Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #599 - Fgner (01/18/2013) [-]
I've never understood this.
Assault rifles aren't something a citizen needs. They've proven that trying to defend yourself with an assault rifle is virtually impossible because when the danger is close enough to identify, the length, weight, and sluggishness of the rifle is too much to react quickly. It's also harder to store and causes more damage. It's an assault weapon - as in "making a physical attack", not a defensive weapon. There is no possible use a citizen has with an AR. And you may say "well what about hunting!" No. Hunting isn't done with fully automatic weapons, it's done with semi or bolt action rifles (of the sniping variety), shotguns, or crossbows. Spray and pray isn't sport.

A handgun is defensive. Can be stored in a holster, quickly removed and fired when in danger. It's a good intimidation tool, and it makes criminals more fearful of committing crimes because you can't pinpoint who does and doesn't have a pistol. I can't recall when or where, but another theatre shooting was attempted, and before the guy even shot a single person, a man in the audience pulled out his handgun and blew the guys brains out. That man had a certified weapon and had taken classes and training to help him know when and how to use the weapon properly. Handguns are perfect for self-defense and keeping criminals fearful of committing their crimes. I think more of our right-minded citizens should carry a sidearm after extensive background checks, mental and physical check-ups, a cooldown period, training courses, and an occasional check up.

But ultimately, the weapons aren't the problem. The problem is this widespread desire to murder other people (or do something that may cause the death of someone else). I hate to say the cliche "guns don't kill people line" but it's true. Maybe we should make crimes with weapons have much heftier penalties, maybe we should do A B and C. I don't know, that's not my job, but it's the right track.
User avatar #702 to #599 - unpricedcdn (01/18/2013) [-]
Though I agree with your end resolve, I shall correct you on a few points. An AR-15 is not fully-automatic, it is semiautomatic. An AR-15 and AR-10 can easily be used for target shooting, competition, hunting, and self defense within the household. I could debate this all day, and give you the clear distinction between the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", but I would rather not.

P.S. AR stands for Armalite Rifle. Armalite produced the rifle first by the design of Eugene Stoner.
User avatar #764 to #702 - Fgner (01/19/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about specific weapons or anything? I'm just using common blanket statement terms. My uncle and (kind of) my dad have plenty of guns and I do enjoy going hunting, to the range, or just taking them apart and cleaning them sometimes. It's just no use being necessarily accurate when it could potentially confuse some.
User avatar #767 to #764 - unpricedcdn (01/19/2013) [-]
It is better to give the correct terminology and true statements, even it it may confuse some. I would rather be confused than completely mislead.
#671 to #599 - ztritionpro (01/18/2013) [-]
You have clearly misunderstood the subject. To clarify I have shot .22 caliber rifles and shotguns. You have a valid point about people not owning fully automatic weapons, people can buy fully automatic weapons, however it is a very long and very tedious process. However most Rifles that you see people having that look like an M16, M4A1 or other weapons of such kind are most likely not fully automatic weapons. The AR 15 is a SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPON that a civilian can purchase. Notice how I have also not used "Assault Weapon" that term does not describe any Rifle or gun. The term was coined by a group wanting tighter gun control laws. A law was passed in 1994 to limit magazine size to 10 rounds and under. Ten years later when is was set to be renewed it failed, simply because it does not actually help anything. People do use the AR 15 for hunting since it has low recoil, good control, and good accuracy. Now this might seem bad if you think about it in a negative way, but what I described a Ruger 10/22 Rifle, it looks exactly like an old run of the mill hunting rifle but it is semi automatic. What I do not understand is this, "this widespread desire to murder others." Where did you get this? Last I checked most people do not automatically want to kill others. I certainly do not want to in any circumstance if possible. Many people buy guns for sport, defense, or hunting. Also, In fact most weapons used in crimes are pistols. The amount of Rifle related deaths, crimes is extremely low. A great way to reduce gun related violence is to stop this "War on Drugs," and improve our mental healthcare. My problem is people not educating themselves on the subject before trying to validate the situation. I do believe however, that citizens do not need fully automatic weapons however the weapon used in the CT shooting was SEMI AUTOMATIC. I hope this post helped you understand or prove a point. It was not meant to offend but rather open your eyes
User avatar #661 to #599 - drewbridge (01/18/2013) [-]

Who are you talking to? There is no point to your entire first paragraph.
#693 to #661 - ztritionpro (01/18/2013) [-]
You can own a fully automatic gun however there is a very long and hard process to due so. The reality is that people do not go through this process since there is not point. However, there are some people that do buy these guns but the number is very small and crimes a extremely rare with these guns. To address your question I am talking to Fgner.
#625 to #599 - RageGuyyourmom (01/18/2013) [-]
I dont understand why people would want guns with **** like this out. I mean, isn't it the worst for people when the bullet gets lodged in them? Id think that this would have a really hard time going all the way through and its perfectly legal without a permit, dye the yellow parts and the average Joe might not even realize its not an actual gun.
User avatar #604 to #599 - buttseckss (01/18/2013) [-]
We don't have guns for defense we have guns to fight the government if need be. Honestly that's how the majority of the revolutionary war was fought.
User avatar #765 to #604 - Fgner (01/19/2013) [-]
I don't think it's a very viable way to fight the government anymore. Like anon said, the government has the most advanced military in the world full of trained military personal. It was possible to overthrow like that back then, but now it's unrealistic. We would be demolished. I believe if you were to make a reason for having guns, would be self-defense of domestic crimes, and protection in case of foreign war.
User avatar #769 to #765 - buttseckss (01/19/2013) [-]
Well we aren't making much progress in Afghanistan, We didn't make much in Vietnam, We didn't make much in Iraq. If it were to come to another civil or revolutionary war it wouldn't be conventional. Now picture those same wars and assume only 1/8 of American gun owners fight. Now instead of the most powerful military in the world outnumbering guerrillas such as Afghanistan imagine the American Military being outnumbered 14 to 1. By soldiers with education and gun knowledge and training. the 500 we have drones couldn't do too much about that.
User avatar #775 to #769 - Fgner (01/20/2013) [-]
That's because we minimize civilian casualties. If the civilians are the targets, a lot more of our firepower will be free for use. Trained gun owners don't mean **** to a tank or attack helicopter or missiles or any of such. And why bring up drones? Drones aren't even used all that offensively...

But I hold firm, nobody is going to start a violent civil war in America. I don't think we could actually go through with it. Our politicians wouldn't dare murder American citizens demanding change in a corrupt system, that would only prove the point and cause the scenario you describe. How tiny would our military become the moment our weapons manufacturers and soldiers found out we aren't defending our country, but killing our own citizens. It's not a viable option not because it's not possible, persay - but simply because it just wouldn't happen. Some other solution or resolve would come long before that (or at least we can pray to God and hope sp).
#656 to #604 - John Cena (01/18/2013) [-]
Even if the government did decide to turn on its citizen's i doubt there is much an automatic weapon is going to do when Apache helicopters are raining down hellfire and tanks are ******* **** up.
 Friends (0)