LUNATICS WITH GUNS, DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND HOMOPHOBIA...

is scary knowing how fast a gun could take someones life. i'm glad your friends were ok pianoTM, scary that you had to look like Gourd mentioned.

***

strangely enough, rv was looking though a gun catalog this evening.
she pointed to a Sig Sauer MCX, and said it looked cool.

i said, that's fully automatic?!?!?
she said no, it's semi...
i said, oh.

i dont' really see any reason i'd want to own an automatic rifle.
burst fire, maybe...

white_mage
Automatic weapons are already illegal. These guns only look like "machine guns".

No...Fully automatic weapons are not illegal. Some states, like New York and New Jersey have legal restrictions, but there is no federal law against fully automatic weapons. A lot of states institute a special waiting period for them. In states like Florida or here in Missouri. Nope. Money, an ID, and a five minute online background check is all you need to walk out of a shop with an AK-47 or that new Sig Sauer MCX everyone's talking about(provided they include them in their inventory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never renewed. Fully automatic weapons haven't been illegal since 2004. Instead of arguing, look it up.

author=pianotm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanThe Federal Assault Weapons Ban was never renewed. Fully automatic weapons haven't been illegal since 2004. Instead of arguing, look it up.

Assault weapons (as defined in that ban) are not "fully automatic weapons." I don't think you understand. The bill that expired limited semi-automatic, that is 1 trigger pull per shot, rifles that had high capacity magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc.

"Fully automatic" weapons were already banned from production prior to that bill, during the bill, and remain banned after the bill's expiration. Again, the only "fully automatic" weapons that are capable of being acquired are from someone with one manufactured and registered prior to 1986.

It would be effective against mass killings, but not general homicide. Australia is actually a good example, since knife violence (and in a couple cases, gasoline bombs) has mostly made up for the lack of gun violence.

Also...you're right about assault rifles, so I found this.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/

A tax is not a ban.

Toaster_Team
Please explain how it seems to work in certain other countries like Japan or Canada but wouldn't work in America.

Unrest. People do not get this for some reason. There is widespread division in this country, fueled by systemic racism and general hate that is deliberately being fueled by those in power. What people don't seem to understand is that this overall internal distrust is sweeping. There was once a time when we were ruled by Great Britain. This should not have been the case as the majority of the colonies came here to escape European rule. The various representative countries simply claimed rulership by default.

They established laws without any consideration for the will of the people. They raised taxes. We dumped their tea in a harbor. They started arresting us. We raided the governor's mansion in Massachusetts. They instituted a gun ban. We shot them. Our society is built on a distrust of government, and our government has maintained its power base by supporting a general distrust throughout its citizen base. There is the machine gun tax. There was the Brady gun bill for awhile. But if you're talking about a sweeping gun ban, then you're going to see gun violence way higher than if the state just leaves it the hell alone (which is what the government would really like to do, but can't). The reason is that people with guns WILL kill the people trying to take them. Don't believe me? Look no further than the Bundy Ranch incident, where we saw the Feds actually caving to a civilian militia.

Actually, there are 10 guns for every person in America.

author=Corfaisus
I forewent using a pump to deflate my waterbed and used a gun instead. It worked, but it was more costly in the long run. Rendered the waterbed completely useless and ruined the carpet.

Stop using a gun irresponsibly.

pianotm
Unrest. People do not get this for some reason. There is widespread division in this country, fueled by systemic racism and general hate that is deliberately being fueled by those in power.

Those are part of the systemic human condition and not limited to certain countries. I don't believe this is the root of the problem.

There was once a time when we were ruled by Great Britain.

The British Empire has had its share of colonies under its rule. Yet, they don't all struggle with shootings or the prevalence of guns in general. Please explain.

This should not have been the case as the majority of the colonies came here to escape European rule.

I think this more precise:

The colonists came to America in the 16th and 17th centuries for several reasons, particularly practical motivations that related to their homeland, such as overpopulation, religious persecution and poverty. For these reasons, many colonists came to America seeking economic opportunity and the freedom to practice their religion without having to fear the government.

Jude
It demonstrates the only thing that matters. It's mine, I've done nothing wrong with it, my ownership of it affects nobody, so it's not your decision whether or not I can have it.

Please apply this rationale to drug users.

Owning something doesn't imply the legitimacy of ownership. I'm pretty sure your quote was mentioned by all of the mass shooters out there, what's would you conclude from this?

Jude
I can't make sense of your second sentence.

The Other with a capital O. The other people.

It's my business if the fact that easily having access to firearms leads to increasing the probability of me ending being shot at. That was the meaning of my sentence.

There are 15 million hunters in the USA. That's about half the population of your country. It might be a minority, but it's a lot of people who didn't shoot or threaten to shoot their neighbors with their rifles.

Again:

team_toaster
As far as needing rifles to hunt, how many people need rifles to hunt in order to feed themselves? I don't have any statistics but I would imagine a majority on individuals in the USA can get their meat at the supermarket.

Personally, I use a bazooka to hunt grouse, does it make it ok? Joking aside, most people don't need to hunt anymore, they do it as a hobby. It is therefore not necessary for them to own a firearm.

I don't need to explain shit to somebody who misquotes and misunderstands me.

Or you don't know the answer. :)

Anyway, if I were American I would be soooo fed up that no change is taking place with shooting after shooting after shooting after shooting. It's so sad. But there's this firearm entitlement which is just so fossilized in the culture. It's so hard to understand from an outsider's perspective.