Senate Gun Control

this is why The Simpsons never runs out of material .

 

And in a well-regulated militia.

 

Can't have the regulated part, upsets the GOP. All that government oversight..

 

But you don't use it for defence. That's a proven myth; a lie the guntards tell themselves to create an imrpession of virtue in their actions when in reality it boils down the classic American position of "but I want it and bugger everyone else".

That and men with tiny, tiny willies. Like, micropenii.

 

Let's take a look at actual statistics, straight from where you say they got it from.

First, let's get rid of accidental deaths - that's just a false equivalence, and I can guarantee that accidental gun deaths weren't included with the cartoon gun 'statistics' anyways.

Second, let's go right to the proverbial horse's mouth - the FBI homicide statistics.

Total Homicide Guns (total)
2011 12,795 8,653
2012 12,888 8,897
2013 12,253 8,454
2014 12,270 8,312
2015 13,455 9,616

So, yes, the lion's share of homicides in the US are done with guns.

As far as gun laws go, I agree that people writing gun laws don't know what they are talking about - they seem to think that silencers/suppressors are hearing protection.

 

You do realise you make it harder to rub one out to your Colt when you talk about all those crime statistics, don't you?

 

1. Because semi-auto shotguns are used for waterfowl hunting. I own two of them for that very purpose, as it is illegal to shoot waterfowl once they have landed. (technically unethical, definitely illegal if you're spotted by a game warden.) Being able to shoot multiple times into a flying flock is a real benefit, especially since some of us are nowhere near as talented as Tom Knapp when it comes to pump-action.

Plus, while they COULD be deadly to humans at close range, semi-auto shotguns would have been wholly ineffective at the 500 yard range Paddock was shooting. You might get a few eyes put out, maybe some pellets getting lodged under the skin, but that would have been it.

2. Semi-automatic requires action on the person holding it. It only shoots one round with one pull of the trigger. If I'm at the range with my 1911, I can't just empty the entire magazine by holding down the trigger. That's not how the device operates. One simply cannot get a spray of bullets with thing unless it has been modified in some capacity.....which is very much illegal.
This is the reason why both Democrats and Republicans are now actually working together to ban bumpstocks (modified stock that uses the recoil to push the lower receiver forward and back into the shooter's finger, causing another round to be automatically fired), and why the NRA is actually breaking from their general hardline stance to offer tacit support for tighter control of the things.

 

Is this the kind of thing Dick Cheney was using that one time? You remember the time.

 

I don't know what Dick Cheney was firing. But...I do remember hearing that the guy he shot was only about 15 feet away. EDIT - Turns out it was 30 yards.


And this is what it did to him.





As stated before, shotguns are ineffective at the kind of range Stephen Paddock was shooting.

 

I appreciate the serious answer. As far as the finer points of hunting go, I don't know a lot. But if waterfowl hunting is important enough to justify the widespread sale of semi-automatic shotguns, they'd better not be that lethal. If what you say is true about their lethality, then I don't see why they can't be an exception. I'd worry though that someone could modify it to be more lethal, maybe by using a different type of ammo. Not my wheelhouse.

I am familiar with bump stocks (only recently), but I don't think the bump stock ban goes far enough. The bump stock magnified the weapon, yes, but the weapon alone is still deadly. Any semi-automatic rifle is deadly without accessories.

I can't think of a justification for semi-automatic rifles. I don't care if hunters use these for some obscure bird or something, enough is enough. Without the bump stock, the shooter still would have done a hell of a lot of damage.

 

That you might be shooting birds with a semi-auto is not sufficient grounds to defend a semi-auto. Try rabbit shooting with a .22 bolt action, complain less, get good.

EDIT: To Dread Pirate's post above - we allow semi-auto for professional hunters etc as a licence class. But it's based on proper, bolted-to-wall safes being used at home/place of work, and a demonstrable need for it. As in, proof you are using it as often as you say.

Which is to say, we are terrifying state with no freedom.

 

I believe the whole NFA thing is insane, people should be allowed to own SBRs and not have to do work around like the rifle caliber handgun in order to have a SBR.

I am against any ban on semi-autos as it is a ban on technological progress for citizens. Some people consider any semi-auto as a assault weapon, as well as pump-actions. Semi-autos are over a 100 years old, and even AR-15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s, so they are no spring chickens either. Getting back to more on my point, semi-autos are the bare minimum of modern firearm technology, really we should have access to even buy full autos. It would be like putting a limit on how much processing speed your computer should have or a HP limit for cars. The point of the Second Amendment was to put citizens on a equal footing with the soldiers of the current day. "Equal footing" being the operative clause, regardless of the actual technology in use, muskets or full-autos.

Double barrel shotguns are awful weapons for defending yourself, slow reloading, only two shots, outdated, and inaccurate with the off center barrels. Revolvers are the preferred weapons for crimes as they are cheaper and more disposable than semi-auto handguns, plus they do not eject spent shells so that is less clues for police to track a criminal down with. Plus many revolvers are more powerful than semi-auto handguns and more likely to defeat police body armor or go though walls and hit bystanders. Some SWAT teams use revolvers because of their higher power. Bolt-actions are still repeaters, and are better for sniping, many mass shooters have used bolt-actions in their carnage, plus they are still used by modern day military and police units. During the L.A. riots, Korean shopkeepers were able to protect their stores from looters with semi-auto rifles after the LAPD retreated and left them on their own. The supreme court ruled that police do not have the obligation to protect lives.

As ROTS teaches us,



As a AR-15 owner, I do not own one because I feel insecure or need to dominate others, or feel sexually insecure. I have it to protect myself and my loved ones in case such a need ever arises which I hope it never does. Also it is a fun gun to target shoot with, easy to use and not much recoil, plus all the tacticool crap you can buy for them. Really, the whole penis envy thing really seems to be the antis projecting their insecurities onto gun owners. Generalizing an entire group of people the way some antis do is childish, as is the penis argument. Some of the most insecure people I have met are gun control supporters, fearing us "gun nuts' will snap and go after them, while at the same time wishing death on gun owners and their families, makes me sick. If you are so much for peace, then you should not wish harm on anybody, even if you disagree with them.

 

Forgot to mention a basic economic concept, anytime a government bans a popular item, it automatically creates a highly lucrative black market, which often makes things worse. Probation was a good example of this concept in action. Semi-auto firearms are very popular in the US, especially AR-15s which are both the most popular and most common rifle in this country. Banning them can easily cause a blackmarket. Look at NYC with its heavy restrictions. The only two ways to get a handgun in NYC is to hire a 50k lawyer to force the city to give a permit, or go see Tyree down the block.

Also, if gun owners are compensating for small penises, then why do so many spend an extra 200 bucks for a SBRs including small pistol caliper carbines instead of extra long barrels in large calibers?

 

Man, you're really hung up on the sexual inadequacy thing. Get over it.

The idea that small arms, fully automatic or whatever, put civilians on "equal footing" with the U.S. armed forces is laughable. They have artillery, grenades, armored vehicles, warships, aircraft, and most importantly actual combat training and logistical support and the full industrial might of the country (including arms manufacturers, obviously) behind them. For the U.S. military to be beaten on its own soil by civilians, many soldiers, sailors and marines would also have to turn against it just as in every other successful revolution. We only have to look at the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-- before the Second Amendment was even ratified-- to see how worthless that comma-spliced sentence is when it comes to civilians resisting government tyranny. That the state would willingly sow the seeds of its own destruction in its most basic document is ridiculous and disproven by the actions of the very men who helped to write the ****ing thing.

I would list the many, many more examples of American civilians or those otherwise effectively under U.S. jurisdiction taking up arms during this country's short existence and getting crushed by the superior military, paramilitary and law enforcement. But then I realized that a great number of them were slaves, abolitionists, freed African-Americans, Native Americans, Filipinos, striking workers, socialists, anarchists, and other politically and socially marginalized groups. They, of course, do not count. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to enable armed civilians, usually whites, to fight on behalf of the state, not against it; and that is often what they did.

Yes, those honorable shopkeepers who defended their private property against violent, crazy blacks.

 

Didn't you know, Darth Guy, a small firearm can take down a stealth fighter...

 

Pish, combat training is overrated. And, if God's on your side...

 

What does that teach us?
That there are phallic symbols everywhere?

 

Is "Tyree down the block" the b side of "Jenny from the Block"?

Don't be fooled by the glocks that I got,
I'm still, I'm still,
Tyree down the block

 

I could buy a handgun less than a mile from my house....legally....and drive to NYC with it holstered at my side, whistling that "boot in your ass" song and flying a confederate flag. I'd be an ***hole but I could do it.

 

"Equal footing" is the operative clause of the second amendment. You heard it here first! And also nowhere else.

 

And black people make ammosexuals feel inadequate for some reason.