For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....

[MegaPoke]

I'll debate you without insult if you can do one thing for me here.

Describe in detail, the features (calibers, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, pistol grips, high capacity magazines etc.) that define an assault rifle to you, and explain how banning something with those features would prevent or fundamentally limit the scope of damage in future mass shooting crimes.

Just give me a well thought out explanation for a post-Columbine world, and how banning specific types of guns, features, accessories or ammunitions would be effective and how you measure effectiveness.

And as a follow up, let's pretend for a minute that your various bans and additional restrictions somehow did successfully drop the average death toll by... let's say 1.5 victims per incidence, but 5 people on average still get killed (I'm completely making those numbers up), what's the next "common sense" strategy to try to get that number down another 1.5 victims?

At what point is the sale of new banned weapons not enough? At what point is there a confiscation (buy back) program seriously introduced and would it pass revue on the Supreme Court? How would it go over? Out of 100,000,000 owners, what % do you think sell their guns (not "back" since the government never owned them to begin with) presumably far below fair market value - vs how many people commit acts of civil disobedience and allow themselves to be arrested vs turning over their guns - vs how many splinter off into violent confrontations or consolidations of armed resistance? Do "sanctuary states" and cities spring up defying this government overreach? If there are no federal consequences for such actions by states and cities regarding plainly illegal immigration, how do you think it will go over for draconian, illegitimate, unconstitutional gun laws?

I just want to know realistically how do you think this can possibly play out in a way that solves a mass shooting problem without massive unintended consequences?

 

[CBradSmith]

In for the civil, well thought out discussion.

 

[MegaPoke]

In for the civil, well thought out discussion.

May be a long wait.

 

[JimmyBob]

May be a long wait.

Strongly suggest you don't hold your breath during the wait.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I'll debate you without insult if you can do one thing for me here.

Describe in detail, the features (calibers, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, pistol grips, high capacity magazines etc.) that define an assault rifle to you, and explain how banning something with those features would prevent or fundamentally limit the scope of damage in future mass shooting crimes.

Just give me a well thought out explanation for a post-Columbine world, and how banning specific types of guns, features, accessories or ammunitions would be effective and how you measure effectiveness.

And as a follow up, let's pretend for a minute that your various bans and additional restrictions somehow did successfully drop the average death toll by... let's say 1.5 victims per incidence, but 5 people on average still get killed (I'm completely making those numbers up), what's the next "common sense" strategy to try to get that number down another 1.5 victims?

At what point is the sale of new banned weapons not enough? At what point is there a confiscation (buy back) program seriously introduced and would it pass revue on the Supreme Court? How would it go over? Out of 100,000,000 owners, what % do you think sell their guns (not "back" since the government never owned them to begin with) presumably far below fair market value - vs how many people commit acts of civil disobedience and allow themselves to be arrested vs turning over their guns - vs how many splinter off into violent confrontations or consolidations of armed resistance? Do "sanctuary states" and cities spring up defying this government overreach? If there are no federal consequences for such actions by states and cities regarding plainly illegal immigration, how do you think it will go over for draconian, illegitimate, unconstitutional gun laws?

I just want to know realistically how do you think this can possibly play out in a way that solves a mass shooting problem without massive unintended consequences?

Consider this: Joe buys a gun with money he has earned by working. He also pays taxes which presumably would be used by the government to buy his "confiscated" gun. So his money is used to buy the gun in the first place, and then his money is used to pay him when he "sells" it to the government. Sounds like a sweet deal for the government!

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

I'll debate you without insult if you can do one thing for me here.

Describe in detail, the features (calibers, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, pistol grips, high capacity magazines etc.) that define an assault rifle to you, and explain how banning something with those features would prevent or fundamentally limit the scope of damage in future mass shooting crimes.

Just give me a well thought out explanation for a post-Columbine world, and how banning specific types of guns, features, accessories or ammunitions would be effective and how you measure effectiveness.

And as a follow up, let's pretend for a minute that your various bans and additional restrictions somehow did successfully drop the average death toll by... let's say 1.5 victims per incidence, but 5 people on average still get killed (I'm completely making those numbers up), what's the next "common sense" strategy to try to get that number down another 1.5 victims?

At what point is the sale of new banned weapons not enough? At what point is there a confiscation (buy back) program seriously introduced and would it pass revue on the Supreme Court? How would it go over? Out of 100,000,000 owners, what % do you think sell their guns (not "back" since the government never owned them to begin with) presumably far below fair market value - vs how many people commit acts of civil disobedience and allow themselves to be arrested vs turning over their guns - vs how many splinter off into violent confrontations or consolidations of armed resistance? Do "sanctuary states" and cities spring up defying this government overreach? If there are no federal consequences for such actions by states and cities regarding plainly illegal immigration, how do you think it will go over for draconian, illegitimate, unconstitutional gun laws?

I just want to know realistically how do you think this can possibly play out in a way that solves a mass shooting problem without massive unintended consequences?

What consequences could be more massive than someone being able to walk into a Walmart or a school and empty hundreds of rounds of high velocity .223 rounds into women and children in a matter of seconds?

 

[Ponca Dan]

What consequences could be more massive than someone being able to walk into a Walmart or a school and empty hundreds of rounds of high velocity .223 rounds into women and children in a matter of seconds?

Here are a couple of examples that spring instantly to mind:

1) The Turkish government prior to and during WW1 conducted genocide on 2 million Armenians that lived within it borders. And following the war the new government continued the extermination, murdering another 3.5 million to 4.3 million of its own Armenian citizens, men, women and children.
2) In 1970 the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered 3.1 million of it 7.1 million citizens.

Don't you suppose the murder rates would have been considerably lower had those people been able to shoot back?

For those that think it could never happen here, I remind you of the incident at Kent State University when the National Guard fired on unarmed protesting students. Or Waco, TX, when the Branch Dividians were fired upon, tear gassed and burned to death. While we want to think of our government as docile towards us history tells a different story. As free people we should never allow the government to disarm us. It would quite simply be the end of our national experiment with individual liberty.

 

[CBradSmith]

Here are a couple of examples that spring instantly to mind:

1) The Turkish government prior to and during WW1 conducted genocide on 2 million Armenians that lived within it borders. And following the war the new government continued the extermination, murdering another 3.5 million to 4.3 million of its own Armenian citizens, men, women and children.
2) In 1970 the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered 3.1 million of it 7.1 million citizens.

Don't you suppose the murder rates would have been considerably lower had those people been able to shoot back?

For those that think it could never happen here, I remind you of the incident at Kent State University when the National Guard fired on unarmed protesting students. Or Waco, TX, when the Branch Dividians were fired upon, tear gassed and burned to death. While we want to think of our government as docile towards us history tells a different story. As free people we should never allow the government to disarm us. It would quite simply be the end of our national experiment with individual liberty.

You're obviously a white nationalist Nazi. Congrats.

 

[Syskatine]

Describe in detail, the features (calibers, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, pistol grips, high capacity magazines etc.) that define an assault rifle to you, and explain how banning something with those features would prevent or fundamentally limit the scope of damage in future mass shooting crimes.

High capacity magazines.

High rate of fire.

Cosmetics are irrelevant imo. Most civilian flash suppressors (at least the ones I've seen) don't even work, they just spread out the flash a little if that.

Morons can't get as many accurate shots off with a 3 or 5- load bolt action.

I think you underestimate the % of gun deaths just by making it expensive or more difficult for morons to get them.

Just give me a well thought out explanation for a post-Columbine world, and how banning specific types of guns, features, accessories or ammunitions would be effective and how you measure effectiveness.

You can cut and paste the gun control regimes from a dozen countries that have already gotten significant results. Australia did it not long ago with pretty amazing results.

I personally think a gun buy-back would help... on a very limited basis. Most gun lovers aren't selling their guns for love or money -- like guitars, they only build up, never thin out.

I still think that making guns way more expensive and gun owners more careful with who gets their guns is the most practical, constitutinoal, efficient and effective way to impact the shootings. That means suing everyone in the chain of commerce after one of these deals. Bushmaster is out of business overnight, current assault weapons triple in value, and it's much harder to find an AR or AK from someone that'll sell it to a stranger.

 

[22LR]

What consequences could be more massive than someone being able to walk into a Walmart or a school and empty hundreds of rounds of high velocity .223 rounds into women and children in a matter of seconds?

Abortion

 

[windriverrange]

For the libs this is low hanging fruit, because they are able to push so many ridiculous narratives along with their partners in crime, the media. They are simply not interested in anything but scaring people into believe they care about them and they will throw a blanket of protection over all of us so we don't need anything but an atlatl and slingshot. Fact is they are lying conniving hypocritical dbags who would sell out their own family to stay in power and promulgate the idea that they know what's best for all of us.

"A gun in the hand is worth more than the entire police force on the phone"

 

[Soonersincefitty]

You want us using flintlocks.
Ball and cap.
Muskets

Doesn't work that way.
I'm sure the founding fathers considered that technology would advance, since those fellows weren't restricted to spears and knives.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Here are a couple of examples that spring instantly to mind:

1) The Turkish government prior to and during WW1 conducted genocide on 2 million Armenians that lived within it borders. And following the war the new government continued the extermination, murdering another 3.5 million to 4.3 million of its own Armenian citizens, men, women and children.
2) In 1970 the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered 3.1 million of it 7.1 million citizens.

Don't you suppose the murder rates would have been considerably lower had those people been able to shoot back?

For those that think it could never happen here, I remind you of the incident at Kent State University when the National Guard fired on unarmed protesting students. Or Waco, TX, when the Branch Dividians were fired upon, tear gassed and burned to death. While we want to think of our government as docile towards us history tells a different story. As free people we should never allow the government to disarm us. It would quite simply be the end of our national experiment with individual liberty.

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

 

[HighStickHarry]

View embedded media

It’s like the left became every nightmare the right said they would become. @Been Jammin

 

[HighStickHarry]

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

This is another doozy from you.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

Yeah, it's pretty obvious I'm a Tim McVeigh fan. But he didn't use an "assault" rifle, did he? Maybe we should ban fertilizer along with guns?

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

This is another doozy from you.

If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious I'm a Tim McVeigh fan. But he didn't use an "assault" rifle, did he? Maybe we should ban fertilizer along with guns?

They did ban fertilizer, you can only buy certain amounts of certain types because of what he did........

 

[windriverrange]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...g-firearms-because-mentally-unfit-11567540321

Appears he was not eligible to pass background checks and therefore shouldn't have had this weapon. Be interesting to see how he purchased this weapon.

 

[MegaPoke]

High capacity magazines.

How many is high capacity?

High rate of fire.

High rate of fire in any semi auto is dependent on how fast you can manually pull a trigger. What are you suggesting here?

Cosmetics are irrelevant imo. Most civilian flash suppressors (at least the ones I've seen) don't even work, they just spread out the flash a little if that.

The purpose of a flash suppressor is simply to minimize the flash in front of the front sights of the gun, so you don't lose your target. I agree though - largely cosmetic, but not entirely.

Morons can't get as many accurate shots off with a 3 or 5- load bolt action.

Again, are you proposing banning all semi-autos? The vast majority of firearms in the united states from shotguns to double action revolvers are effectively semi-auto in the fact that you don't have to manually chamber a round, cock a hammer, etc.

Also - you are right. Bolt actions, lever actions etc. would get off fewer rounds, but the rounds they do get off are devastating. Have you ever compared a 30/06 or 30/30 bullet to a .223? If you had to take a hit from one, I promise you would prefer the .223. The UT tower shooter effectively executed a typical mass shooting with bolt action weapons, by the way, so it's not going to solve the problem.

I think you underestimate the % of gun deaths just by making it expensive or more difficult for morons to get them.

Making it more expensive is patently racist and classist. The rich and elite will be able to afford personal protection and the working class won't. Making it harder for "morons" to get in the first place is somewhat problematic because morons can easily get illegal guns now. Who are the morons? The legit mentally ill or just people who you disagree with politically?

You can cut and paste the gun control regimes from a dozen countries that have already gotten significant results. Australia did it not long ago with pretty amazing results.

There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the buy back. Did you know that? Also, you may have noticed, Australia does not share a massive border with Mexico. We do. And you don't want a wall or really any method of keeping drugs, guns and illegals out, so... how does this compare in any way?

I personally think a gun buy-back would help... on a very limited basis. Most gun lovers aren't selling their guns for love or money -- like guitars, they only build up, never thin out.

A limited gun buy-back would result in a great black market seller's opportunity. Unlicensed dealers could simply add 25% to what the government would pay, and presto - the idiots who sold their guns will have made a few bucks while supplying unregulated dealers with a cheap inventory.

I still think that making guns way more expensive and gun owners more careful with who gets their guns is the most practical, constitutinoal, efficient and effective way to impact the shootings. That means suing everyone in the chain of commerce after one of these deals. Bushmaster is out of business overnight, current assault weapons triple in value, and it's much harder to find an AR or AK from someone that'll sell it to a stranger.

Again, making them artificially more expensive isn't going to do anything but disarm law abiding working class citizens. Suing manufacturers opens a pandora's box that I think liquor lobby, auto manufacturers and so on may not agree with. Plus, where do you stop? Do you only sue manufacturers of AR's and AK's? Do Glock and Smith & Wesson get off free for suicides and handgun murders which are infinitely more common problems?

 

[Soonersincefitty]

If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

Why not?
That AR15 in my hands is as innocuous as it is in some PFCs hands.

Again, blaming the tool shouldn't supersede blaming the fool that made the big ugly happen.

 

[iasooner1]

If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

If above is all true, thank you for your service. Having said that, shame on you for spouting the nonsense; you know damn good & well that "military grade" is illegal for the citizen to buy off the shelf at Wal-Mart and if you do have a 16 you be the first to decommission that mofo and provide pics

 

[HighStickHarry]

If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

Let me tell you something that I know for certain. I don’t hold many things as an absolute but I am 100% certain on this.


You have no fvcking clue what is going to happen going forward with our government. Anything is possible.

 

[Ostatedchi]

If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

"Military Grade' my ass. And exactly because of what it is capable of is WHY it SHOULD be in civilian hands.

 

[HighStickHarry]

"Military Grade' my ass. And exactly because of what it is capable of is WHY it SHOULD be in civilian hands.

No no no you don’t understand. Under @COWBOYintheUK ’s plan bad guys don’t have them either. Just the military and because Armenia can can never be replicated again now you, Ponca dan and myself need to be red flagged.

 

[MegaPoke]

I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands

It's not.

 

[MegaPoke]

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

Incredibly insulting and elitist. Who the hell are you to decide if he's allowed to possess one of these weapons?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Incredibly insulting and elitist. Who the hell are you to decide if he's allowed to possess one of these weapons?

He’s a modern day leftist. They read minds, they know intent better than the person speaking and yes they should be deciding who gets guns.

Don’t you know he lived abroad? For years?

 

[MegaPoke]

Don’t you know he lived abroad? For years?

Pretty sure he says so in every third post he's ever made on this board.

 

[CBradSmith]

He’s a modern day leftist. They read minds, they know intent better than the person speaking and yes they should be deciding who gets guns.

Don’t you know he lived abroad? For years?

Pretty sure he says so in every third post he's ever made on this board.

Lol.

Pretty sure the good part of UK is all used up.

 

[okcpokefan12]

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

WOW!!!! Quite the comment from @COWBOYintheUK. You are way over the line with this comment!

 

[Medic007]

Spouting the exact same reasons Tim McVeigh spouted is exactly why you should not be allowed to posses one of these weapons

This post is so stupid that my phone hit the ignore button for me in case this strain is found to be contagious.

 

[Syskatine]

How many is high capacity?

I dunno. 3+? If somebody can't hit the target in 3 shots, or has more than 3 targets, they generally need to start over imo. Revolvers frequently have up to 7 or 8, maybe that.



High rate of fire in any semi auto is dependent on how fast you can manually pull a trigger. What are you suggesting here?

I don't follow you.



The purpose of a flash suppressor is simply to minimize the flash in front of the front sights of the gun, so you don't lose your target. I agree though - largely cosmetic, but not entirely.

If that's the objective, it fails. The flash is MORE blinding because it shoots all over instead of straight out of the barrel. Like I said, those are the half-ass ones on the civilian market. I thought they were designed to minimize flash so other people can't identify the flash.



Again, are you proposing banning all semi-autos? The vast majority of firearms in the united states from shotguns to double action revolvers are effectively semi-auto in the fact that you don't have to manually chamber a round, cock a hammer, etc.

Yes. If and when revolvers, bolt actions, slides, etc. develop the same fixation and cult and body count then maybe talk about them too. I like guns and think we need them as a matter of national security and hunting. I have a problem with suburban dorks getting assault weapons.

Also - you are right. Bolt actions, lever actions etc. would get off fewer rounds, but the rounds they do get off are devastating. Have you ever compared a 30/06 or 30/30 bullet to a .223? If you had to take a hit from one, I promise you would prefer the .223. The UT tower shooter effectively executed a typical mass shooting with bolt action weapons, by the way, so it's not going to solve the problem.

I have never seen a ballistics test from them all, but my understanding is the speed and tiny bullet of the .223 makes it particularly nasty. .30-06 will go straight through where the .223 is tumbling, fragmenting, ricocheting around, etc. I'm not an expert but the .223 supposedly punches above its weight regarding destroying flesh.



Making it more expensive is patently racist and classist. The rich and elite will be able to afford personal protection and the working class won't. Making it harder for "morons" to get in the first place is somewhat problematic because morons can easily get illegal guns now. Who are the morons? The legit mentally ill or just people who you disagree with politically?

The poor won't be able to afford ASSAULT RIFLES. If you're gonna go class warfare, don't confuse a .38 in the nightstand with an AR 15. By Morons I mean the crazy people that shoot up theaters, etc.



There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the buy back. Did you know that? Also, you may have noticed, Australia does not share a massive border with Mexico. We do. And you don't want a wall or really any method of keeping drugs, guns and illegals out, so... how does this compare in any way?

Yes. Because we're similar countries demographically and culturally.

Yes, but Australia has massive coastlines. You asked, yes. Other countries have done it. If you're just gonna 'Well that doesn't count" all the way down the line, just say so. Hell you have other entire countries that have tackled this issue successfully and there's aaaaaaalways a reason why we can't do it. Now it's a border.



A limited gun buy-back would result in a great black market seller's opportunity. Unlicensed dealers could simply add 25% to what the government would pay, and presto - the idiots who sold their guns will have made a few bucks while supplying unregulated dealers with a cheap inventory.

It might. You don't know that. It might do all that, too, and we get a ton of guns off the street and firearm deaths go down 25%. It worled for Australia. Personally, I think it's piss in the wind as gun nuts don't give up their guns, but if there's a demographic it DOES work with... why not?



Again, making them artificially more expensive isn't going to do anything but disarm law abiding working class citizens. Suing manufacturers opens a pandora's box that I think liquor lobby, auto manufacturers and so on may not agree with. Plus, where do you stop? Do you only sue manufacturers of AR's and AK's? Do Glock and Smith & Wesson get off free for suicides and handgun murders which are infinitely more common problems?[/QUOTE]

Again, yes, high gun prices count. Fear of getting sued counts. I'm repeating the mantra of the business lobby for the past 30 years, i.e. that lawsuits destroy industries. Listen to your own side of the aisle on this one.

When rich people are the ones shooting these people, I'll worry about them. Right now I'm worried about mass shooters and many of them have a helluva time getting the coin to buy these guns. I don't get your objection. It's a plan that takes nothing. You're worth more the next day. Your gun is worth x3 the amount.

And yeah, I guess for now only the assault weapon manufacturers. I hate to throw out ALL guns if you don't need to.

 

[Syskatine]

There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the buy back. Did you know that?

Then you should be all in. What's the problem? Your'e so obsessed with AR 15's you don't wanna try ANYTHING. Damn.

 

[MegaPoke]

Your'e so obsessed with AR 15's you don't wanna try ANYTHING. Damn.

Not obsessed. Just saying enough is enough. Getting rid of AR's would do nothing. They are the iPhone of rifles. The reason you see them involved in more mass shootings than other options is simply because *among guns* they are ubiquitous. If they weren't, something else would be. It's not the gun. It's the broken people behind them. How can you not realize this?

Just answer me this - AR's have been around since the 50's. Why are they just now a problem? Rapid fire semi auto and full auto technology goes back to the early 1900's. There's literally nothing about an AR that makes it more deadly than any number of things you could easily buy in 1930. Are they more dependable long term and more versatile etc? yeah. But for a guy that wants to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, AR's are not using any kind of new tech.

What's different now and why are guns the solution?

 

[iasooner1]

Australia has some of the nastiest spiders and snakes in the world. Ban those !

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

sys, how many of your 30+ guns are semiautomatic ?

 

[squeak]

Do a gun buy back program for gang bangers and other criminals and the mentally ill. Problem solved.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

Then you should be all in. What's the problem? Your'e so obsessed with AR 15's you don't wanna try ANYTHING. Damn.

You, they won't stop there.

Next it'll be ANY self loading pistol or rifle.
Then it'll be anything easily concealable.

That is why we're making our stand on AR15s.
Not to mention they're the best semi auto carbine ever made. Not even close.

 

[Ostatedchi]

My AR platform is in a 6.8 caliber. Does that exempt it since it isn't a .223?