AR-15s, M240s, M16s, M4s and the Like

[D3Fi-The_P3-ISS-DirtyDugan_ISS]

What is the actual “need” for this weapon. Don’t give me some coockamamie excuse like government overthrow or home protection either. Give me a concrete reason to why you NEED this weapon.

FYI: Wants are not needs, and entertainment is NOT a need. Anything falling into this description is moot and irrelevant. Carry on with the formidable debate.

First off these are guns that people like to go sport shooting with it's their right to own one and for most liberal crybabies that complain about guns is that they want to tell you how to live your life well sorry this is America and we're allowed to own these guns your liberal crybabies will say these are assault rifles but they're not assault rifles you can turn into for automatics these you can't and a lot of people don't understand that it's not the gun that kills somebody it's the person that's behind the gun that's killing the people if this one kid would have walked in a school and kill them with an axe would you be sitting here saying let's ban axes.....

First off, no one is saying to ban anything. Secondly, your rhetoric of liberal crybabies are one of the reasons some of you aren’t capable of responsibly owning one of these weapons. Lastly, there is only one common denominator in a mass shooting and that is the firearm. Saying it’s not the firearm when it clearly is, is denying facts. Of course it takes a person to shoot a firearm, but if they’re unstable enough to actually mass shoot and have easy accessibility, they shouldn’t own that firearm. It’s not rocket science, it’s logical thinking.

The common denominator is persons who act on violent feelings in an overly violent way. The means in which they deliver the violence as well as the venue where they deliver their violent action(s), are secondary. These factors aren't used to stop in advance, a violent action, but rather used to predict where and by whom an incident may happen.

Recently in Texas, an individual decided to make bombs and deliver them through packages. People needlessly died and were hurt as a result. Would you say people aren't to be trusted with packages? Is the person or the package to blame? If we could save just one life, wouldn't it be worth banning all packages from being delivered because they can be used to kill and cause damage?

Logic once said that the world was flat... How do you know if a person is stable or unstable? This question is immensely difficult to answer. The determining factor in my opinion, although I am not a mental health professional, is whether or not a person understands what the consequences of their actions are. Both in terms of the result of the action as well as the punishment for the action.

If I know and understand that by getting behind the wheel of an automobile and driving it into a crowd of people with purpose, will result in injury and death, and can be punished by the law, but do it anyways; should I be deemed mentally unstable or mentally stable? Just because you can't comprehend someone's action doesn't mean they are mentally unstable, especially in regard to violence.

It seems to me that in an attempt to rationalize horrendous acts of violence, we often follow this narrative. It is my opinion that if someone sets a goal to commit violence, and understand the consequences, and they go out and perform a violent act, they are in fact mentally stable. This is exactly why the means of which they commit such acts will never be as important as to why they commit such acts.

What's the difference between a dead body with bullet holes and a dead body that's been blown up?

 

[Kasama]

Ok I get what this individual is trying to say...

If someone isn't mentally sound they'll use other forms of weaponry specifically bombs???? lolwat

Regardless, someone mentally sound having access to firearms is horrible and I agree with you, catching and treating these people before it's too late is vital. But out of all the mass shootings, these people were not of sound mind and no one caught on in time. They had access to weaponry, they killed.

You're just spewing empty words, gun violence needs to cease and to ensure this occurs... They need to be properly dealt with. School shootings have become so common that people joke about them online, America's gun control has become a laughing stock. PEOPLE ARE MAKING LIGHT OF TERRIBLE EVENTS.

Yes, there will always be people of unsound mind but to restrict their choices in weaponry is necessary.

Besides, there is more talk of firearm violence than bombs, molotov and homemade chemical warfare meaning that gun violence is by far more common.

Tl;dr
Heavy restrictions need to be placed on American weaponry
Bombs were never/aren't as common. Take Australia for instance, there hasn't been a mass shooting since the 90's because of stronger gun laws and probs even rarer, bomb sprees?
You can't predict who is going to lose their sanity and go on a murder spree but you can restrict their form of weaponry and potentially limit the loss of life significantly.

logic

 

[Domo]

Ok I get what this individual is trying to say...

If someone isn't mentally sound they'll use other forms of weaponry specifically bombs???? lolwat

Regardless, someone mentally sound having access to firearms is horrible and I agree with you, catching and treating these people before it's too late is vital. But out of all the mass shootings, these people were not of sound mind and no one caught on in time. They had access to weaponry, they killed.

You're just spewing empty words, gun violence needs to cease and to ensure this occurs... They need to be properly dealt with. School shootings have become so common that people joke about them online, America's gun control has become a laughing stock. PEOPLE ARE MAKING LIGHT OF TERRIBLE EVENTS.

Yes, there will always be people of unsound mind but to restrict their choices in weaponry is necessary.

Besides, there is more talk of firearm violence than bombs, molotov and homemade chemical warfare meaning that gun violence is by far more common.

Tl;dr
Heavy restrictions need to be placed on American weaponry
Bombs were never/aren't as common. Take Australia for instance, there hasn't been a mass shooting since the 90's because of stronger gun laws and probs even rarer, bomb sprees?
You can't predict who is going to lose their sanity and go on a murder spree but you can restrict their form of weaponry and potentially limit the loss of life significantly.

logic

Australia population 24m spread out on an empty island. America population 325m. What’s the strict gun laws in Australia....life in prison for gun murder ? Violent criminals in the US don’t really care much about that or death penalty even. Some state laws are stricter than others, so it depends which state the crime was committed.

America has strict laws in regards of citizens medical history. It’s illegal for the govt to obtain and or use medical files of any US citizens. The media loves to diagnose everyone that’s committed a gun crime. It is also the law that if ANY school district in the US implies that a student needs therapy then it is the school district to pay and get that student therapy. They won’t because it’s not in the budget. That’s why they come out and say that the student that went on a spree was odd and an outcast, worded just enough to cover themselves.

Guns are not the problem...never have been. It doesn’t matter the size, kind, or color of the gun it didn’t create the crime. If the citizen passed all levels of background checks then any gun can be obtained legally through a dealer. All violent criminals don’t go through that process, they by the guns from the black market. That is untraceable. You can’t punish the law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals, regardless of the act.

Furthermore we really don’t care What Australia thinks and or does with their legal citizens. That also goes for all the other countries. We have way more population than any other countries. Our constitution is set. We don’t make it up as we go to govern 324m to your 24m.

 

[Kasama]

Australia population 24m spread out on an empty island. America population 325m.

I agree you have more population, how many of those people have firearms should be the next question.

What’s the strict gun laws in Australia....life in prison for gun murder ?

Probs

Violent criminals in the US don’t really care much about that or death penalty even.

These violent criminals could have families, you don't know that for certain. This seems a lil fabricated.

Some state laws are stricter than others, so it depends which state the crime was committed.

ok cool?

America has strict laws in regards of citizens medical history.

Sure

It’s illegal for the govt to obtain and or use medical files of any US citizens.

ok?

The media loves to diagnose everyone that’s committed a gun crime.

this is true

It is also the law that if ANY school district in the US implies that a student needs therapy then it is the school district to pay and get that student therapy. They won’t because it’s not in the budget. That’s why they come out and say that the student that went on a spree was odd and an outcast, worded just enough to cover themselves.

So you're saying these young people doing mass shootings are like that because of neglect to their issues by the school system?

Guns are not the problem...never have been.

Sorry what's the purpose of a gun? Please instantly say self defence. But it can be used is to distinguish a life. Be that of a animal or a human. Regardless, guns are dangerous and in the WRONG HANDS, yes. But regardless, guns by themselves shouldn't be so readily available.

It doesn’t matter the size, kind, or color of the gun it didn’t create the crime.

Yes the murder weapon didn't create the crime but it doesn't change the fact that it's the murder weapon.

If the citizen passed all levels of background checks then any gun can be obtained legally through a dealer.

Yes, background checks. But anyone can have a clear history until they go on a mass killing. Elliot Roger for instance, purchased several weapons, I believe two semi-automatic pistols and went on a rampage, columbine shooters as well, I can copy and paste a bunch of this right now lmao. Evidence stacked on evidence.

Allnt criminals don’t go through that process,

How do you know that? Not all criminals are hardenered veterans

they by the guns from the black market. That is untraceable.

Just because they can buy untraceable guns, makes it ok for everyone to stay armed?

You can’t punish the law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals, regardless of the act.

Yes, you can't but sometimes examples have to be made. Limit guns in the community and you'll see a decrease in gun violence. How is that so hard to understand?

Furthermore we really don’t care What Australia thinks and or does with their legal citizens. That also goes for all the other countries. We have way more population than any other countries. Our constitution is set. We don’t make it up as we go to govern 324m to your 24m.

you mentioned your population earlier. Even more reason why you should limit firearms. With such a large population and guns being so available, how many people who own/are looking to own a firearm aren't mentally sound? How many of your 324 million are willing to extinguish another human life without remorse? Hm?

 

[D3Fi-The_P3-ISS-DirtyDugan_ISS]

Ok I get what this individual is trying to say...

If someone isn't mentally sound they'll use other forms of weaponry specifically bombs???? lolwat

Regardless, someone mentally sound having access to firearms is horrible and I agree with you, catching and treating these people before it's too late is vital. But out of all the mass shootings, these people were not of sound mind and no one caught on in time. They had access to weaponry, they killed.

You're just spewing empty words, gun violence needs to cease and to ensure this occurs... They need to be properly dealt with. School shootings have become so common that people joke about them online, America's gun control has become a laughing stock. PEOPLE ARE MAKING LIGHT OF TERRIBLE EVENTS.

Yes, there will always be people of unsound mind but to restrict their choices in weaponry is necessary.

Besides, there is more talk of firearm violence than bombs, molotov and homemade chemical warfare meaning that gun violence is by far more common.

Tl;dr
Heavy restrictions need to be placed on American weaponry
Bombs were never/aren't as common. Take Australia for instance, there hasn't been a mass shooting since the 90's because of stronger gun laws and probs even rarer, bomb sprees?
You can't predict who is going to lose their sanity and go on a murder spree but you can restrict their form of weaponry and potentially limit the loss of life significantly.

logic

This is a prime example of ignoring the real issue and focusing on headlines that sell.

"Bombings aren't as common or nearly as sexy, so I'll just focus on mass shootings." I'm sorry but my stance is against senseless violence in ALL forms. If you can't understand, acknowledge or choose to ignore it, I won't have the conversation with you because you do not understand reality and are not interested in a solution. You are driven by opinion and I won't waste my time trying to change it.

For far too many of you it's not about ending the cycle of VIOLENCE, which IS the true issue here. It's not about discovering why someone does something that's unspeakable to the majority of us. It's about setting and controlling the narrative, limiting freedom and using fear to move the agenda.

But why? Why focus on one aspect of the problem and not the reason the issue occurs to begin with? Why focus on one object that can cause damage or destruction and not all of them?

I have heard Australia is a great place to visit and even better to live in. It is also my understanding that they hold free elections and participate in a representative type government. This is alone is enough for me to give two thumps up. However, I care as much about what they think of me as they care about what I think about them. If they want to limit their rights in the name of safety, more power to them. I'm happy they're happy and are enjoying true enlightenment. A society without violence? You betcha...

If that's what you want in the USA, I encourage you to amend the constitution. Let's find out if this is what the "majority" truly want. Rather than taking small steps through back channels and courts to achieve the ultimate prize, let's swing for the fences and say what we really mean and feel. You don't feel safe knowing "weapons of war" are available to the common folk, therefore they don't deserve to own them. Don't forget who gets to determine the definition of "weapons of war" either. You do because your cause is just and if you can save even one life, it's worth it.

Lastly, I offer this...logic and reason are not the same. Please consider the difference. Now please ignore all of my points throughout the thread and paraphrase me.

 

[X2X-EllLllLllAllBllUllRllG-X2X]

Using a comparison that has been brought up before ... car deaths vs gun deaths
Question: if more motor vehicles are driven more often on the roads will that decrease the amount of road deaths per year ?

 

[Kasama]

This is a prime example of ignoring the real issue and focusing on headlines that sell.

"Bombings aren't as common or nearly as sexy, so I'll just focus on mass shootings."

For one you're using quotation marks and I never once said "sexy". Putting words in my mouth.

I'm sorry but my stance is against senseless violence in ALL forms.

Sure violence of all kinds is 'bad' but this thread has the title of several firearms. The topic is firearms, therefore I will, we will be referring to them and talking about gun violence. THAT IS THE CONTEXT, if you want to talk about how bad all forms of violence is and how you want to stop all wars, make a thread for it lol.

If you can't understand, acknowledge or choose to ignore it, I won't have the conversation with you because you do not understand reality and are not interested in a solution. You are driven by opinion and I won't waste my time trying to change it.

cool, make that thread and we'll talk about becoming a pacifist

For far too many of you it's not about ending the cycle of VIOLENCE, which IS the true issue here. It's not about discovering why someone does something that's unspeakable to the majority of us. It's about setting and controlling the narrative, limiting freedom and using fear to move the agenda.

What agenda is that?

But why? Why focus on one aspect of the problem and not the reason the issue occurs to begin with? Why focus on one object that can cause damage or destruction and not all of them?

One aspect? There are multiple aspects last I checked. We've touched on just about everything. You say it's unstable people, not guns. But we've already discussed, people are unpredictable. Things can be overlooked, limiting their available weaponry choices, is more manageable.

I have heard Australia is a great place to visit and even better to live in. It is also my understanding that they hold free elections and participate in a representative type government. This is alone is enough for me to give two thumps up. However, I care as much about what they think of me as they care about what I think about them.

You don't have to care what they think of you and I doubt Australia even knows who any of us are?

If they want to limit their rights in the name of safety, more power to them. I'm happy they're happy and are enjoying true enlightenment. A society without violence? You betcha...

A society where there hasn't been a mass shooting since the 90's. Absolutely.

If that's what you want in the USA, I encourage you to amend the constitution. Let's find out if this is what the "majority" truly want. Rather than taking small steps through back channels and courts to achieve the ultimate prize, let's swing for the fences and say what we really mean and feel. You don't feel safe knowing "weapons of war" are available to the common folk, therefore they don't deserve to own them.

You're really taking this to heart my dude, that's not what I'm saying.

Don'to gets to determine the definition of "weapons of war" either. You do because your cause is just and if you can save even one life, it's worth it.

Sorry what?

Lastly, I offer this...logic and reason are not the same. Please consider the difference. Now please ignore all of my points throughout the thread and paraphrase me.

Actually I've been quoting you word for word and I'm doing this to organise my thoughts.

Also question for you. Will gun violence will decrease if you limit the availability of firearms?[/quote]

 

[Domo]

Answer that question......no

 

[Kasama]

Which question? Also I'd like an answer to the gun and limiting them question.

 

[X2X-EllLllLllAllBllUllRllG-X2X]

Funny how you never get an answer to a question that they dont like you asking

 

[Domo]

What question Ella ?

 

[Domo]

Funny how you never get an answer to a question that they dont like you asking

Yours have all been answered

 

[Domo]

Which question? Also I'd like an answer to the gun and limiting them question.

Your last question on page 15

 

[X2X-EllLllLllAllBllUllRllG-X2X]

If there are more motor vehicles on the road would that reduce the amount of road deaths each year or increase it ?

 

[Kasama]

If there are more motor vehicles on the road would that reduce the amount of road deaths each year or increase it ?

That is difficult to determine, I don't know it has been tried anywhere prior but I would believe it would make road incidents more common. Simply because the probability of road incidents occurring increases with the amount of vehicles on the road. If there were no vehicles on roads, there would be 0 (motor vehicle) road deaths. Logic. Yes, that's what I believe...

Now my question...

Will gun violence decrease if you limit the availability of firearms?

 

[Domo]

If there are more motor vehicles on the road would that reduce the amount of road deaths each year or increase it ?

That is difficult to determine, I don't know it has been tried anywhere prior but I would believe it would make road incidents more common. Simply because the probability of road incidents occurring increases with the amount of vehicles on the road. If there were no vehicles on roads, there would be 0 (motor vehicle) road deaths. Logic. Yes, that's what I believe...

Now my question...

Will gun violence decrease if you limit the availability ?


No. It’s been proven that open carry states have seen a decline in gun crimes. Which means the criminals can see the average joes side arm on his belt, this results in less gun crimes.

 

[X2X-EllLllLllAllBllUllRllG-X2X]

So are you saying Holy that more firearms will decrease crime and more access to weapons will decrease school shootings and mass murder via firearms ?

 

[Domo]

So are you saying Holy that more firearms will decrease crime and more access to weapons will decrease school shootings and mass murder via firearms ?

Umm.....ya You not reading?

 

[Kasama]

If there are more motor vehicles on the road would that reduce the amount of road deaths each year or increase it ?

That is difficult to determine, I don't know it has been tried anywhere prior but I would believe it would make road incidents more common. Simply because the probability of road incidents occurring increases with the amount of vehicles on the road. If there were no vehicles on roads, there would be 0 (motor vehicle) road deaths. Logic. Yes, that's what I believe...

Now my question...

Will gun violence decrease if you limit the availability ?


No. It’s been proven that open carry states have seen a decline in gun crimes. Which means the criminals can see the average joes side arm on his belt, this results in less gun crimes.

Proven where?

You can say a claim sure but it requires some sort of backing.

 

[X2X-EllLllLllAllBllUllRllG-X2X]

So are you saying Holy that more firearms will decrease crime and more access to weapons will decrease school shootings and mass murder via firearms ?

Umm.....ya You not reading?

Oh , i am reading ... what source do you get your information from ?
So you logic ...more cars less deaths .... more drugs less O.Ds ?