Orlando

[rrshock]

So on the semi-auto weapons of any kind...

Should we ban semi-auto shotguns too? What about revolvers that don't have to be cocked evrytime? Anf the six shot semi-auto handguns? Where does it stop? We all know it won't.

I personally believe that we are given the right to bear arms by the second amendment in order to protect us from a government take over. Since the government already has fully auto weapons with 30+ shot magazines, how can we protect ourselves against that with guns with 10 or less shots?

The government, as was mentioned earlier, is super corrupted. They do what they want, not what the citizens want or need. Why are we advocating for the government to make more laws that will restrict even further? They already want to control our everyday activities it seems.

[wufan]

Thank you for your comments. I've always enjoyed debating with you even though we tend to disagree fundamentally about many of these issues.

Just as a clarification, it would need to be a 95% reduction in mass shootings, right? I think it's been something like 200 people killed in mass shootings since 2010 (I am certain not all of those deaths have come from assault rifles, but that's not really important for my question). For you to support a ban on assault rifles, that would need to drop to like 10 or fewer over the next 6 years (and, obviously, not see other deaths skyrocket, such as bombs, etc.). So to you the risk of government tyranny and the importance of freedom in this area would not be worth a 25% reduction in mass shootings to something like 150 over the next 6 years? I appreciate your answer, and I don't really have anything else to say. I was only interested in finding out how highly people valued the right to own assault rifles.

Generally speaking, yes. If 95% less people died because of a specific legislation I would listen. 25% less, probably not, but this is in regards to dozens/hundreds dying annually. If it was 25% less on the level of 10s of thousands, then I would listen to that.

[jdshock]

I personally believe that we are given the right to bear arms by the second amendment in order to protect us from a government take over. Since the government already has fully auto weapons with 30+ shot magazines, how can we protect ourselves against that with guns with 10 or less shots?

How do you expect to protect yourself against the government with fully automatic guns with 30+ shot magazines when the government has drones, F22's, and nuclear weapons?

[pinstripers]

I think 99% of the public thinks that assault rifle means machine gun.

[Cdizzle]

How do you expect to protect yourself against the government with fully automatic guns with 30+ shot magazines when the government has drones, F22's, and nuclear weapons?

Good question.

[jdshock]

Good question.

[MoValley John]

I think 99% of the public thinks that assault rifle means machine gun.

True.

[MoValley John]

I think we need to quantify exactly how many people have been killed with so called assault weapons in the United States this year. Not Glock's, not shotguns, I want a body count on exactly how many people have died at the hands of AK's, AR's and whatever other weapon fits the bill.

Then I want to compare that number to how many people have been strangled, stabbed and bludgeoned. My guess is, even taking into account the fifty in Orlando, more people have been strangled, more people have been stabbed and more people have been bludgeoned.

If we reduced the number of people shot with assault rifles to zero, I don't think you have moved the needle on the murder rate. So, limiting the ban does nothing. Ban 'em all or don't waste your time.

[jdshock]

I think we need to quantify exactly how many people have been killed with so called assault weapons in the United States this year. Not Glock's, not shotguns, I want a body count on exactly how many people have died at the hands of AK's, AR's and whatever other weapon fits the bill.

Then I want to compare that number to how many people have been strangled, stabbed and bludgeoned. My guess is, even taking into account the fifty in Orlando, more people have been strangled, more people have been stabbed and more people have been bludgeoned.

If we reduced the number of people shot with assault rifles to zero, I don't think you have moved the needle on the murder rate. So, limiting the ban does nothing. Ban 'em all or don't waste your time.

Mass killings are a radically different type of wrong than one on one violence. Mass killings are acts of terror. If we could somehow stop 100% of mass killings with no invasion of our rights, we would all take that deal even though that is a fraction of the total number of deaths in a year.

[MoValley John]

I just looked it up, I was right. "Assault rifles" account for less than 2% of all gun crimes and less than 1% of all murders. Assault weapons are the red herring that gets all guns banned.

http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/BL-MWEB-2542?mobile=y&mobile=y

[ShockRef]

AR-15

The funny thing is that most of the gun-phob's like Shaka Khan actually think the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle.

Admit it, you do.

That is all.

[MoValley John]

Mass killings are a radically different type of wrong than one on one violence. Mass killings are acts of terror. If we could somehow stop 100% of mass killings with no invasion of our rights, we would all take that deal even though that is a fraction of the total number of deaths in a year.

But now you circle back to the fact that most mass killings are done by bombs, not guns. Furthermore, the mass killings done by guns are much more likely to be handguns than AK's. If you really want to solve the problem of gun violence, the logical start is not AK's or AR's, but 9mm Glocks.

The real reason that gun control centers around AR's is ignorance. People see this big, ugly, menacing piece of metal and it strikes fear. Afterall, it looks military, it must be much more dangerous than that little Glock that would fit in a purse. Then, we have two or three incidents where AR's killed a lot of people and we clamour for a gun ban. Forget the fact that statistically, compared to other means, gun deaths by "assault weapons" are minute at best.

[MoValley John]

The funny thing is that most of the gun-phob's like Shaka Khan actually think the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle.

Admit it, you do.

That is all.

ArmaLite Rifle

And no, the press will not clarify this.

[rrshock]

I think 99% of the public thinks that assault rifle means machine gun.

And that is showing just how ignorant alot ofnthe anti gun people are. An AR 15 or 10 is definitely not a machine gun.

[rrshock]

ArmaLite Rifle

And no, the press will not clarify this.

Exactly. Because that will take away from the story.