Ok, but tens of millions of people wonât agree with that, are heavily armed, and wonât give their guns up. Now what do you do?
- If heâs on a register, which he should have been, he couldnât buy a gun legally. He could of course obtain one illegally, like a more normal criminal would.
- As he had made threats of violence, some form of surveillance is justified, there are many options.
you donât even have to go that far mate. thereâs load of youtube videos of fellas emptying the magazines on semi autos like AR-15s in a matter of seconds. it just takes practice and a quick trigger finger.
cunts like @Labane love to play the auld semantic game that âtheyâre not automatic/machine gunsâ⌠like it makes them look superior. But to the average punter, esp outside of america, they are for all intents and purposes the same fucking thing, and 99% of people have no business owning one.
in fairness to @anon7035031 he did say semi-autos should be banned
It wouldnât. How well has it worked in central America and south America where many countries have strict gun laws? Gun bans work in countries that have low crime rates. The states with the most lax gun laws in the US have the lowest number of gun homicides. Why is that?
You have no notion what you are talking about, unsurprising given your only ventures outside Ireland have been to soccer stadiums. Do you think all the denizens of Chicago are going to hand in their illegally obtained weapons? Do us all a favor and go collect them, that would be much more likely to have a positive outcome than a ban.
Which labane are you referring to here?
You should definitely ban guns, mate.
Like, I mean, itâs like soooo obvious.
you love to call people, like @Horsebox for example, simpletons when the refer to ar-15s and the like as machine guns or automatic rifles
while technically you are correct, to most of the world an AR15 is a fucking machine gun
itâs just bullshit semantics that gun nuts love to trot out to make themselves look superior and imply that people on the other side of the argument havenât a clue
2 Likes
Sorry mate you are just incorrect here. A machine gun is a weapon that can fire continuously by just holding down the trigger, and at insane rates, like several hundred rounds per minute. An AR-15 can only deliver one round at a time, but agree in the hands of a reasonably well trained individual, you could get an impressive number of rounds off per minute.
But as I have said, ban semi-automatics, as regardless of the arguments, there is really no civilian use for them.
Apologies to @horsebox, who is of course a poor craythur, and surely not a simpleton.
mate, I have actually got to shoot an AR15
I know very well the difference betweeen an automatic and a semi auto
when I lived in colorado I knew loads of fellas that owned semi autos and were mad for inviting me out to their place in the country to fire off a few rounds. some of these fellas could empty a magazine in seconds. in hands like that and with 50-60 round magazine it is for all intents and purposes a fucking machine gun that can do untold
all else is semantics
An AR15 can only deliver one round at a time. Itâs just that the shooter yesterday was abke to deliver that one round quite easily to kill 17 people. So whether or not its a fully automatic weapon or something that âonlyâ delivers one round at a time is immaterial isnât it? If you have a millitary style assault weapon like that, multiple magazines and a target rich environment, does the detail of whether its fully automatic matter? Of course it fucking doesnât. Itâs insane that civilians have access to them.
The 2nd amendment is now a suicide pact ran an opinion piece in the WP today. A very good way of putting it.
No, itâs highly material and relevant for the following reason. Iâm pretty sure you can follow this argument unlike the true feeble minded around here.
There is about as much chance of the 2nd amendment being overturned or a total gun ban as the ROI winning the 2018 World Cup, zero. So the only hope is through legislation, as the constitution doesnât specify what type of weapons the citizenry are allowed to own. Where do you draw the line? Go back to muskets? For legislation to pass it has to have majority support, so a ban on semi-autos has a shot, ban all guns that can be fired with relatively high frequency.
A majority simply wonât agree to a ban on guns for multiple reasons, in particular with violent crime rates as high as they are, and the proven fact that law enforcement cannot protect people from armed criminals and nutters. Outside of this issue, how do you propose getting the existing 300 million guns out of peopleâs hands? and thatâs the legal ones.
You have been suckered in.
Mental health is not the problem ffs
Do you really believe that if the Government started letâs say a Gun amnesty where people who returned guns could get a monetary fee that a huge surge of guns wouldnât be handed in for destruction?
I presume buying guns on the black market can be done extremely cheaply due to the amount of the fucking things lying around the place.
1 Like
Is this clown still defending or deflecting away from guns being the problem? A higher state of delusion Iâve not seen in a long time
1 Like
Given that you admit to schizophrenia, I sure hope you donât own a gun.
I suggested such an amnesty a few posts up? But if they even got 100,000 guns that way, its a drop in the ocean, but a start. As I said ban semi automatic weapons, assault rifles and handguns, that allows people still bear arms but reduces the risk. Guns are easily bought unregistered at gun shows, black market whatever. the horse has bolted really but whatâs a solution. An outright ban on guns is total fantasy, so pointless suggesting it.
If nobody ever suggests it, it will be total fantasy, alright.
So thatâs what people should advocate for, because it is whatâs needed.
If enough people advocate for it, it stops being total fantasy, the Overton window moves and it starts being a genuine political issue.
In any sane country, it would be the obvious thing to do.
Seeing as you wouldnât answer it earlier Iâll ask again. If they banned guns youâd have tens of millions of Americans who own guns, who consider it as much a part of their culture as Irish people do drinking, who would disagree with this ban and refuse to give them up. Then what do you do?
The police would still be armed until such time as there was no longer a problem.
All countries have police units who are armed.
You arrest people who refuse to give up their guns, and throw them in jail if necessary.
The USA needs a war on guns. It would be much, much more sensible than having a war on Muslims, a war on terror, or a war on truth.
The gun lobby should be treated like terrorists.