-automatic is you know, it’s just a self loading firearm) is a quintessential example of ignorance. A handgun can be a semi automatic.
If the home invader comes armed with a now illegal AR-15 how long do you think will it take for him to slaughter you and your family if you only have a legal musket?
Lets see - people dump unwanted dogs in the country side, and locals seem to refuse to tie up or fence their animals - I have personally shot over 20 dogs attacking my sheep, turkeys, geese and chickens. [and around 10 of the dogs had collars and the owners were pissed off when Animal Control came out and cited them]
Lets see - I happen to like game meat [yummmy yummmy bambi] so I have used the same weapon to kill both feral and packed up dogs and bambi [is there a cartoon name for a wild pig?]
Lets see - I need to maintain proficiency with my weapons so I also target shoot with them.
And as I am handicapped, I have absolutely no expectation of either escape or evasion in the case of a home invasion type crime, so I do have a self defense handgun. No, I would not want to either tase or pepper spray a criminal because I would still be stuck in the damned room with them. Depend on the police? Ever discussed crime with police? In the wilds of Eastern Connecticut they exist to solve crimes, not prevent them. The fastest I have ever had a cop respond on the farm was 3 hours …
Well, I disagree, and I think we are in the realm of opinion here, not indisputable fact. First off, the ar-15 is a skelotinized, tactical looking semi-auto with rails for all kinds of tactical gear.
I would be embarrassed to be seen hunting with that and would be ridiculed for using it by serious hunters around here.
So, regardless of what anybody said when they brought that gun out, the market is tactical not hunting. And, I don’t think anybody seriously said that and thought that. The Ar-15 is, after all the civilian version of the M-16, limited to semi-auto. It is a military tactical rifle through and through.
Does this mean that it can’t be used as a great hunting rifle? No.
I have a couple of semi-autos, one in a .22. It is one of my favorite guns. But, the fact is that I can give it up with no use to utility and hunt and target shoot with my bolt action .22 instead.
If I give that up, I take away the ability of some asshole to buy one of those 200 round magazines and kill a school full of children.
It’s really not much of a tradeoff.
Same with the ar-15 as much as it might be used responsibly it’s too easy to make it massively deadly. A bolt action is more sportsmanlike for hunting and any responsible hunter knows you should be planning your shots when hunting so that you can guarantee an immediate humane kill with a single shot. If you can’t do that, you don’t shoot. A bolt action is just as good as a semi in that context. Again it’s not much of a tradeoff to ban these guns. Nobody is being meaningfully deprived, and the country is a lot safer.
The issue is we don’t all agree on banning the AK. In many ways, the AK you mentioned is functionally no different than a Remington Model 8 first sold in 1908 (many were legally modified to accept replaceable magazines). That Glock isn’t much different than a Colt 1911 first used by the military in 1911 and sold to the public not long after.
The issue is defining what should be banned. Things named “AK##”? Semi auto rifles? What about semi auto shotguns?
Now for handguns; what should be banned there? Just semi auto? A revolver with a quick loader isn’t much slower, and revolvers can arguably fire more powerful, damaging rounds. I’ve known people who hunt deer with a scoped, long barrel 44 Magnum revolver, a task that an AR-15 isn’t powerful enough for.
Where is the line?
What will be the compensation? You can’t just take thousands of dollars worth of property from a person without recompense. Or is it ok because you don’t like the property being taken?
Finally, why is gun crime a problem now compared to 1967, 1947, or 1927 when the technology to basically commit this crime has been commercially available for over 100 years?
Where’s “around here”? Around here (Texas) they are accurate and customizable guns that can be chambered for rounds with 30cal/7.62 bullets good enough for dropping deer, coyotes, or even wild boar (although I would prefer a more powerful round for those mean suckers).
“skelotinized” (sic) and tactical looking have nothing to do with functionality, and are frankly entirely subjective - they don’t look tactical to me.
Well, there are over 300 million guns in the United States, so “one in a million” means 300 mass shootings. Are you fine with 300 mass shootings? I’m not. Let’s get it closer to 0 guns, and 0 mass shootings, is what I say.
The same sort of police state that makes crack cocaine illegal? Guns are more dangerous than crack. Besides, I don’t think most people would go buy a gun from an illegal gun dealer. If guns were made illegal, they’d shrug, maybe complain on a message board, and QUIT BUYING GUNS.
By that argument, this “Great Debates” forums is useless. Why are you having a Great Debate?! Go lobby Congress!
Why should this home invader be able to get his hands on an AR-15? How many British home invaders have AR-15s?
Sounds like you already have a solution – call animal control, and let them handle it, rather than getting out your gun and killing someone else’s pet. That’s commonly known as a “dick move”, by the way.
no issue with you liking wild meat, unless you happen to be hunting endanger species illegally. It’s not an animal rights issue – no big difference between you killing a deer and McDonalds killing a cow – it’s about the environment. I’m not exactly wild about you killing wild animals, but if your state allows it, great. But your game meat habit doesn’t justify children dying when some asshole decides to shoot up his school. If the cost of preventing future shootings is to deny you your game meat, or force you to go to the supermarket, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Problem solved. If you didn’t have guns, you wouldn’t need to be proficient with them!
That sounds like a problem that the police should address. Doesn’t mean you need to go all Rambo and arm yourself for bear. And really? You have no expectation of escape, but a gun will solve your problems? I don’t know what fantasy world you live in, but if I was breaking into your house intending on stealing your TV, and you pulled a gun on me, I’d be much more likely to escalate things to the point where one of us is dead than if you had no weapon.
How am I wrong? I specifically said I am not attempting to address that issue. The only issue I am addressing is how to stop mass killers. I don’t think I could have been any clearer.
You are mistaking what I am saying, and how is it self serving? If you read what I read it should be clear that when I say “the biggest one” I am referring to the ability of an active shooter to kill scores or hundreds of people at a time. That’s only practical with a semi-auto or auto rifle.
Look at what you wrote. Look at what I wrote. I’ve spoken exclusively about semi-auto and auto rifles, not handguns. I’m not talking abou handguns. Why? A handgun does not have the practical range or magazine capacity of a rifle. It’s lethality is lower. It’s hard to imagine someone killing dozens of people and injuring 100s with a handgun.
The logic behind my argument is simply lethality. A crazy person who wants to go on a killing spree is going to find a way to do it. With handguns, a bolt action rifle, swords, knives, pipe bombs, or even a car, I imagine that it will be rare that someone will be able to get more than a dozen people in an incident.
With long range semi-auto and auto rifles the number immediately jumps into the scores of even the hundreds. In that context these are “the biggest problem” and it is probably an accurate assessment if the question we are asking is how do we limit the spree killer?
That’s the question I am asking. That’s the problem I am trying to solve? Are there all kinds of other problems and dangers related to guns? Of course? Some of those are going to be tough to solve. This one should be easy
That’s funny… now what you’re arguing is something should be banned because of how it looks…