Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4 - captainoptimist (01/17/2013) [-]
The people protecting the leader of the free world from assassination = need guns.

Random citizens walking the street = maybe need guns

Active military in combat situations = need assault rifles

Anyone else, ever = don't need assault rifles

The end.
User avatar #647 to #4 - mexicandudeinsd (01/18/2013) [-]
but zombies
User avatar #649 to #647 - captainoptimist (01/18/2013) [-]
True. In the event of a zombie apocalypse, they are necessary. However, I can still tick off a pretty long list of people I would rather get eaten by zombies than EVER handle a gun of any kind, ever. Did I mention ever?
User avatar #308 to #4 - dantemp (01/18/2013) [-]
Oh, come on? Seriously? "Random citizens walking the street = maybe need guns"? And who the **** is anyone else, if I may ask? CAUSE EVERYONE IS A RANDOM CITIZEN WALKING THE STREET AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.

And you guys endorsed him so much, wtf?
#257 to #4 - komradkthulu (01/18/2013) [-]
The AR-15 (which is the focus of a lot of debate) is wrongly represented constantly as an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon", being that it is not fully automatic. It's basically a pistol with a longer barrel. And the AR-15 and weapons like it account for less than 3% of gun violence, according to the FBI database. To me, that doesn't sound significant enough to ban.
The AR-15 (which is the focus of a lot of debate) is wrongly represented constantly as an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon", being that it is not fully automatic. It's basically a pistol with a longer barrel. And the AR-15 and weapons like it account for less than 3% of gun violence, according to the FBI database. To me, that doesn't sound significant enough to ban.
#622 to #257 - greasychesticles (01/18/2013) [-]
The thing is, ARs aren't portable the same way hand guns are. You can't bring an AR 15 with you "incase you need to protect yourself", you're carrying an AR-15 for the purpose of hurting someone. I respect your opinion though
User avatar #9 to #7 - captainoptimist (01/17/2013) [-]
I maintain he could have protected himself just as easily with a different kind of gun. He didn't need an assault rifle. He just happened to use one.

If he had used a rocket launcher to attack the intruders, would your logic therefore be that he needed it?
User avatar #16 to #9 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
**** , a baseball bat could've done the job.
User avatar #10 to #9 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
"Assault rifle"
User avatar #11 to #10 - captainoptimist (01/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, having looked up the definition, the AR-15 is frequently referred to as an assault rifle, but is not TECHNICALLY an assault rifle.

I'll amend to "semi-automatic rifles." Same sentiment applies.
User avatar #17 to #11 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
Don't take that back, it's the civilian version of the m-16. It might not be fully automatic, but it is still gas-powered and fires the same round. It is an assault rifle.
User avatar #21 to #17 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
an assault rifle is a selective fire weapon that uses rifle caliber bullets. So I'm glad he corrected himself, but you are being just like the people behind the assault weapons ban: OMG big scary black gun!11!1! It must be an assault rifle!!!11!1!
User avatar #28 to #21 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
Mother ****** ...

Stg 44 did have selective fire.

Regardless, an AR-15 is unnecessary.
User avatar #27 to #21 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
That is not what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle. I am pretty sure the Stg 44, the first assault riffle was only full auto. Arguing that the standard AR 15 is semi-automatic, thus making it so it's not an assault rifle is better. What I am saying is that the AR 15 has the same stopping power as the M-16 (granted I may be wrong about that, I am not an expert), and is still over kill and unnecessary. That kid could've gotten the job done just as well with a hand gun (probably easier, since they are easier to use).
User avatar #31 to #27 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
Also an ar-15 is unnecessary in the same sense that a large truck is unnecessary, it may be a little much but it get's the job done, if not better.
User avatar #36 to #31 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
That all depends on what the job is, there is such thing as over doing it. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the AR 15 would have a higher velocity round than a pistol, unless it was a hallow point the slug is going right through the person, not much else is gonna stop it.
User avatar #42 to #36 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
And I prefer that if the guy had body armor on I could just punch right through it, my intent when using a gun for self defense isn't killing, I'd hate to kill somebody so that means the AR-15 would be a better choice than a pistol for me by that logic.
User avatar #45 to #42 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
My point was that the AR would have the potential of harming an innocent bystander, which no one wants. And I'm pretty sure a pistol is less deadly than an a rifle.
User avatar #47 to #45 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
A bullet going through a person if far less deadly than a bullets that stays in, so if a pistol round stays in and a rifle round goes through then it causes a problem, Personally, I use a mossberg 500 pump action loaded with birdshot. It's lethal but if I don't hit them directly it doesn't kill as easily and still hurts like a bitch when it hits body armor.
User avatar #30 to #27 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
"A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."
That is the real definition, the last one was recited from memory but I do agree we don't need automatic weapons but semi auto helps ALOT.
User avatar #33 to #30 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
Meh, it's a start. My real issue is making guns in general harder to get. When I was in highschool, my freshman year actually, a kid in my grade was going to come in and shoot up the school. He was caught before hand thankfully. He had what was considered an assault weapon (weather your definition for it fits or not, it was a high powered rifle with at least semi-automatic capabilities), his mother got him the rifle under the table at a gun show, and she was a convicted felon (I think...). In a situation where some one is so intent on killing some one that they want to acquire a tool specifically made for that purpose, the most important factor is time, time to cool down, or time to catch the person before it happens.
User avatar #41 to #33 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
I do agree with stricter regulations regarding obtaining a gun (Better mental health check, better background check, etc.) but don't stop people form getting them ,should we ban swords too? Weren't they made for killing? Also cars, they may not have been made for killing but they sure as hell make it easy.
User avatar #44 to #41 - KayRed (01/18/2013) [-]
Well, there are strict regulations on intoxicated driving, but no I don't support a complete ban of fire arms. I think it's something we should work to in the next couple of decades, but as of right now no, just regulations. For me, the whole country needs to be behind a ban, or at least more than we have right now.
User avatar #46 to #44 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
I would never want an outright ban. But I do wish that they implemented a few things: Mental health checkups, Registering rifles such as an ar-15, requiring guns to be sold in a store and not at gun shows (except antiques). Things like that I believe would make a massive impact.
User avatar #544 to #46 - actuallyisdolan (01/18/2013) [-]
oh ok so I cant kill someone with an antique firearm?
User avatar #589 to #544 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
When I say antique I mean cap and ball revolvers and other black powder firearms, not like ww2 guns. You can kill someone with it, but you can't massacre people with it. You'd have at most 6 shots and then take a few minutes to reload, after those six shots the revolver is better off as a blunt weapon nowadays.
User avatar #596 to #589 - actuallyisdolan (01/18/2013) [-]
true, true but it only takes 1 shot to kill a man......i dont know why i am even arguing this i love guns and id the government tries to take them away ***** going down.
User avatar #606 to #596 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
It also only takes one swing from a bat, and you'd probably have greater range with the bat. lol jk, but you really can't stop 1 on 1 murders at all, but massacres can be avoided. And I'm glad you're able to see both sides even though you love guns, people who militantly reject others opinion like a christian are bad most of the time.
User avatar #620 to #606 - actuallyisdolan (01/18/2013) [-]
Yeah, i see no problem with increased strength on back ground checks. if you arent hiding anything then why fight it. but i think the magazine restriction is a bad idea becasue first off it isnt hard to make something like that all you need is alittle scrap metal and ingenuity....what im saying is people will find their way around it like they always have
User avatar #703 to #620 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
I know what you mean, I don't agree with banning high capacity magazines because they're extremely easy to make, why disarm the people if the criminals will get them anyways?
User avatar #51 to #46 - cockassunited (01/18/2013) [-]
Gun shows have the same requirements as gun stores unless you're a private seller.
#157 to #51 - fefe (01/18/2013) [-]
And here we see americunts thinking that they can shoot the problemst that guns bring, such as gun murders etc. Europe almost doesn't have these problems.
#158 to #157 - fefe (01/18/2013) [-]
So when someone shows up with a illegal gun what do you do? Say "Hey you're not supposed to have that?"
User avatar #22 to #21 - thatguywhohasbacon (01/18/2013) [-]
don't know why it underlined that part...
User avatar #12 to #11 - friendlyanonymous (01/17/2013) [-]
Honestly, the only reason they call them assault rifles is because of looks.
 Friends (0)