Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: network dude

My thought process was that automatic weapons could kill more people than semi-automatic.

No one (in this thread) will part with the idea of losing their right to purchase semi-automatic guns in the future so I wanted to know what they thought about automatic weapons...that are never used anyway...so why not?

I'm out, its like beating my head on a wall, we will have to just agree to disagree on this issue. I just hope the right decision is made with who we elect to office.

It's a shame you don't want to discuss this after you started the idea. I am just curious as to the reason you think removing fully auto weapons access would fix anything? Or is is just a stepping stone to getting the semi-auto weapons? You can be honest here, it's just ideas, and they happen to belong to you.

a reply to: network dude

sorry dude (of the network).

Im fresh out. Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree. I was actually fishing for a "gun lover" (I don't mean that derogatory by the way) to say something along the lines of

"if automatic assault rifles were an issue and would save lives, then yes, I could give them up" but no love there, you guys don't want to budge on ANYTHING!

I understand your footing, I really do, I just think that we are having too many massacres and guns (semi or fully automatic) need MORE regulation.

I cannot debate any longer bc it is both of our heads being hit against a wall, we will never change each other mind

a reply to: network dude

All are law abiding .. until they are not.

Then they become mass murderers with legally bought
assualt rifles. I like Americans.. but you guys will never figure this out.

Guns kill people.. an attacker couldnt kill 50 people with a knife..

It's just so much easier with a decent semi automatic rifle.

But its not my business and this is just my opinion.

The Orlando shooter was a terrorist. You, and people like you, are terrified of guns, and it increases with each one of these cowardly terrorist acts. Do you see what's happening here? Look at the individuals committing these atrocities, and the root causes.

Also, as has already been pointed out, the incredibly overwhelming majority of gun crime occurs with handguns, in inner cities that are plagued by drugs, theft and other horrible problems. In these cities (Chicago is a great example), drugs are and have been illegal for a long time. And even the toughest gun restrictions in the United states hasn't made these areas safer, in fact it seems to have the opposite effect!

Making a thing highly illegal makes it highly profitable for the criminal capitalist. And for those who don't give any thought to existing laws, new restrictions will only increase the value and exclusivity of their product.

And lastly, since the huge majority of the gun crime happens in inner city areas, mostly to minorities, and mostly involve pistols and very rarely the 'assault weapons' which you are so terrified of, and that this cycle is going on year after year without any end in sight, are those lives less important than the lives of gays at an Orlando nightclub? Or the lives of folks in a Colorado movie theater? Or the lives of children in a school?

a reply to: veracity

You don't think gun control is a simple political platform that allows demagoguery instead of actual change?

Apply any gun control measures to our violent crime stats and see how big of a jump you get. Look at Chicago as an example how well has the political gun control campaign worked?

Has it stopped poverty? Did it clean up terrible schools? Ho about jobs for the poor? Did it help treat drug addicts? How about gang task forces did it help them bring down organized crime

No

Then you are being used and misled.

Led AWAY from the root of the problems.

I'm feeling the DK effect here.

OP, please, direct us to any use of a fully automatic weapon to kill people within the U.S. within the last 10 years.

The problem here is you're not even sure what you mean and you still seem to be using the terms "semi-automatic," and "fully automatic," or "automatic," interchangeably; they are two different mode of operation for firearms.

This is where your lack of knowledge is stifling your ability to understand why others in this thread are having a hard time with what you are saying.

a reply to: rigel4

I could build a chemical bomb with the contents of my cleaning cupboard and my tool drawer, that could kill dozens, maul hundreds, and cause huge property damage.

Should we ban cleaning chemicals?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: rigel4

I could build a chemical bomb with the contents of my cleaning cupboard and my tool drawer, that could kill dozens, maul hundreds, and cause huge property damage.

Should we ban cleaning chemicals?

..but its the easy availabilily of these weapons thats the problem..

How many average people could build a bomb and carry out the attach without being identified at some stage of the proceedings.

Much easier to go buy a AR-15 don't you think.. no ones looking because it is legal.

originally posted by: jupiter869

Would you be willing to give up using semi-automatic guns for entertainment purposes at a range (or anywhere else) if you knew giving it up meant the lives of 50 people would be saved? (or even one life?)

You can't save lives. At best, you can prolong them for a while, but every one of those 50 people will die eventually of something.

What you can save, and pass along to future generations, are rights and liberty. Many people have sacrificed their lives to preserve the rights and liberties of their fellow Americans. Many people have the courage to do the same today. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of people in the US are willing to give up the rights and liberties purchased by the lives and blood of brave men before them because of fear.

a reply to: rigel4

He could have killed everyone with a couple cans of gasoline and a Molotov, should we ban gasoline.. its far more readily available than a gun?

a reply to: rigel4

Not really easier to get a gun. For a start, being there when the shooting starts is a dead giveaway. With a bomb, you could be off and away well before the device activates, or control it remotely.

I am nothing special. If I could do it, so could anyone who paid attention in chemistry classes. Hell, you get a bottle of 91% pure sulphuric acid, and some ground up chrome coated aluminium, and you could create a cloud of gas so potent as to liquefy the lungs of everyone in the place, burn their eyes out, and melt their faces. No restricted agents or equipment involved, and the option of being somewhere else when the dying starts, leaving you free and clear to hatch yet more evil schemes.

Again, nothing more required than very basic knowledge of what is contained in bottles of cleaning agents and plumbing gear, the places you cannot use them and why.

N O P E .

a reply to: TrueBrit

Lol, remind me to never piss you off

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: jupiter869

serious question, how would law abiding citizens giving up their semi-auto weapons save any lives? Please expound on that a bit.

a normal society dosent need weapons, americas backward society, as seen here, still believes we british are about to invade hence the second amendment.
semi automatic guns were not available at the time of writing the second amendment.
generally semi automatic weapons are used in mass killings.
would americans be prepared to give up their semi automatic weapons for the blunderbuss knowing this would prevent future mass killings?

no, they're stupid, and not very good shots either.

originally posted by: jupiter869
This is a serious question because I'm honestly curious:

Would you be willing to give up using semi-automatic guns for entertainment purposes at a range (or anywhere else) if you knew giving it up meant the lives of 50 people would be saved? (or even one life?)

I do happen to know they're a real rush to use, but Is the entertainment value of using them worth more than the life of a person to you?

I'm not really talking about making gun control laws, I'm wondering how much you really value a semi-automatic rifle.

I am not willing to give up my guns. Giving up my guns will not save anyone, except maybe someone breaking into my home. My guns are unusual as they actually do not get up and move around and kill people on their own accord.

"Guns kill people"

I get so tired of seeing that, it's such a proclamation to how brainwashed some people have become. At best, it's just a complete lack of logical reasoning.

Guns actually don't kill anybody. I've thought about putting a loaded gun in a box on a table with a live webcam pointing at it 24 hours a day. That way we could catch the very moment when it decided to kill someone and use it to understand what makes a good gun go bad.....Absolutely absurd.

www.bbc.com...

While it's not 50, it's a hell of a lot of people, with significantly more wounded. I wonder what made that knife go bad? Did he get in with a group of bad knives? Was it drugs? Was he radicalized?

Some people just really need to sit down and think some things out. It's propaganda, gun violence, "guns kill people" or any other variation of the sort. It's social engineering and brainwashing that makes these "foot soldiers" run around and repeat ridiculous memes ad nauseam until others start to spout the same thing.

a reply to: jupiter869

Here is MY question Jup.. We always hear from non-owners about how we need more gun control. They see regulations and all the proposals they come up with as a solution to the mass use of firearms for violent confrontations robberies, killings and mass killings. I think their concerns are valid, though their remidies seem ineffective.

My complaint is that there is nothing coming from the pro-gun community in the way of how to stem the violent use of firearms in the commission of crimes. None. All anyone hears from this community is NO NO NO. There seems to be a complete unwillingness to budge in order to restrain the use of these automatic weapons by the bad guys. So under the protection of gun rights for the 'good guys' the bad guys also have free reign to purchase and hold.

I have weapons at home and I have no need of massive fire power to target a deer or a paper target. My weapons suffice for that need well enough. So I for one have no problem with giving up automatic weapons. I do not understand that need at all if we are talking about gun sports or home protection.

For a short while I almost bought into the idea that we need these weapons for the revolution, that when the government forces came to take our guns or our homes or ourselves, that these advanced weapons would stop them. I entertained that notion for maybe a day or two until I realized that even weapons like this would be no match for what the military could drop on me at a moments notice.

So as a gun owner I for one do support a complete ban on these military style weapons in the hands of civilians. They will do us no good and only in our quest for superior fire power allow for that superior fire power to flow freely in the hands of the bad guys.

"a normal society dosent need weapons"

Every society, literally since the existence of mankind, has NEEDED weapons to protect and feed themselves. Without them, their existence would have been impossible.

We got some real thinkers around here.

Quick, somebody draw a historically accurate cartoon of a group of cavemen talking down a group of predators to save their village.

a normal society dosent need weapons, americas backward society, as seen here, still believes we british are about to invade hence the second amendment.

This statement is false. The purpose of the Second Amendment (I will keep it simple for you) is to have the citizens armed in case the Government ever decided to turn on its own citizens.

a reply to: veracity

Well part of the problem of what you are fishing for, is not having the knowledge about the subject in the first place.

I don't mean that in an insulting way. I mean it like you want to talk about football to some people, but when you walk up and talk to them, everything you're saying is about hockey instead.

You suggested in your OP that if people didn't have semi-automatic weapons, less people would be killed.

Now that is a good, debatable subject. But then you started using the word "automatic", which is a completely different animal.

Some of us also explained why no, even with a type of revolver was used, it would still result in a lot of deaths.

Personally I think that banning guns will do no good in this country. We already have a LOT of laws about who can purchase what type of weapons, or at all, and we still end up with people having guns in their hands that should not be able to get them at all. But they do. All banning would do is simply make people even more vulnerable, and take away the rights of law abiding citizens here in the US.

But, going back to the differences: Here's a video I made with my son. He's going to show you the difference, and you'll see that even if it had been revolvers, it still would kill several people quite quickly.