CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[fncceo]

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

Nope.

Next?

 

[Nosmo King]

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

Nope.

Next?

Would you favor lessening gun restriction,so folks can buy fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, .50 caliber rifles and mortars?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

I agree that if naive HS kids WANT restrictions on gun availability, they should be the 1st to give up THEIR rights until they are 21. Hate to see it.. But that MIGHT make a diff. Also have no use for bump stocks or clips over 30 rounds.

What would make a diff is for the govt to NOT BOTCH their basic job of investigating threats. MOST ALL of the recent terrorist instigators were KNOWN to the FBI.. Even REPORTED to them by gun store owners and the like.. Not to mention the fact that DOD had to apologize for Sutherland Springs because Military court records were not going to the Insta Check system that the NRA PUSHED for. So much MISSING from the current Insta Check because Congressional Dems are fixated on "terrorist watch list" which is a total piece of crap. It's missing gigantic amounts of data from LOCAL, County, State authorities.

Govt can't handle the EXISTING tools. We should keep it simple.

PERSONALLY -- I think it would be MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and accurate to have the Fed Firearms Licensed Gun Dealers do their OWN network of tips and information.. This gets around having the FEDS not being able to retain a lot of information without compromising legal owners privacy. Also gets around the political correct restrictions on "profiling" and time limits on suspected terrorist investigations used by the FBI. They could compare purchases suspicious activity in various states and locales.. And only report to FBI what they deem to be a threat.

That is IN ADDITION to a better NICS. Insta-check and some new FBI employees that aren't from the filing cabinet, rotary phone, rolodex age..

 

[Nosmo King]

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

I agree that if naive HS kids WANT restrictions on gun availability, they should be the 1st to give up THEIR rights until they are 21. Hate to see it.. But that MIGHT make a diff. Also have no use for bump stocks or clips over 30 rounds.

What would make a diff is for the govt to NOT BOTCH their basic job of investigating threats. MOST ALL of the recent terrorist instigators were KNOWN to the FBI.. Even REPORTED to them by gun store owners and the like.. Not to mention the fact that DOD had to apologize for Sutherland Springs because Military court records were not going to the Insta Check system that the NRA PUSHED for. So much MISSING from the current Insta Check because Congressional Dems are fixated on "terrorist watch list" which is a total piece of crap. It's missing gigantic amounts of data from LOCAL, County, State authorities.

Govt can't handle the EXISTING tools. We should keep it simple.

PERSONALLY -- I think it would be MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and accurate to have the Fed Firearms Licensed Gun Dealers do their OWN network of tips and information.. This gets around having the FEDS not being able to retain a lot of information without compromising legal owners privacy. They could compare purchases suspicious activity in various states and locales.. And only report to FBI what they deem to be a threat.

That is IN ADDITION to a better NICS. Insta-check and some new FBI employees that aren't from the filing cabinet, rotary phone, rolodex age..

Should,background checks extend to gunshow sales? Internet sales? Private sales? Commercial sales? Wholesale distribution? Importers?

 

[flacaltenn]

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

I agree that if naive HS kids WANT restrictions on gun availability, they should be the 1st to give up THEIR rights until they are 21. Hate to see it.. But that MIGHT make a diff. Also have no use for bump stocks or clips over 30 rounds.

What would make a diff is for the govt to NOT BOTCH their basic job of investigating threats. MOST ALL of the recent terrorist instigators were KNOWN to the FBI.. Even REPORTED to them by gun store owners and the like.. Not to mention the fact that DOD had to apologize for Sutherland Springs because Military court records were not going to the Insta Check system that the NRA PUSHED for. So much MISSING from the current Insta Check because Congressional Dems are fixated on "terrorist watch list" which is a total piece of crap. It's missing gigantic amounts of data from LOCAL, County, State authorities.

Govt can't handle the EXISTING tools. We should keep it simple.

PERSONALLY -- I think it would be MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and accurate to have the Fed Firearms Licensed Gun Dealers do their OWN network of tips and information.. This gets around having the FEDS not being able to retain a lot of information without compromising legal owners privacy. They could compare purchases suspicious activity in various states and locales.. And only report to FBI what they deem to be a threat.

That is IN ADDITION to a better NICS. Insta-check and some new FBI employees that aren't from the filing cabinet, rotary phone, rolodex age..

Should,background checks extend to gunshow sales? Internet sales? Private sales? Commercial sales? Wholesale distribution? Importers?

NICS DOES apply to commercial sales. Distributors and Importers are MORE regulated than commercial sales. That leaves Private sales and gun shows. (I-net sales can be private or done thru a FFLicensed dealer.)

Private sales no.. I had to dispose of 24 Olympic match quality rifles and 7000 rounds of ammo from my Dad's estate. He ran a Jr. Rifle Marksmanship program. I took it ALL to a FFL dealer. But I OFFERED it to the Boy Scout camp which runs several rifle ranges. Stuff that's in the family should be transferred by the family without additional headaches. BECAUSE of estate settlements and the like.

Gun shows? Meh.. Individuals shouldn't be required to do background checks or have ACCESS to NICS. You'd be requiring to keep similar records and be similarly AUDITED as any FFL dealer would. For someone collecting antiques and collectibles -- this is useless. A large FRACTION of the oft-quoted 160 million guns in America haven't been SHOT in decades. Until you have a concept of what is TRADED at a "gun show", you should be VERY skeptical about how much crime potential those guns represent...

NOT MANY of the "scary" guns are private sales at gun shows by percentage.

 

[fncceo]

.50 caliber rifles

.50 cal rifles are actually legal and pretty common so, I'd be OK with that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

A fully automatic rifle can be made in a garage so bad people will always have access to them...don't blame me or the NRA

You are to blame if you support the need for mass production along with the NRA's glorification of human killing tools getting into the hands of as many people as possible.

Two points why you are so wrong.

(A)The garage built weapon would be possible but rare. Very rare. This decreases the odds of the Parkland shooter being able to do it. Not everybody has machinists skills.

(B)They would also need to find a place to test it, in an urban area that would be difficult specifically when trying to test a banned weapon that society rejects as a weapon used only by people with evil intent.

You are in favor of increasing the odds of kids getting slaughtered by assault rifle in school. You are to be blamed. Of course you are in denial. You are in love with your human killing toys.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely do NOT need an actual assault rifle.
I do have considerable use for what some people have tried to call "assault rifle" for hunting and competition shooting. But need is too strong a term because I could get by without them. There is no simple answer to your question because you have not indicated how you define "assault rifle"
Seems to me that I have every right to buy something whether I need it or not as long as I don't infringe someone elsies rights.
I am not willing to lay my Constitutional rights aside ever for anyone.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding, post: 1939389

Because peaceable law abiding citizens who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms in defense of their country should be armed and trained with the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess.

And today that would be semi-automatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

But why set the limit there?

If 'preserving liberty' actually depends on gun freaks playing with these high capacity human killing toys, there must be no limit to the power of the toys the loons can legally play with.

By acceptance of limits in place, the assault weapon cultists acknowledge they are merely, playing with toys.

The 'preserving liberty' justification is a fraud. A faked reality propagated for political and monetary gain.

You are not defending liberty. Not even close.

Those who perish in mass murders are denied liberty. What about their liberty? That's what GenZ is asking our generations that has failed them. WTF.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

 

[ding]

ding, post: 1939389

Because peaceable law abiding citizens who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms in defense of their country should be armed and trained with the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess.

And today that would be semi-automatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

But why set the limit there?

If 'preserving liberty' actually depends on gun freaks playing with these high capacity human killing toys, there must be no limit to the power of the toys the loons can legally play with.

By acceptance of limits in place, the assault weapon cultists acknowledge they are merely, playing with toys.

The 'preserving liberty' justification is a fraud. A faked reality propagated for political and monetary gain.

You are not defending liberty. Not even close.

Those who perish in mass murders are denied liberty. What about their liberty? That's what GenZ is asking our generations that has failed them. WTF.

Because nothing more is needed. The populace being armed with the technology of the day that a light infantry ought to possess is all that is needed to serve as a deterrent which is what the founders intended.

Semiautomatics with high capacity magazines is all that is needed.

 

[hadit]

Needs are defined by desires. I NEED a fast car because I want to drive as fast as I can get away with. I NEED to have an abortion because I don't want to deal with the consequences of irresponsible behavior. I NEED a garden in my back yard because I want to grow my own food.

Thus, if you want to know why someone NEEDS a semi automatic rifle that looks scary, look at what they want to accomplish. They may want to be secure in their own home and don't want to deal with working a mechanism when facing an armed intruder. They may enjoy shooting a lot of holes in a target in a short period of time. They may just enjoy collecting such guns. In short, they NEED such guns because they could not get what they want from other things. Seriously, why are people so obsessed with what someone else needs, anyway?

There are very few things that anyone truly needs, but once you start giving up freedoms that you take for granted, you start realizing what you've lost, but you won't get them back short of a bloody uprising. Why do you think people all over the world want to come here? They simply want as little interference in their lives as possible.

Freedom is messy, freedom is dangerous, freedom requires responsibility. I know that word is anathema today.

 

[Rambunctious]

You are to blame if you support the need for mass production along with the NRA's glorification of human killing tools getting into the hands of as many people as possible.

Two points why you are so wrong.

(A)The garage built weapon would be possible but rare. Very rare. This decreases the odds of the Parkland shooter being able to do it. Not everybody has machinists skills.

(B)They would also need to find a place to test it, in an urban area that would be difficult specifically when trying to test a banned weapon that society rejects as a weapon used only by people with evil intent.

You are in favor of increasing the odds of kids getting slaughtered by assault rifle in school. You are to be blamed. Of course you are in denial. You are in love with your human killing toys.

Don't be a fool guns of all kinds are made all over the world...in factories and in warehouses and yes in back alley garages...there are so many guns out there that we can ban every gun close down all manufacturers of guns and even confiscate them all from America and we would still have millions of guns out in the world...
Your simple mind will never comprehend the amount of semi and fully automatic guns there are on sale all over the world in every nation and in every part of the world you can buy a gun...
You want someone to blame...I get that... but you apparently don't have the guts to place the blame where it should be...with the shooter...the Broward county Sheriff's office and the corrupted FBI...the NRA and I was not there...

 

[flacaltenn]

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

He killed a President, and wounded a Governor in a moving vehicle with a SINGLE SHOT rifle from 600 yards.. Multiple shots. I think that's part of the calculus of mayhem here.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because the average soldier marine and cop needs one and they are a much greater threat to me than I am to them.

Have any military personnel established a beachhead on your front lawn?

A lawn is not a beach.

Massive fail

 

[Soupnazi630]

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

Oswald wasn't a mass shooter. He killed only one man, even though that one guy was a very important one.

He killed a President, and wounded a Governor in a moving vehicle with a SINGLE SHOT rifle from 600 yards.. Multiple shots. I think that's part of the calculus of mayhem here.

Wrong.

It was not a single shot rifle. It was magazine fed. A single shot rifle is a weapon which can only be loaded with one round at a time.

It also was not 600 yards or even close.

All three shots he fired were from less than 100 yards.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?

No I would not agree with that

 

[airplanemechanic]

But, in service of this particular thread, let us call an assault rifle an AR-15, an AK-47 and any other rifles commonly used by mass shooters.

Well then that's a serious issue because AK-47's and AR-15's are very rarely used in mass shootings. In fact they're used in less than 5% of all mass shootings.

So if you want to talk about the weapon most commonly used in mass shootings lets talk about the handgun.

So what do you want to talk about, assault rifles or guns most commonly used in mass shootings? Because they're not the same thing.

Weapons used in mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2017 | Statistic

A total of 43 rifles have been used in 35 mass shootings between 1982 and 2017.

And of those rifles, how many fit your definition of an "assault rifle?" Even less.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Justify your need for us to justify our need for an assault rifle.

I don't have an AR-15 and I don't need one. But if I wanted one, I don't need to justify it to anyone. It's no one's business as to why I would purchase one and the only thing anyone needs to know is that I'm not using it in an illegal manner.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes but you might use it to shoot up a school. And because some teenager somewhere whom you never met and will never know has done just that, you no longer have a right to own this weapon.

That's the liberal mentality and its downright scary.