Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[Nosmo King]

So if I attack you, invade your home, and kill everyone in the house with a pair of revolvers, I was using defensive weapons?

By your definition they would be defensive weapons. Could I claim I was defending myself?

I have been wondering why there is constant equivocation among gun nuts? You can't agree on simple definitions. If someone makes a statement about a clip, they are called idiots because the proper word is 'magazine'. You get all bogged done in semantics. I guess that makes it more palatable when news of another mass shooting goes gun lust salves the brutality and makes the corpses smell less like dead and more like game.

You didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

 

[g5000]

Maybe someone answered this but let's ask again: why does any private citizen need an assault rifle with 30-rd magazine? Is it for hunting? Do you need an assault rifle with 30-rd mag for deer hunting?

Since when do you have to prove a NEED before you can exercise your inalienable rights?

Serious question.

Why does any private citizen need midget porn? Using your astonishing illogic, we must require people to prove they NEED midget porn before they are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights.

This is exactly why some people opposed the Bill of Rights, because it implied the government grants rights instead of protects them. Fools like you who think that is the way it ought to be (rights granted by the government) really need to stop and...you know...THINK. Apply your illogic to our other rights and you will quickly realize how unbelievably stupid you sound.

 

[g5000]

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible.

So?

I can see this is leading to the whole "need" idiocy.

 

[g5000]

With the internet, I can download tens of thousands of pornographic images in a very short time. I can collect more porn in an hour than my dad was able to collect over five years.

Using the "need" illogic, we should be able to limit the speed and amount of porn people are able to acquire. Only the insane and the immature would want that much porn.

Screw the first amendment rights. Prove you need that much informational download capability.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have been wondering why there is constant equivocation among gun nuts? You can't agree on simple definitions. If someone makes a statement about a clip, they are called idiots because the proper word is 'magazine'. You get all bogged done in semantics. I guess that makes it more palatable when news of another mass shooting goes gun lust salves the brutality and makes the corpses smell less like dead and more like game.

You didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

You STILL didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

 

[g5000]

You there! You have too many video games. No one needs that much entertainment.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have been wondering why there is constant equivocation among gun nuts? You can't agree on simple definitions. If someone makes a statement about a clip, they are called idiots because the proper word is 'magazine'. You get all bogged done in semantics. I guess that makes it more palatable when news of another mass shooting goes gun lust salves the brutality and makes the corpses smell less like dead and more like game.

You didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

We understand what you are claiming. The problem is, you have no basis for the claims.

"Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible" Wow. Could you try and be a little more dramatic next time.

Oh, and in addition to being overly dramatic, the line is bullshit.

Those weapons were designed to be able to be fired more without reloading. That is all. That is the sum total of the intent of the designers.

When the military looked for semi-auto pistols, they wanted something which could fire a sufficiently powerful round, be reloaded quickly, and that could hold more rounds than revolvers did. (there were also some durability tests and other mil spec things) The sidearms have always been considered defensive weapons. The rifle has been the primary weapon for infantry since the sword and bow were shown to be obsolete. There is no military unit that considers the pistol to be a primary offensive weapon.

And by your definition, a pump shotgun will always be a defensive weapon, even though it primarily sprays shot in a large pattern, thereby harming more people in a given space. A rifle, by contrast, puts one bullet in one precise placeeach time it is fired.

 

[g5000]

I want a gun that fires 600 rounds a minute. Prove to me that you NEED me, a law-abiding citizen with 20 years of military service, not to have it. Not the other way around, assholes.

 

[WinterBorn]

With the internet, I can download tens of thousands of pornographic images in a very short time. I can collect more porn in an hour than my dad was able to collect over five years.

Using the "need" illogic, we should be able to limit the speed and amount of porn people are able to acquire. Only the insane and the immature would want that much porn.

Screw the first amendment rights. Prove you need that much informational download capability.

There are many things that could be limited if "need" were the deciding factor.

Do you need your own car? Isn't there public transportation with half a mile of your home?

Do you need a home computer? Doesn't the public library have plenty of them you can use for free?

The list could be almost endless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

We understand what you are claiming. The problem is, you have no basis for the claims.

"Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible" Wow. Could you try and be a little more dramatic next time.

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

 

[bendog]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Very nice avatar. There's no universal means to prevent such attacks. They can be made more difficult. I'm cynically convinced that it's no more politically possible to have a database of people who have sought mental health treatment and who must pass some professional screening before buying any firearm that it is a ban on high capacitiy magazines/weapons.

In short, we're locking into impotence by the extremes on either side.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Very nice avatar.

Thanks! Scanned the countersheets before I punched them out.

 

[Nosmo King]

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

We understand what you are claiming. The problem is, you have no basis for the claims.

"Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible" Wow. Could you try and be a little more dramatic next time.

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have been wondering why there is constant equivocation among gun nuts? You can't agree on simple definitions. If someone makes a statement about a clip, they are called idiots because the proper word is 'magazine'. You get all bogged done in semantics. I guess that makes it more palatable when news of another mass shooting goes gun lust salves the brutality and makes the corpses smell less like dead and more like game.

You didn't answer his questions.
Imagine that.

The simple, easy to understand point is if you have a weapon with a semi automatic firing system and fitted with a magazine holding more than ten rounds, you are not on the defensive, but on the offensive. Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible. Maybe that's why they are the weapon of choice for lunatics and the immature.

I just noticed the part I made bold.

So, are you saying that the immature choose semi-autos with hi cap mags? Or that they are immature because they choose semi-autos with hi cap mags?

And what about someone who, like me, chooses a semi-auto that only holds 8 rounds? Am I just half immature?

 

[g5000]

Only a maniac would want the government deciding what you need. Seriously.

Think, people.

 

[WinterBorn]

We understand what you are claiming. The problem is, you have no basis for the claims.

"Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible" Wow. Could you try and be a little more dramatic next time.

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We understand what you are claiming. The problem is, you have no basis for the claims.

"Such weapons are designed to wreck as much carnage as possible" Wow. Could you try and be a little more dramatic next time.

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

Bullshit. I gave my reasons.

Yes.. All based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand.

I rest my case.

I see carnage wrought by guns...

Further so.

made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex

Keep on digging that hole, boy...

 

[Nosmo King]

We all know that anti-gun loons can only argue from emtion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; NK does nothing but prove this true.

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bullshit. I gave my reasons. If those reasons are too sensible for you to refute, you crawl into your well worn shell claiming emotion and ignorance. I do not see the constitution as a suicide note. I read "well regulated militia" and BELIEVE IT rather than dismiss it out of hand. I see carnage wrought by guns made more powerful than necessary and wielded by those with a Rambo complex. No one is assaulted by both the Bloods and the Cryps and the entire Sioux Nation and the Corleone family all at once. Therefore, the fantasies held by those lusting for military weapons are merely childish desires to play the hero.

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

 

[Nosmo King]

No, you have not given reasons for anything. You have rambled on about no one being attacked by the Bloods and the Crips and the entire Souix Nation. That is not an actual reason.

Had you actually read the links posted in the other thread, you would have seen one I posted (at least twice) that showed trained police officers, when faced with a stressful situation (like being shot at), had very poor accuracy in many cases. One test of the NYPD had a hit rate of about 18%. The next year they were much improved and hit about 25% of the time. The LAPD did much better with a 40% hit rate.

And this is for trained law enforcement officers, not civilians.

If the civilian has only hits 25% of the time (in such a stressful situation as defending his home), a 15 round magazine yields less than 4 rounds hitting the bad guys. Perhaps you WISH that 4 hits could stop every defensive situation.

But you claim a semi-auto with a magazine capacity of more than 10 cannot be used defensively. I guess you would prefer everyone armed with a revolver? A 25 hit rate with 6 rounds yields only 1.5 hits.

So civilians armed with assault weapons will make the streets safer? Why? How can spraying around more bullets make a situation safer?

If there was an armed civilian in the theater in Aurora, would their ability to shoot 20, 30, 40 rounds make the other patrons safe? A civilian with an assault weapon at Virginia Tech would make the students, faculty and staff safer after shooting and missing their target?

The prescription you offer to stop gun violence is to shoot more. After you said even trained law enforcement officers are poor shots in stressful situations.

Do you subscribe to the old notion "kill them all and let God sort it out"?

Why aren't you embrassed by the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?

Why aren't you ashamed of gun violence?