You’re right, there is no difference. They are all tools made for killing. Ban then all. But I know I can’t get enough people to agree with me to actually get that done. So if I can go part way, great, let’s start with that.
All of the above.
All of the above. The line is really quite simple. Tool made for killing? Illegal.
If they banned tinted windows tomorrow, I wouldn’t expect compensation for my car’s tinted windows. But fine, if it got people to give up their guns, I’d be more than happy to have a government buyback program for a few months before the ban falls into place.
It was a problem in 1967 and 1947 and 1927. Guns shouldn’t have been legal in 1776. So just because we haven’t solved this problem before, we shouldn’t solve it now?
Not what I said. Suggesting it was a tactical weapon, I cited its, looks, it’s semi-auto function, and… you know… the fact that it’s an m16 designed for military use, released for civilian use after being limited to semi-auto. This is not much of a limitation as bump stocks, trigger cranks, and various other mods legal and illegal can restore it to the functional equivalent of an automatic.
Your ignorance of the many MANY variations of the Colt AR-15 isn’t doing you many favours here.
In any event, both you and OP constantly keep avoiding an elephant in the room. The Port Arthur massacre was committed with a 20 year old semi-automatic rifle. Banning semi-automatic rifles in 2017 (besides overturning 2A) cannot remove the millions of SAR’s already in circulation, to be frank it’s a fantasy, and even then, there’s this huge big ass border with a country called Mexico where they’re simply keep on coming in anyhow.
And? Most car drivers who never ride a bike believe bike riders should pay registration. Still doesn’t make them right. What you’re doing is you’re conflating your notions of ‘a perfect world’ with the ‘real world’. They don’t co-exist. They can’t co-exist.
I am pretty ignorant of it. It’s not appealing to me. Just out of curiosity, what did I say that gave away my ignorance? Which at-15 is not a civilian model of the M16 limited to semi-auto?
I wasn’t avoiding it. You didn’t ask. Now that you’ve brought it up, I’ll be glad to address it. We should do what they did in Australia. There is a period of amnesty where you can turn your guns in and be compensated. After that I’d propose that possession is a felony.
As for Mexico, it’s funny you brought that up. Mexico has one gun store. Just one.
Answer: Every rifle that isn’t made by Armalite. That’s why the Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine is a hunting rifle, that’s what it was designed and sold for.
Clearly you have no idea how expensive it was for Australia to remove just 320,000 SAR’s from Australian society between 1997-2000. And this in a country where ownership penetration was less than 5% of citizens. And even then, it’s estimated 10% of the people who DID own SAR’s prior to 1997 never handed them in. I know my neighbor didn’t.
If the USA tried to do what Australia did? A compulsory buyback and compensation scheme? Even if, in your fantasy, you could magically overturn 2A? You’re easily looking at billions and billions of dollars, and still, 10% of people who currently own SAR’s won’t hand them in. Because that’s exactly what happened in Australia.
You may want to reconsider the “tool made for killing” thing. My chef knife fits this category. We eat a lot of animals and at some point we kill the to eat them. We use tools to do this. The unfortunate fact is that anything that is good for killing a cow, is also going to do a number on human beings.
I also really enjoy shooting my bow and arrow.
Trapshooting is about the funniest thing a human can do. The loads used for this are surely dangerous, but it would actually be tough to kill somebody with at other than point blank to the head range. At that range I think a machete would be more useful. I have one that I keep on the back of my lawnmower to cut small hanging tree limbs, clear out pricier bushes and such.
The tool made for killing doesn’t address chin saws which were made for something else, but are so good at killing they do it all the time by accident.
My point is that lots of things are good for killing, being made for killing is kind of moot. It’s how good at it a thing is that matters.
Since you can’t get rid of all the things that are really good at killing why not focus on lethality. Start with the things that are really good t killing lots and lots of people at once. Regulate and ban those as the case might be and work your down.
That’s still a pittance in the federal budget. Sounds like a great use of tax money.
But there are no new guns of this type being sold in Australia, and mass shootings are down.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that my idea is not magical and does not solve all problems perfectly. you’re not telling me anything. It’s not a perfect solution, but it would make things better and save lives. That’s pretty good.
For reasons which defy speculation, you seem to be convinced the semi automatic rifle came AFTER the M16… it’s the other way around. Arguing that a semi-auto hunting rifle is LESS lethal than an AR-15 is like arguing one car is less lethal than another, based on it’s colour. Your ignorance on this subject is off the dial, and so you’re clutching at the logical fallacy that because the AR design style of rifles followed the modular design of an M16 that they too must be more lethal than say a Remington R-25. The difference between ‘AR style rifles’ and classical hunting SAR’s is effectively cosmetic, save for the modular approaching of being able to replace bits.
Give me a semi automatic hunting rifle and I can be just as deadly as if I’m holding a real deal Armalite AR-15. There is no functional difference.
Maybe you think so, but there is nothing in my posts to give that impression.
I made no such argument.
Again this wholly your construction and represents nothing I said.
Oh, I might disagree with you there, but it’s hardly worth getting into. Anyway, I’ve suggested banning all semis so it’s moot which is better. You are more than welcome to enjoy whatever style gun you prefer.
Ok Rambo. You are very cool, and you’ve asserted your manhood by detailing irrelevant minutiae about specific firearms irrelevant to the larger debate. I apologize for whatever perceived slight I perpetrated upon your precious toy.
Hey, dial back the f*cking personal shit and pull your head in.
Focus on the debate and step back from where you just stepped.
The question is why should guns be legal. You’ve chimed in with a belief that semi-automatic 'military spec assault rifles" should be banned but hunting rifles are OK. Well guess what, hunting rifles, a lot of them are semi auto. When confronted with this, you constantly keep replying 'that’s not what I said…" well it is what you said.
By your own admission you ARE ignorant on the subject of firearms and yet you keep offering opinions which require you to be knowledgeable. Bastille Day in Nice proved that a truck, in the hands of a bad actor, is highly lethal. Your logic says a semi automatic rifle is more lethal than a bolt action. If we apply your logic we’re going to have to ban trucks, all of them to prevent the one in a million chance someone will use a truck to commit mass murder.
Again, cognitive dissonance is what I’m seeing here. Go back up to my earlier post about how incredibly expensive it was for Australia to implement a compulsory compensation scheme to forcefully acquire legally owned property.
Go on, it’s a few posts back. Remember how you announced that was exactly the model the USA should follow? Yep that post, the one you happily ignored.
And that, right there, answers the Opening Post’s question - at least as it applies to the United States. The correct answer is “The Second Amendment says it should be so…”
You missed the subtlety of my point. Ask the question as defined by the Opening Post, and then apply your first reply as the answer. You are reminding Americans that 2A confirms the innate right, therefore all that can be passed is regulation but nothing that might deny that right.