https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership
why the AR-15 only? Do liberals not know that there are other semi-automatic rifles that are far more dangerous (Example: AK-47's fire a nearly 2mm wider cartridge, FN FAL's fire a cartige nearly 120% larger, etc)?
>>50769
How does this stop criminals? When has a law or ban ever stopped a criminal? Go ahead and ban firearms, guess I'll be a criminal too so fuck the law. Molon labe is all I have to say in response if it does happen.
>>50769
>petitions.whitehouse.gov
ooooh that totally means something.
>>50771
agree just look at Mexico
If you don't want to live in a free country, you can move to China or Russia, where you can't find any assault weapons at all... at least not legally
>>50769
Because the majority of people pushing this don't know how semi-auto guns actually work
>>50786
really, yeah. another problem is that they fundamentally misunderstand the AR-15. they all think it's some big scary "assault (that means murder!) gun" made to kill 2000 people in 12 seconds. The AR-15 is the commercial model, made almost exclusively in semi-auto. The m16 is the full auto Vietnam War "baby killer terrorist >:(" rifle.
>>50771
>When has a law or ban ever stopped a criminal?
Yeah, let's legalize murder and rape while we're at it.
Moron.
>>50807
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
I have a gun.
You don't want me to have it.
I won't give it to you.
Your move.
>>50783
>China or Russia
More like any country that's not USistan.
>>50783
That's right, if anyone doesn't like something about this country they should run away... just like everyone who fought to change this country did.
>>50769
>Do liberals not know that there are other semi-automatic rifles that are far more dangerous
correct
even a guy taking about it on the news was going on about how it only fires 556 and that it's a military round meant for wounding and killing soldiers
>>50821
>military round
Careful there Anon, some liberal will call it a
"weapon of war" and want to ban it on those grounds
>>50807
Do murders and rapes still occur? Guess those laws are working then.
>>50769
a moment of silence for all the guns that lost their lives today
now for a 50 fag salute
>>50771
It doesn't stop criminals. It stops criminals from being able to kill 12 - 50 people at once instead of just killed one or two and running.
But no one expects borderline personality partisan cheerleaders to understand that. Go back to your popcorn and make some angry picture memes when assault weapons of all kinds are banned.
>>50821
>military round
>wounding and killing
That's just stupid talk.
>>50786
They work well enough for on mall cop to gun down 90 fags. I'd say that's a B+ at least.
>>50769
>Can still buy G3's
>AR fags eternally butt hurt
And nothing of value was lost
>>50771
Exactly.
>We have crime in society. Police must not be doing anything to stop crime. Let's fire them all.
>We require prescriptions for strong painkillers
>people still misuse them. better just sell them over the counter.
>Laws don't prevent every single offender.
>Better not have laws.
Anon your logic is beyond simplistic/flawed. I don't really care one way or the other about guns, but as an advocate you probably need to come up with a better argument (i.e. one that isn't simplistic garbage). I imagine if you open a book you might be able to find a decent argument.
Laws won't prevent ALL crime from happening. Banning a substance isn't going to prevent people from using it (see marijuana.) The question is how do we set up our rules, regulation, education programs, society, etc. to where potentially dangerous items do the least harm to the community? I'm all for allowing people to smoke weed, but that doesn't mean I think it should be on the shelf at the local grocery store and openly sold to 6 year olds. As for guns, I don't have a strong opinion, but considering the US's gun violence is much higher than the rest of the world's, there is probably a better system that could be put into place. Maybe its education, maybe its regulation of which guns are allowed, maybe its allowing people to buy rocket launchers, I have no idea, but I can say unequivocally that your argument is fucking retarded and certainly has not convinced me of anything other than that you are a dipshit and that we would all be better off if you didn't open up your mouth.
>Ban it for being so shitty?
Do people think the Orlando shooter actually used an ar15?
they do know they are just being used right?
do they know the shooter was a security guard licensed and verified by homeland security
Hows your gun ban going to stop government employees from getting guns?
I find all this panic mongering funny
>>50821
5.56x45mm is not designed to wound.
This is a meme that needed to die years ago.
>>50891
It would, but it was shot with a 556
>>50878
Fireworks with large amounts of explosive composition have been banned by Federal Law since 1966 but that didn't stop Timothy McVeigh in 1995 now did it? Guess what, he didn't fire a single round either. Criminals will always break the law to achieve their goal of harming people and laws only apply to those who follow them.
>>50894
>bait
>-11/10
>>50828
This
>>50882
>Laws don't prevent every single offender
This right here, people use these horrific events to further their agenda without thinking ahead. You could say they are reacting out of emotion versus actually attempting to reach an actual solution, which in turn results in situations such as the ban of alcohol (we all know how that turned out). It simply doesn't work when laws are enacted out of emotion.
>As for guns, I don't have a strong opinion, but considering the US's gun violence is much higher than the rest of the world's, there is probably a better system that could be put into place.
Here is my opinion: We need more guns in the hands of good people. When gun control advocates can make that happen I will gladly vote in their favor. I do agree with better regulation and education but those are the first steps to reaching the solution.
>I can say unequivocally that your argument is fucking retarded
I definitely could have made a better argument but it's a bit difficult to do that when sitting over a porcelain bowl and only having a few minutes to write out a coherent and easily understood thought.
>>50878
You can do that with fertilizer. There was an assault weapons ban nationwide from 1994 until 2003. In the last year of the ban, more people were killed by assault weapons than in 2014. Also famous shootings like Columbine occurred during the ban.
This was also not a Columbine or Aurora theater. This was a terrorist attack, and as Paris and Brussles show, the outright banning of all firearms does not prevent a terrorist from getting arms and killing people.
You aren't addressing the root of the problem with this. Same reason why prohibition doesn't work, and in fact fosters more violence and seedy profits for those who take advantage.
>>50769
Those who are pushing for gun control have their heads up their asses. France has highly strict gun control since 1939, but that didn't stop anyone from murdering 89 people in Paris now did it? The real problem is called ISLAM. Not addressing the real problem costs lives and anyone in denial about islam has blood on their hands.
My rights trump your fear of a weapon you don't understand.. a criminal or terrorist will always find a way to kill. If you ban semi auto rifles, they will use shotguns, ban those the will use pistols, ban those they will use explosive material, ban the material they will stab... now you have an entire population with no means to defend themselves and people who will still find a way to kill.
There is no stopping it. People die, bad things happen that is life.. but if something like the Orlando attack happens once a year, it is still infinitesimal in scope compared to the 250+ million people living peaceful lives.
>>50956
I think the general population of sheep, has grown too dependent on a police force/government that they expect to protect them.
When they aren't protected their only response is more government and less rights
They are under the impression that the police are there to protect them, and that the government is competent.
Lock yourself in a cage if you want to be safe, or arm yourself and get some situational awareness.
>>50950
>ergo
Literally who uses this word?
>>50882
So, what your saying is that making more laws to solve a lawless situation is a simplistic argument? Isn't murder already illegal?
Canada, for example, has more guns per person than the US, but has way less gun violence. Was it some kind of law that makes it this way?
No.
What America has is a violence problem. This problem is systemic and cannot be solved with just more banning/legislation.
>>50982
Legit can't remember typing that, kek
>>50769
Now, the majority of women are going after my paycheck to take care of the illegitimate children because they had them with sub-human men who don't produce into society.
They are coming after my guns, because they can't understand logic.
They're coming after my words, because their feelings somehow matter.
They're coming after my freedoms because, they can't handle theirs.
Woman are completely fucking evil,unfit for respect without a moral dowry.
>>50958
This. This Guy gets it.
>>50828
They do with the idea that there are consequences behind them if you are caught. Then your own life is over as well. If it didn't matter if you were caught or not, then you would just rape everyone you didn't like and maybe kill them.
>>50783
>free country
lol
>>50987
Good. Men deserve it.
>Why the AR-15 hate
it's been used in several high-profile shootings, and many people don't understand its no different than most other semi-auto rifles. in fact, Assault weapons make up some of the least used weapons in murders, but all the ones that make the news. The reason it is chosen is because homicidal edgelords want something that looks scary, not something that's best suited for the situation. Pistols are much more deadly at that range, given they make larger wounds when loaded with hollowpoints, afford the user MUCH more freedom of movement in close quarters, and can be reloaded just as fast with ammunition that is half the cost.
Everyone rationalized tragedies in their own way, and few look for evidence to support their facebook memes.
The FBI just released a 13 year study on gun violence, and I HIGHLY recommend everyone on the thread read it.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013
>>51033
That page somehow can't be archived. Try it, you'll see. http://archive.is/ I've never seen that happen before.
>>50808
Its not a slippery slope. hes not saying that will be legalized if we keep guns legal, hes proposing an alternate reality as evidence for his own argument to counter the argument given.
>>50984
>So, what your saying is that making more laws to solve a lawless situation is a simplistic argument? Isn't murder already illegal?
Did you even read the post you are responding to? Anon does not simply call for more laws. Answer in original post it says,
>The question is how do we set up our rules, regulation, education programs, society, etc. to where potentially dangerous items do the least harm to the community?
>>50769
The general consensus from what people studying policy have been saying on the news is that a big flaw and failure in earlier assault weapons bans was that they only targeted specific weapons.
In other words, the only real policy solution, if you want to go the route of banning assault weapons, is a general assault weapons ban once such a definition is made.
I don't support such a ban, however, because of the second flaw identified by the policy experts -- the one that essentially made the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban ineffective on major criminals: all existing assault rifles were grandfathered as legal. In other words, the consensus seems to be that the only way to make an assault weapons ban effective for most criminals is to basically confiscate existing weapons, which Murricans won't tolerate.
That said, it seems the goal of a new ban isn't so much to stop the career gangsters, but the opportunistic crazy betafag mass shooter who likely won't be going into a ghetto to try to obtain an assault rifle, since he'd be so fucking awkward he'd probably get shot as soon as he walked in. In that case a ban like the 1990s one may yet do something.
Doesn't seem to be much doubt that most mass killings occur because these warped individuals want their name to go down in history as supervillians...they see it make weeks if not months of news cycle and are copycat killing to make some national point or have a nationwide coverage of their personal butthurt and brand of crazy. Here's an idea: ban mass media coverage of shootings. Or make coverage only legal with the tools in place when the first amendment was written: non-automated printing presses. Wait, what? Don't want the first amendment to be infringed on like that? The first amendment applies to modern automatic, instantaneous press coverage also? A few crazies don't get to take away a basic right from everyone, even if there's a link to actual harm? Oh, that's okay for the second amendment, but not the first? I stand corrected.
>>51017
Even if the law did not exist I was raised with morals and know that murder and rape is wrong; additionally, these two go against an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't need laws to tell me what is wrong.
>>51124
>i see what you did there
>>51064
Those laws still wouldn't have stopped v tech or many of the other shootings, a ban would have literally no effect on crime at all
That guy could have done the same with any other weapon, maybe even better
According to the FBI shotguns have a 98% one shot stop rate, if he had used a shotgun like in the naval yard shooting all those that were just injured might be dead too
>>51155
>>hey let's censor the media
I think you missed >>51124's point. He is drawing an equivalence between the argument that the second amendment only applies to a select set of anachronistic firearms and that the first should then only apply to anachronistic methods of expression. The argument leveled at the second amendment is, however, historically as well as factually incorrect as the framers had in mind fully automatic weapons (which existed, and were owned by private citizens) and even artillery.
>>51155
No, you didn't get my point, which makes you a special kind of stupid for getting your panties in a bunch about it. OF COURSE you don't censor the media coverage. But why? Because even though there IS a correlation between more coverage and more crazies carrying out mass shootings, you don't trade off a constitutional right to stop it.
We could ban media coverage, ban freedom of religion, ban freedom of association, get rid of search and seizure protections, ban due process rights, ban guns, or restrict any of the above so severely that people feel "safe" (hint, they never will, knives and Molotov cocktails are cheap and readily available terrorist weapons too, and you'll cripple a free society with governmental intrusion long before you affect terrorists.)
TSA is great at making air travel a nightmare, making sure I can't clip my nails on a flight, creating a market for 1 oz bottles of shampoo, and searching my grandma twice before she boards a plane, but they literally fail over 90% of security tests that try to pass a prohibited object through.
So let me ask this (sarcasm alert): there's no constitutional right to air travel, or travel by car for that matter. Terrorists couldn't have killed thousands on 9/11 if we had just banned air travel, and thousands of people wouldn't be killed on the roads each year if we just banned private cars. We know it's impossible to stop people from getting dangerous things on planes and we can't prevent DUI from killing thousands so long as there are dangerous people out there with huge, powerful vehicles. Isn't it common sense to just restrict people's travel to absolute necessity, with a curfew and expanded checks to prove they have a reason to travel?
Some extremist with $2 worth of gasoline can kill dozens of people in any number of public places. Think you can stop that kind of person? How nanny state do you want to get?
>>51224
Thank you. You put your explanation more patiently than I did, and probably more clearly as well.
>>51179
>wouldn't have stopped
Not the point of the debate. An assault weapons ban in this case would be intended primarily to make mass shootings less deadly.
>>51179
>done the same with any other weapon.... shotguns
Proven wrong in real world shootings (gangland and lone nutbag). And shotguns lack range and necessarily have tiny magazines -- the second a shooter stops to reload is the second a person can tackle him (which is why a high-cap magazine ban makes slightly more sense with much less of a grandfather issue...).
And to those who say no ban will stop a determined shooter from using their gun of choice, here's a simple question: why have no non-gangbanger mass shooters used machineguns?
>>51226
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law#Constitutional_freedom
re the bill of rights: I think it's important to remind others that they're written as an explicit list of restrictions upon the federal government's power, not an exhaustive list of rights granted to the people by the government. The notion of right here comes from the idea of natural rights--rights that belong to all men; the bill of [restrictions] states that the government shall make no law infringing upon those natural rights so enumerated. The USSC was never intended to be the arbiter of those rights. They're not *granted* to you; you have them by being born.
It's an important distinction the popular perception of which has changed, unfortunately.
>>50984
>What America has is a violence problem.
No, America has a black problem.
Firearm homicide maps correlate perfectly with black and spic population zones.
>>51231
>why have no non-gangbanger mass shooters used machineguns?
Because large caliber heavy machine guns aren't something you walk around and spray and pray with, you idiot.
Machine guns are more expensive but not very hard to get than semi auto rifles.
>>50769
>AR-15 being most deadly weapon in the US
When will this meme end? Hand guns are used in more homicides then rifles. The other meme that needs to end is that America has a gun violence problem.
While that might seem to be the case, America in reality has a gang violence problem. It is responsible for the majority of gun related crimes in the United States.
I have a feeling that the gang violence problem that the US faces will never really get the attention that it deserves, since most people just want an easy fix. It's a problem that's a lot deeper than passing a few weapons bans.
>>50807
Do you feel the same way about Weed? Lmao
>>50878
I can kill up to 50 people with my hipoint carbine. I could kill about 10 with my Ruger American. I could kill 12 with my 1911, 8 with my g42, 5 with my mini14. Which one do you prefer?
Banning one gun is like banning all Honda civics. People will still drive and wreck.
>>51237
No SMGs, no fully-auto assault rifles, not even historic arms like a Tommy Gun that you can actually get and shoot at a range and probably buy with a good bribe. All those would give much higher kill counts when shooting into a crowd at say a theater, school, or night club, yet none have ever been used. Why? Because fully auto has been banned for personal ownership since 1968.
Also not used: suppressors (would have come in handy at Columbine where teachers started locking doors or evacuating as soon as they heard gunshots -- they planned that shit out way in advance too, but suppressors are so strictly regulated that there was no way they could get them).
>>51253
Full auto is not banned.
>>51253
>Because fully auto has been banned for personal ownership since 1968.
This isn't true. Wtf are you saying?
>>51263
>Full auto is not banned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns
since 1986, sorry, not 1968. And it's an effective ban, as in regulation so strict that there are only a few with the ability/time to obtain them (i.e. individual ATF approval), the rest being black market or grandfathered.
>>51267
>he doesn't know what a machine gun is
>laughinggirlswithguns.jpg
go away and stop. talking. shit.
>>50984
>Canada, for example, has more guns per person than the US, but has way less gun violence.
You haven't been to Toronto, Hamilton, or the entire GTA lately then. There's a shooting every week, and its always nigger-gangs fighting over territory and drugs.
An assault rifle ban wouldn't have saved Grimmie, as she was shot with a handgun.
>>51231
Mag fed shotguns are a thing friend, they can take just as many rounds as anything else, even drum mags if you want
>shotguns lack range
This is why debating you is pointless, you are completely ignorant of how weapons work, 50 yards is still within lethal range for buckshot and slugs can reach to 150-200 yards, he wouldn't have been able to miss in that building
The reason gang land killings aren't this deadly is because gangbangers don't organize their killings to take out as many people as they can, they usually just shoot in the general direction of an enemy or occasionally assassinate one another
And FYI, mag capacity limits also have no effect, not only can they be made with old school machining or new printing technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU
>>51231
Machinguns weren't used in many crimes before their ban either though, the ban likely had no effect on the rate of their use in crimes
>>51270
*sigh*
>In United States gun law, machine gun is a legal term for any weapon able to fire more than one shot per trigger pull regardless of caliber, the receiver of any such weapon, any weapon convertible to such a state using normal tools, or any component or part that will modify an existing firearm such that it functions as a "machine gun" such as a drop-in auto sear.
>>51278
>Mag fed shotguns
No shit. Largest mag is 12 rounds. Largest drum is 20 rounds. Not nearly enough for any of the major mass shootings given the number of rounds fired (not the number of hits). Some mass shootings have involved long ranges (UT Tower). And "mag capacity limits have no effect" is the same shit argument as all the "gun control has no effect" arguments, which I'll again say is clearly wrong because, for example, fully-auto weapons and silencers haven't been used in lone-wolf mass shootings. More directly, though, the lone-wolf shooters have tended to be more opportunistic and take the path of least resistance. The *only* ones who did really extensive prep and home-building were the Columbine kids, so those would be the ones I'd expect to actually go through with machining or printing & disassembling mags.
>>51267
Please educate yourself before you argue guns, you typical liberal retard.
>>51285
How often were those things used before they were banned? Where is your proof that it had any effect on their use?
And how is a 20 round mag that much less dangerous than a 30? How would the Orlando shooting have differed if he used a saiga?
If he only had ten round mags how would that have effected him >>51278 as the video shows reloading doesn't take but a few seconds
>>51253
Don't be a retard, silencers don't work like in movies, if someone fires a gun with one on you will still know a shot went off, it just won't do as much damage to ypour hearing
>>50769
how to reduce gun violence... legalize drugs. No more fighting over turf. No more fighting over product. No more fighting over stick ups. Police and legal system can now be used to maintain order and solve conflicts.
Most gun violence comes from low level dealers fighting over scraps. Legalizing and regulating drugs is the best way to reduce gun violence in America.
Look at prohibition, the murder rate peaked in the US during prohibition and wouldn't see the same level until the war on drug 50 years later.
>>50807
Prohibition.
Did it stop people from drinking? Or did it make the whole.fucking situation worse? Ignorant.cunt.
>>51293
This.. they were invented by duck hunters
and of course the proper name is suppressors
as they somewhat quiet the sound.. somewhat
games and movies get this so wrong, it's sad
>>51319
my man Kratman, the fucking crazy loon mentioned the easiest way to stop the drug trade in one of his books
Amass a large supply of coke in seizures, several tons... cut with a slow acting but fatal radioactive agent, release back into the supply chain
No addicts, no trade
This Orlando shooting, couldn't that guy have gone in with a knife and knifed 50 people fatally and probably have gotten away?
He must suck at Assassins Creed
>>51362
No proof he played any vidya so that may be why
>no i am not serious but it is only a matter of time before the news starts writing articles linking them
>>50769
first of all they probably dont have a license for it so banning it doesnt make a difference. its just something we have to live with.
>>50807
Triggered babe
>>51360
>legalization and regulation is bad
>murdering a huge percent of the population is good
horrible idea. I imagine that you have no morals and you have never even been near a church. Sentencing people to death for using drugs is beyond is fucking disgusting.
Also, selling tainted drugs along with real drugs on the market won't reduce demand. Instead, it will just give more power to the dealers who have good stuff. (No one would ever be able to control the supply in such a significant manner to make a real difference). Also, you think drug users that are near rock bottom really care that much about life and death? Futhermore, you are going to sentence fathers, bankers, high school kids, and so on all to death because "drugs are bad"? It serves no purpose. It is just some simplistic and evil "solution" that wouldn't solve a damn thing. This is the dumbest fucking idea anyone has ever thought up.
>>51341
FYI.
we regulate the sale of alcohol.
people use illegal drugs today and laws against it aren't slowing use down but i don't think any reasonable person says "just sell everything at the corner store."
>I don't give a fuck about gun control but make an argument that makes sense if you want to convince anyone.
>>51253
>full auto isn't used because its illegal
Every post you make shows your ignorance, full auto isn't useful for gunning people down, its inaccurate and it wastes ammo
That's why the military only uses it for suppressive fire, to engage enemies its semi auto or burst fire
And full auto guns are usually as easy as filling off a few small parts inside the gun, or you can bump fire or buy a slide fire stock, the first is illegal but the other two are legal and well known ways of achieving the same fire rate as a full auto rifle
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0f7OCnrrpk
>nobody used suppressors because they are illegal
Or maybe its because they will do fuck all to aid you in crime? They are extremely easy to make with access to simple tools or if you are lazy they can be easily and cheaply made out of readily available materials
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2NeBWYeZLM
And
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-5v2bHwI8I
Body armour isn't used in much in crimes either even though it was used to great effect in that bank robbery in California a few years back
Is that because its illegal to buy body armour?
>implying anything ever changes in status-quo land
Keep arguing about shit that doesn't matter
>>51358
>they were invented by duck hunters
That's a funny way of saying H.P. Maxim
>proper name is suppressors
Actually no, the original patents says silencer.
>>51483
>And full auto guns are usually as easy as filling off a few small parts inside the gun
Stop spreading this meme, it isn't true. You can this with some semi-autos, but not at all 'usually'. Most require more extensive modification to become full-auto, and most people are too retarded to do it and would just end up ruining the gun.
>>51504
Still possible and bump firing or slide fire stocks make it a moot point anyway
>>51515
>Still possible
Don't move goalposts.
>Moot point
Except it doesn't because it makes retards think guns are more dangerous than they actually are. It matters, don't spread false information.
>>51518
The point is full auto is useless and easily mimicked
Full auto wasn't use much before the ban or after is because its pointless, ignorant people think guns work like in movies
Besides which your reading comprehension is shit
>>51483
>And full auto guns are usually as easy as filling off a few small parts inside the gun, or you can bump fire or buy a slide fire stock, the first is illegal but the other two are legal and well known ways of achieving the same fire rate as a full auto rifle
>or you can bump fire or buy a slide fire stock
Full auto is indeed usually that easy, as I said
>>51519
Nothing is wrong with my reading comprehension, you're just an idiot. Bump or slide fire isn't full auto as you are now trying to suggesting (by any definition), and your use of 'usually' refers to filling down certain parts (note that part being a separate clause), which is factually incorrect. Full auto is not 'usually that easy' at all. As I have said, most semi-autos require more extensive modification to become full-auto.
>The point is full auto is useless and easily mimicked
Not here it isn't
>>51515
>Still possible and bump firing or slide fire stocks make it a moot point anyway
Which is a direct reply to MY point that conversion is not as simple as you seem to think it is. Unless you're ESL or don't know English, the 'moot point' you're arguing is clearly that bump/slide fire is similar enough to FA to count. Which as I have repeatedly pointed out, is not true, and misinforms people who don't know any better.
You don't know what you're talking about, so please, stop lying or just stop talking. I'd prefer both. So unless you can say something that isn't stupid and a repeat of your ramblings, I'm done talking to you.
>>51531
The rate of fire is close enough that it doesn't matter, if using a full auto weapon would be so much more effective for a mass shooting as was originally implied people would be finding and using things to get around the ban
>>51033
>Why the AR-15 hate
because it shits where it eats
>>50781
What do you mean just look at mexico? Do you know whats happening down there?? Im just asking
>>50769
hurr but it isn't fully automatic therefore can't kill 50 people and wound 40 more unless they are all fags hurrrr how does this stop criminals durrrrrrrrrrr
>>50813
Simple.
You don't have many friends. I have more friends. We may be liberals but we also have guns. We surround your house. You either starve to death or come out and get shot.
Your move.
>>51033
True. All semi-autos should be banned. Not just the AR-15. The issue is mass death vs. a few targets.
>>51559
Nah.
>>51559
And what about the millions upon millions of semi autos already out there? Selling your property will always be legal, you know.
>>51519
>Bump stock
>Full auto
I sure hope your targets are placed 50 meters away spaced at about 20 feet apart, because that's where your bullets going.
And by the way, you still have to pull the trigger each time with a bump fire stock. It is incredibly difficult for even trained users.
>>50769
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." - Donald Trump
>>51595
>Selling your property will always be legal, you know.
Except it's totally not: drugs (prescriiption and rec), licensed media (or basically anything licensed, though media/software is most common), certain food products, various chemicals, any homemade firearms/explosives/narcotics, firearms in most states without registering as a seller and getting a license first, cars and land in many states without proper paperwork filed with applicable fees, stocks at certain times in certain ways under certain conditions, agricultural and fishing products (many types are not legal to sell in certain areas at certain times), patent-infringing products, detailed information or hardware to break/circumvent the law, radioactive material (intensity above a surprisingly low threshold), war trophies, U.S. government medals, etc etc etc.
>>51543
>much more effective for a mass shooting
Organized crime and well-funded gangs use SMGs for hits. Haven't you ever seen photos released of FBI gang raids?
The reason fullyautos aren't used in lone-wolf mass shootings is precisely because they are prohibitively expensive to buy (open market or black starts at 10k) and time-consuming requiring special tools, privacy, and a steady mindset to mod.
>>50892
In that case it should take two other memes out of play with it.
>>51515
Good luck aiming at any kind of distance with the whole front of the gun reciprocating.
>>51813
I think what sets them apart is that they dramatically lower the distance that they can be heard. It's still loud as shit to the user, but they're right next to the barrel.
>>51813
>They can reduce about 60 to 80% of perceived sound.
Uhh, no. That's retarded. Typically, silencers can *only* reduce the sound by about 30 db, at best that's 20%, MAYBE 30%, not at all anywhere near 60-80%.
>Still as loud as a jet taking off but still, 80% is more than "somewhat" quieter.
Mate, at the high range, which we'll say is 180 (an exaggeration for the vast majority of cases), an 80% reduction would bring it down to 36 db, that's not a jet taking off, that's a literal whisper. Even if we say your low point of 60% (which is way more than actuality), that still only brings it to about conversation level. If we bring it down to the more accurate ~160 db, normal rifle fire would be even quieter. I don't know where 60-80% came from, but that is painfully wrong.
>>51816
I think you're trying to describe slamfire, and neither an AK nor a Glock really do that, and GETTING them to do that is harder than just dropping in a converted sear into certain guns. Regardless, that isn't full auto.
>>51823
Basically this, silencers aren't really meant to hide a shooter completely, they're meant to make it so you can kill a sentry without everyone knowing you're there by making it so the shot isn't recognized as a gunshot right away. It's to buy you more time if you absolutely must shoot, not make it so you can sneak into a base and stealth kill everyone like in [Insert Game or Movie].
>>51828
You don't know how sound works. It's logarithmic. In db's 1 is less than half of 2 and the gap between 1 and 2 is smaller than the gap between 2 and 3. Also I said "perceived" sound. According to the human brain a difference of 10db is perceived as twice or half as loud. So 155db to 125db is 87.5% quieter by human perception and a lot more if your looking at the concrete forces.
>>50878
The virgina tech massacre had over 30 deaths and that guy only had pistols. Banning "assault" weapons only lets the myopic feel like they are doing something helpful when in reality they are justvtaking away the rights of law abiding citizens.
>>51843
Trump wanted to ban assault rifles. Can't stump the trump.
>>51837
You really need to stop talking. When we look at and especially when we present reduction level amounts, we use absolute values. If 155 db is 100% of the 'perceived' sound and you reduce it to 125 db, that isn't an 87.5% reduction, it's a 19% reduction. No one goes around saying a silencer reduces the sound level by 87.5% because that's both wrong and incredibly misleading. It's the kind of thing that makes people think silencers actually silence gunshots.
>"Oh I heard it makes a gun 87.5% quieter!"
>"Oh boy, that means a terrorist or ebil white christian redneck with a scurry assault rifle could go on a rampage and no one would know!"
>"Yeah! We should totally try and get these dangerous items banned, no REAL gun owner would ever want them!"
>"I'm calling my representatives right now! We have to stop mass shootings and getting rid of silencers will do just that!"
And if you're the same retard talking about bump fire being 'close enough' to full auto, you really need to lurk on /k/ more. You keep talking about things you don't at all understand.
You sound like a teenager who is trying to sound smart by reading off of Wikipedia and you need to stop.
>>50878
Pipe bombs and arson are much more effective and less risky for a perpetrator than trying to use a firearm to kill lots of people.
>>51936
I know all I need to. Semi-automatic rifles and silencers are too dangerous for citizens to own. Only the police and military should be allowed to have them.
>>51769
>c. 2000
>>51941
>should
Any other wishes you would like granted?
>>51232
THANK . . . YOU! !! ! I have the hardest time trying to get this fact through people's sucky dumb faces into their dumb sucky brains.
>>51554
Mexico has firearm bans but has a higher crime rate than the US.
>>51558
>we don't want you to have guns
>so we're going to shoot you
>with guns
Did you just get a fucking lobotomy
Liberals to know that gun violence is all situational right?
China has had a 50 death killing spree before we did, and the Paris shooting is worse then the top 5 US shootings combined.
>>50878
A pistol, knife, pipe bomb, rifle, and musket can do that.
>>51936
Like I said, you just don't know how sound works. If 155db is 100% of perceived sound and you reduce it to 145db, that is a 50% perceived sound reduction. You are the one who keeps talking about things you clearly don't understand and refuse to learn. Db's are not absolute values. 30db difference is a factor of 8. Regardless of what number you start at, 30db difference is always 8x or 1/8 as loud. A shotgun blast is 8x louder than a jet taking off. Why is this hard for you to understand?
> You sound like a teenager who is trying to sound smart by reading off of Wikipedia and you need to stop.
I'm just a middle age guy who is actually fairly smart. I'm no genius but I did ace the acoustical engineering class I took in college. You might know more about guns than me (doubtful) but you definitely don't know more about sound.
>>52090
Jesus Christ you're either incredibly thick, completely retarded, or a troll. I'm guessing the last two combined. I'm not explaining this again, you go back and look at what I wrote, because apparently you have fucking awful reading comprehension.
>I'm just a middle age guy who is actually fairly smart. I'm no genius but I did ace the acoustical engineering class I took in college. You might know more about guns than me (doubtful) but you definitely don't know more about sound.
>I'm smart, the college class I took 15+ years ago means I'm an expert, and I know more than you do!
Fucking hell, I hate summer. Well now I know you're omniscient, and that I am just a lowly naive. I defer to your infinite wisdom master in this and all other subjects, good day.
>>51558
>We are liberals
>Do as we say or we will kill you.
I.. fuck.
>>52103
Not him, but
>I hate summer
Do you even know what "summer" is fucking about? It's referring to the (not real, according to moot) influx of posters because of schools and shit going out. If you have a normal job that isn't a teacher, you're essentially working year round, save for a few weeks of vacation depending on your field. Fuck, he already said he's out of college, so you couldn't have thought he was just some fucking 10 year old. Is it that you're just a fucking newfag, or are you just trying to pull off some damage control at this point?
>I am just a lowly naive
'Naive' isn't a fucking noun. For some reason it sounds like you're trying to use it as a replacement for 'peasant' or 'pleb/plebe.' Judging from that misuse, your lack of accents, and general fucktardery, I imagine you're just failing at reading the word phonetically. In that case, the word you're looking for is knave.
>because apparently you have fucking awful reading comprehension
Oh, the irony...
>>52201
Teachers still work year round, they just don't always works with kids year round.
Not sure where people get that idea.
