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

a reply to: jupiter869

No. Where do you get that we have them for "entertainment"? Are you serious?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: eriktheawful

Sorry, I thought semi-automatic weapons were holding down the trigger and it shooting till you let up.

So is everyone ok with not being able to have fully automatic weapons?

Its just semi-automatic weapons that are the issue?

Lets start small then and give up our rights to fully automatic weapons.
Does that make people upset?

Currently in the US, only what I would consider "rich" people and criminals have easy access to fully automatic weapons.

a reply to: XTexan

WEll, would you be ok with a ban on them? and any magazine associated with them?

(fully automatic weapons that is)

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: veracity

I live in a nation where gun ownership is heavily restricted, and I mean HEAVILY.

I will garuantee to you, right now, that if I wanted a firearm, I could get one faster and easier by the illegal method, than I could by the legal methods. It's not even a debate point, it's just a fact. I could have an automatic weapon by tomorrow done the illegal way.

Forced to go through legal channels I would maybe get a liscence for a shotgun after a lengthy applications process, involving much paperwork, postage delays for that paperwork, the red tape guantlets of central government and the police, and so on, probably lasting months.

Your understanding of these things MUST improve if you are to make proper arguments on this subject.

Thank you for that. I was just about to ask you specifically if you thought you could obtain an illegal weapon, given the cash and a few days. That right there, kind of kills any and all argument about this. The laws will only hamper the regular guy, and the regular guy isn't out shooting up nightclubs. He's home sleeping while last call is going on.

a reply to: veracity

Do you have any idea how little a felony record means to either the sort of person who sells weapons illegally, and the sort of person who performs a mass shooting?

Those who supply guns and ammunition to criminals, underground dealers, have no reason to fear jail. They are often respected by multiple gangs, meaning that they are neutral, enjoying the protection of more than one criminal franchise, especially if they have cornered the market in a given area. They do their time, call their accountant when they get out, dig up all the tax free loot they have gained over the years, and start again, maybe somewhere new.

And mass shooters...most of these individuals are not looking to survive their final acts. What the hell do they care about an arrest record, when they are prepared to die? Veracity, I know this may be hard to hear, but this crap does not have a clean solution, and if you insist on things going the way of full on firearm bans, you WILL wind up with a defenceless population, and no change in the number of people dying from gun related madnesses.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe I don't hang with the right crowd, but I know no one who wants to "ban guns." Most level-headed, thknking people are all for some pretty realistic and logical controls, things like s a national database, elimination of the loopholes we all know exist, better education and subsequent licensing upon demonstration of capability (you know, like for when they let you drive a car), and more control over manufacturers.

You could take away semi automatic weapons...Then you would have people with bags of single shot weapons walking around with the intent of doing the same thing.

And don't babble off about weapons being unavailable to anyone either, because I used to own the machine tools to make pretty much anything I would want right in my house, including both single shot and semi automatic weapons.

The problem is not the weapons, the problem is not people.

The problem is damaged people with silly ideas of what they think the world should be like.

The problem is people with silly notions of what they think the world should be like with lack of morals enough to disregard anyone else's ideas of what the world should be like.

a reply to: veracity

No. How about lets start finding a solutions to problems that would help, instead of taking away people's rights because it feels good.

If you really want to make an impact and save many lives, I would say find a way to reduce medical malpractice instead. 250000 people are killed by doctors' mistakes every year compared to 11000 by gun homicides.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I think before we do anything else we should enforce the existing laws. Then we can talk.

a reply to: joemoe

again, this is a thread about guns, not mal-practice, cars, pressure cookers, switch blades or any other type of murder material

a reply to: veracity

Fully automatic firearms are already heavily restricted.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

WEll, would you be ok with a ban on them? and any magazine associated with them?

(fully automatic weapons that is)

why? where has one been used in a mass shooting in the US?

No, because at the end of the day, I'm rational enough to realize that only the person committing the crime is guilty of the crime. The other 80-100 million people lawfully and responsibly exercising their 2nd amendment rights and who haven't committed a crime do not deserve to be punished for something they didn't do.

This guilt-by-association stuff wouldn't fly if we were talking about any other group of people. Why is it acceptable to do that to all gun owners?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

WEll, would you be ok with a ban on them? and any magazine associated with them?

(fully automatic weapons that is)

I believe magazines are interchangeable so i would have to say no. Also magazine are being made in 3D printers these days so I'm unsure of how effective it could be. As far as a ban? To my knowledge full automatics haven't been used in any massacres in recent history, so again I say no

a reply to: jupiter869

NO

Even though I can barely lift it fully loaded anymore (SKS Dragunov Conversion) and would have a hard time using it because I use a walker, it will get the job done if needed.

And they do have an entertainment factor, many years ago.

a reply to: network dude

Honestly, I think the last time may have been during Prohibition.

a reply to: veracity

Do you realize that guns are less of a problem today than they are decades ago? If you did minimal research you would realize that regardless of what the media feeds us that the FBI statistic on gun crime and violence crime in general have been decreasing almost year over year for decades. So ya less focus on guns ... because they are scary.

a reply to: joemoe

Actually, last I checked. few days ago, it's maintained a pretty constant level since the 50s, with some spikes.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

WEll, would you be ok with a ban on them? and any magazine associated with them?

(fully automatic weapons that is)

I wouldn't, although its worth noting that fully automatic weapons are already much more heavily regulated than the 'assault weapons' that this gun control debate entails. Can you tell me the last time that a legally acquired and owned fully automatic weapon was used in a violent crime? I can't. Its exceedingly rare, primarily because the only people that can realistically afford them are very wealthy and extremely unlikely to risk that wealth and lifestyle by engaging in that type of behavior. Its not a problem that actually exists in the real world and there's no reason to take it from the already heavy restriction to an outright ban.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude

Honestly, I think the last time may have been during Prohibition.

Yea, see, shootem there Bugsy, see.

It's amazing how much information is disregarded by the very people who seem to be concerned about this topic. My God, all you have to do is start a thread here and ask a question. It's not hard.