(06-15-2016, 04:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:(06-15-2016, 04:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(06-15-2016, 03:10 PM)taramarie Wrote: Agree with Eric here. Until America decides to change it will get the same results. It makes me glad i live in a country with tight regulations on guns and guns designed for mass kills are banned here as well as the fact it is illegal to carry a gun or any weapon on you. Take a lesson from other countries America. It won't hurt you to learn from others every so often. England is another prime example so I hear.
Problem is we have a right to self defense here. We have a Constitution that makes it very difficult to strip folk of their rights and a very divided electorate. When Eric is on his meds he is aware that he isn't going to get his daydreams manifest any time soon.
It would be much easier legal wise to allow the right to self defense work. Right now we're stuck between two world views. Prohibition is illegal and impossible to enforce, but the blue folk are stubborn enough to keep pushing it anyway. In Orlando, they created enough of a no-self-defense zone for a bunch of people to die.
Insane, but apt to continue.
Not against self defense. Just against autos and semi autos for obvious reasons. Of course Eric will not get his wish. I wonder if he is against all kinds of guns. That will never happen and shouldn't either. I also agree to other methods too which you have mentioned. But there is no need for a gun designed for over kill if it is for self defense.
You mentioned something about stating opinions that perhaps are not fact-based. Good for you, very few are willing to admit that.
Just want to point out some things to you; similar to my earlier pointing out that the slippery slope of absolute gun bans is really just ammosexual masturbation for group self-identification - it's the foaming at the mouth that does it for them.
The stated difference used by the ammosexuals to distinguish a 'military assault rifle' from the 'sport rifle' obtained and used to kill dozens by Mateen in Orlando and by Lanza at Sandy Hook is that the former is "automatic" and the latter is only "semi-automatic." The hope of the ammosexuals is that non-ammosexuals will assume that there is some actual difference in lethality between the two weapons. The problem is that there are non-ammosexuals, like myself, that are pretty familiar with weapon platforms of both civilian and military source. There is no difference.
The two key, and most important, similarities are the muzzle speeds (how fast the bullet travels down range) and capacity (how many bullets you can shoot before you have to take time to reload the weapon).
ARs have tremendously high muzzle speeds and that gives them deadly accuracy down range. A US Marine has to qualify at 300 meters but is expected to be deadly at 500 meters with his M16 - there's no difference with the AR15 readily available to the public. Ask a Marine to try that with a pistol or revolver, and you might witness something rare.... a tear. Oh, and that kind of firepower makes hiding behind a wall, a car, or even level 2 body armour pretty much ridiculous.
Then there's capacity. It takes just seconds to reload, but in those seconds, targets can move - either getting away or trying to tackle the shooter before he can reload. And it's not just the manual time to reload, but guns get hot, and it begins to impact performance including just shutting down its ability to fire. ARs, both civilian and military, are designed to address that limitation, but only up to a point. Even Marines are trained to keep their weapons, in combat, off auto - for a few reasons, semi-auto is more accurate, keeps the gun cool enough, and better kill-to-ammo ratios.
Oh, and for less than $150, one can make their AR15 essentially, full auto -
So next time you hear someone going off that ARs are just sport rifle because they are not automatic, you'll know you are either talking to someone who is as all-things-guns ignorant as yourself or just another ammosexual making masturbation noises.