There is no need to be aggressively stupid here

1. Adam Lanza did not use an assault rifle. If you want to use a phrase like assault rifle learn what it means and how to use if properly. If appearing as an idiot is your forte, then please, use terms like a small child without knowing what they are what they actually mean. Wikipedia is easy to use, quick to utilize, and best of all, free.

2. Yes, people use AR-15's for hunting. It is a sporting rifle. If you make any claim to the contrary, your claim will contradict reality. Just because a rifle looks scary does not make it different from a firearm with a woodstock.

3. AR-15's are not magical killing machines. A poster had a video of a man shooting a handgun at people at a desk (failing to hit them) and claiming that had he done with with an AR-15 that they would have been killed. Probably not. Had he fired his weapon in the same sloppy manner the same thing with the rifle they would have walked away as they did. Had he aimed his handgun they would have been killed. He he aimed a rifle they would have been killed.

4. Banning these firearms will not accomplish a thing. If firearm X is banned someone will use firearm Y. Columbine occurred during the 1994 Crime Bill, the shooters did not use "assault weapons" that the bill banned. Keep that in mind. Before you use the phrase "copy cat guns" think for a second, assault rifles have been regulated (by function, as they did not actually exist yet) since 1934, post 1986 assault rifles banned in 1986, the semi-automatic look a likes in 1994, and the Columbine Shooters used semi-automatic look a likes of the semi-automatic look a likes in their shooting. If you choose to use that argument, you are relying solely on the physical appearance of the firearms and not any differing level of function. A great way to look like a blabbering idiot.

5. If you know very little or nothing about firearms, do not speak from a position of authority. You are in no position to do so, and I enjoy running circles around you.

6. Before you accuse my of being an NRA drone, keep in mind that:
* I am not a member of the NRA
* I favor more gun control in certain areas
* I am an uber left wing socialist, who (politically) has very little in common with most of my fellow gun owners.

 

You are giving these people way too much credit. They have a demonstrated aversion to factual information and logical argumentation because they are just emoting, which is really all they know how to do when it comes to firearms. The knee-jerk reactions and lack of rationality coming from the gun-grabbing crowd is truly disturbing in how utterly fantasy-based it is...

 

The only people who freak out about this stuff more than several Europeans here are the Dianne Feinstein types.

 

Oh pardon us for being so ignorant in the face of your overwhelming knowledge and please, forgive us for not knowing all that you do.

Arrogant much?

It is about REASONABLE regulation.

So you want to own one of those toy army guns? So what? It is next to useless for either hunting or self defense. It's sole grace as a weapon is its ability to fire lots of shots in a very short time. In the jope, most of them false, you will hit something, anything, by accident. So own one.

But what is the reason for a magazine capable of holding 50, 70, 90 rounds? Why can we not look toward limiting the capacity of these the way the capacity of pump action shotguns are limited?

REASONABLE

Why can we not limit the number of each type of weapon say to 2 of each. Two of each type of shotgun, two semi handguns, two revolvers... Even Neo could only fire two weapons at once and he was like, THE ONE even before Obama became "the one."

REASONABLE

Why can we not say to people, "We don't care what type of gun you own, just go to the NRA and get training and certification." Then show that certification whenever you buy ammunition. Can't buy shotgun shells unless the NRA has trained you in handling a shotgun. Heck, make the training government paid. It's a lot cheaper to train someone than it is cleaning up their mess.

REASONABLE

You'll pardon me for not being as smart and well informed as you. I tend to think in terms of problems and solutions rather than caliber and gauge. The problem is 10k people dying every year and the overwhelming majority of time the root cause is a gun which, if it had not been so readily available, would have eliminated the incident or greatly reduced its impact.

 

Army guns?

AR-15's are not "army guns". The military does not field them.

People use for hunting. People use them for self-defense.

Care to prove my point further? Or are you going to continue using blatant and willful ignorance as the basis of your argument?

 

He made a lot of good points. Are you not going to address them based on one mistake?

 

The original AR-15 was a assualt rifle designed for military service. The one used in the shooting was a civilian legal version that is modified and toned down. Anyone who uses an AR-15 in hunting is an idiot. They are too powerful, and damage the meat. Hunters who use these types of rifles tend to be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who can't hunt without overpowered rifles.

 

"There is no reason to be aggressively stupid here".

Please, stop being ignorant.

The 5.56 NATO musters 1,300ftlbs. of energy. The most popular hunting cartridge on the market, 30-06, musters 2,700ftlbs. of energy. My .300Winmag outputs 4,000ftlbs. of energy.

The 5.56 NATO does not meet the minimum requirements to hunt anything larger than dogs in Colorado.

You haven't a clue. You are not an authority on the subject.

Do not act like one.

 

Gee. I thought I said "toy army guns"

Armies don't field "toy army guns" but men who play army play with "toy army guns."

Now what was that other thing I said?????

Oh yeah!

ARROGANT MUCH?

 

There is nothing "reasonable" about your position because mountains of real-world evidence demonstrate the FAILURE of MANY BANS to effectively prevent criminal activities. FOR INSTANCE, Chicago and Washington DC BOTH had BANS on handguns, BOTH of which FAILED MISERABLY to achieve any measurably reduction in gun crime. YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE is the FAILED BAN on drugs like cocaine and heroin, or the FAILED BAN on alcohol during prohibition. How many FAILED BANS must I cite before you will realize that simply banning things accomplishes virtually NOTHING aside from hanging more power to scumbag politicians?

 

20 6-7 year olds got sprayed with 100s of bullets and you are here arguing for the protection of this type of man-made weapon? You guys are some very sick people.

 

Ayuh,.... Great post,....

You Prove beyond any doubt, that Wolverines Op is in fact the absolute Truth,....

You don't have a single Clue as to this subject,... Nada, None...

 

"Toy army gun" is just a made-up term with no objective meaning or relevance, but don't let that stop you from spewing ignorance on this thread, even though you were specifically asked not to...

 

Why are we sick? Try explaining yourself instead of just making mindless assertions for once.

 

I was completely unaware that "toy army gun" was a term used in gun control debates.

What does it mean exactly?

 

Reading problem?

Did I use the word ban?

What did I propose banning?

 

What are you proposing then?

 

It's self explanatory. A man made killing machine was purchased legally, the kid was trained legally, and used this weapon that has no reason to be built for civilians to kill 20 children and 6 adults, and almost all of them were hit 3-11 times. And you guys are building strawmans saying that he could have just used another weapon or it's very easy to get it on the black market. The fact is the kid tried to buy a weapon, was denied, and then took a legally purchased weapon from his mothers house that he was trained to use. You have no clue what he would have done had his mother not had that weapon or ever had the ability to purchase it. It's just sick how you take the stance of keeping a man made weapon like this that is used for these kind of crimes... just because you hate the Govt. Sick!

 

He was being facetious, it's pretty obvious what it means.

 

If a person is barred from purchasing a firearm they are barred from possessing a firearm.

What is your point?

 

Do you support the right of civilians to own handguns?

 

Actually, no it is not.

An AR-15 is not used by the Army, and it is not a toy. Two of those words fail to describe the AR-15.

 

With reasonable clips, yes I do

 

I guess you don't understand what facetious is

 

So why limit it to only Broomhandles?