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

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That would work too.

a reply to: XTexan

So you do not want ANYTHING taken away to try and alleviate this ongoing issue? Even things that no one uses or can even afford?

Out of site out of mind?

Do you find yourself thinking...

Did not happen to my loved ones, only 2 Massacres per year, chances of it being in my city are low?
Don't take away my guns?

Give you one right... what will be the next one you are strong armed into giving up?

So no... you dont give in to terrorists... you help them reach their god.

eta: Unless you can magically make all the fire arms in the world go away... the crazies and the law breakers will always be armed.. so why even suggest disarming the law abiding citizens?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: joemoe

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

and thinking logically, with the population increasing and the amount of legally purchased firearms increasing, does the lack of increase in gun violence even remotely register with you, or do you just disregard those facts as inconvenient?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

So you do not want ANYTHING taken away to try and alleviate this ongoing issue? Even things that no one uses or can even afford?

Out of site out of mind?

Do you find yourself thinking...

Did not happen to my loved ones, only 2 Massacres per year, chances of it being in my city are low?
Don't take away my guns?

what would be the point? seriously, explain that please.

a reply to: network dude

So the issue is with semi-automatic guns?

NO one (in this forum board thread) is willing to even give up fully automatic weaponry...so I see where this is going.

"DONT TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!"

Sure, for a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

But that is the thing isn't it. Today's big scary gun is tomorrow's musket. Other than the babbling idiots braying the marching order of talking points, let's look closely to who is really advocating suspending the Constitution...members of the Federal Government that know full well that they are not supposed to have a standing army in times of peace.

Those that do not follow the law wish to further bend it to their advantage. So, no. I will not disarm on the basis of a hypothetical life or lives saved. Especially since I am reasonable sure that I am not ending them.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: network dude

So the issue is with semi-automatic guns?

NO one (in this forum board thread) is willing to even give up fully automatic weaponry...so I see where this is going.

"DONT TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!"

tone down the hyperbole sport. Please explain what a ban on fully automatic weapons would accomplish. I'm open to the idea, but to ban them just to pacify stupid people seems like a waste of time. Tell me why this is a good idea.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The unfortunate fact is none of those things will effect the crime rate at all.

The stats show majority of gun problems are gang related. So as far as being able to throw numbers around any current or your mentioned measures will not impact say Chicago street crime at all. Where 50 people die almost regularly every week.

The measures to control violence in the US are not controlled with gun control.

I think the availability of free local training courses trough as far as safety measures for gun owners helps reduce accidents.

If the US wants to control firearms the politicians need to adress the second amendment in a public debate and vote as presented by law to change the amendment.

There is a reason for the process. It is to stop hysterical populist reactions..if the debate is truly about firearms it should last through the scrutiny of the amendment process.

My guess is the real problem is we can't stand the person we see in the mirror and we don't even recognize them anymore. Now we are lost in the woods and the wolves know it.

originally posted by: veracity
NO one (in this forum board thread) is willing to even give up fully automatic weaponry...so I see where this is going.

If legally owned and acquired fully automatic firearms have never proven to be a problem in the United States under the current laws that exist, why do we need to go a step further and ban them?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Sure, for a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

I think I might for a real one of these.



Hero EM-1 Rail gun

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.

a reply to: veracity

Semi automatic weapons include virtually every commercially available firearm on the market today. Fully automatic firearms are restricted in most localities, and at the very least require specific documentation in order to even qualify to hold.

Most pistols are semi-auto, any rifle other than bolt action, manual loading rifles and other, older designs, like lever action rifles and similar, will also be semi-auto. Bear in mind, that many of the older style, bolt action rifles, are of the sort that clock tower climbing madmen use on the rare occassion, to snipe innocent people from a distance.

It is not what type of weapon that matters. It is what type of individual holds the weapon, which is at fault for what happens when it is fired.

I would think someone big into target shooting accuracy would use a bolt action, as for as rifles. There are those who like the pistol ranges with multiple targets where speed and accuracy count.

Do we get a quality replacement weapon for the semi, is a buy back or just be nice and give it up.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

So you do not want ANYTHING taken away to try and alleviate this ongoing issue? Even things that no one uses or can even afford?

Out of site out of mind?

Do you find yourself thinking...

Did not happen to my loved ones, only 2 Massacres per year, chances of it being in my city are low?
Don't take away my guns?

No not really, I'm not eager to give up anything I have, especially an inalienable right. In fact if, god forbid, terrorism takes a foothold in the US somehow I'll be in the crowd yelling for deregulation of fully automatic weapons.

That's the difference between the 2 sides that leaves us at an in-pass. One side sees a bad guy shooting people and wants to try to stop next guy by preventing him from getting a gun. The other side sees that same bad guy and wants to give the victims a means to defend themselves because if your in that room when it happens, that's your only way out. The next bad guy will always come.

We compromised decades ago by allowing heavy regulation of fully automatic weapons. There will always be the next bad guy, why should we compromise now?

originally posted by: veracity
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?

That's kind of the problem, though. If, by your own admission, its not being used in crime, what's the point of banning it? I don't believe in banning things because they offend my sensibilities.

a reply to: jupiter869
Simple answer: NO!

With out access to weapons citizens are at the mercy of their government, criminals, or anyone physically larger or stronger than they are. "God made man, Sam Colt made men equale".

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.

So, you just want to ban something, even if it's not presenting a problem. This way you can sit back in your chair with a big smile on your face knowing you at least did Something, even if it amounts to nothing. Sounds like you have a solid plan there.

a reply to: caterpillage

NO, I am in no position to ban anything, I am just a mere citizen

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.

Yes I would give up using semi-automatic guns for "entertainment purposes" if it meant the lives of 50 people would be saved.

I would not give up the right to use/own a semi-automatic gun if it meant the lives of 50 people would be saved.


Just to be clear I do not own nor have I ever fired a semi-automatic gun in my life.