Masked said:

I didn't say they should be taken away

Was merely asking why they shouldn't and to further probe the biggest defence to that question(freedom)

Try to keep up

At any rate, I'm off to a thanksgiving dinner

Will reply later possibly


Shroomslip:  genuinely just curious man.  Trying to get a better understanding of point of views and logic behind it all

---

Dont try and act like you're being logical here you fence sitter

Near Dylan said:

Bodhi of Ankou said:

Near Dylan said:

thats just such a silly argument.. we need cars in our society. at this point they are essential. Military grade weapons add nothing to civilian society but a slight feeling of "yay if i wanna buy something that sprays bullets everywhere i can yayy freedom" but thats accompanied by tragedies caused by it.

What do you think will happen if assault weapons are banned? What negtive outcomes will it have? Im looking for an exact answer, how will the country be worse off without machine guns?

---

Thats a silly, reactionary argument. These weapons are almost never used in the commission of crimes, and your description of them is completely phobic and full of fear.

Freedom is exactly what will be lost, dont try to downplay its importance.

---

americas gun homicide rate is 25 times that of the average for developed countries. It isnt a coincidence... I know im not the first person to bring that up but its an important statistic t o take into mind.

You may think i am downplaying the importance of freedom, but you are ignoring the cost.
Taking away assault rifles is not taking away freedom. They serve NO purpose whatsoever unless you are fighting a war. It is literally just taking away your right to play around with a killing machine. Is it that big of a deal that you cant shoot an M16 at the gun range? Is it really, really worth it?

It's literally a toy thats on the market, designed to kill people, and theyre like "here ya go have fun try not to kill anybody".

i can understand a pistol for self-defense. Like i said, i own one. But having an automatic weapon is not self defence. If you need to be able to fire 30 bullets into a guy thats tryna steal your wallet just to feel safe, youre a pussy. Just buy a six shooter and pop some shots of at the guy, youre not fighting a fucking war.

---

Yeah that's such a bullshit argument it's not even funny. Just because you're not in the middle of a war zone doesn't mean "NO ONE IN THE UNIVERSE EVER NEEDED 30 BULLETS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THAT'S FOR PUSSIES
Tell that to the korean dudes in the LA riots who had to defend themselves from an onslaught of violent looters.

That's the thing about stuff you may not need right now. It's really good to have when you need it. But when you do need and you don't have it, then you're fucked.
It's better to have something and never have to use it then to need something and not have it.

Not to mention there's absolutely zero mention in the 2nd amendment of "Thou shalt not have 30+ round magazines, suppressors or military grade weaponry".

Your argument is "pistols are ok".. but semi automatic guns that can shoot 30 rounds... well THAT'S where I draw the line..   They are both guns and both do the same things. That's the dumbest argument. People should be allowed to have high capacity magazines and weapons that spray 1000 rounds per minute if they want.  Who the fuck are you to say you are allowed to have a gun but other people can't own guns that hold more bullets?

"My gun can kill innocent people if used maliciously.... but that's ok because it only holds 9 rounds.
But those guns that can kill people slightly more efficiently when used maliciously, and hold slightly more rounds, no one should EVER be allowed to own those!"
You don't need it right now and I can't think of a reason you would need it therefore it should be banned. No, that's not how this works.

And yeah guns are just designed for killing people Not self-defense, or hunting, or anything like that.. just murder

Quote:

i can understand a pistol for self-defense. Like i said, i own one. But having an automatic weapon is not self defence. If you need to be able to fire 30 bullets into a guy thats tryna steal your wallet just to feel safe, youre a pussy. Just buy a six shooter and pop some shots of at the guy, youre not fighting a fucking war.

---

Shroomism said:

Yeah that's such a bullshit argument it's not even funny. Just because you're not in the middle of a war zone doesn't mean "NO ONE IN THE UNIVERSE EVER NEEDED 30 BULLETS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES... THAT'S FOR PUSSIES
Tell that to the korean dudes in the LA riots who had to defend themselves from an onslaught of violent looters.

That's the thing about stuff you may not need right now. It's really good to have when you need it. But when you do need and you don't have it, then you're fucked.
It's better to have something and never have to use it then to need something and not have it.

Not to mention there's absolutely zero mention in the 2nd amendment of "Thou shalt not have 30+ round magazines, suppressors or military grade weaponry".

Your argument is "pistols are ok".. but semi automatic guns that can shoot 30 rounds... well THAT'S where I draw the line..   They are both guns and both do the same things. That's the dumbest argument. People should be allowed to have high capacity magazines and weapons that spray 1000 rounds per minute if they want.  Who the fuck are you to say you are allowed to have a gun but other people can't own guns that hold more bullets?

"My gun can kill innocent people if used maliciously.... but that's ok because it only holds 9 rounds.
But those guns that can kill people slightly more efficiently when used maliciously, and hold slightly more rounds, no one should EVER be allowed to own those!"
You don't need it right now and I can't think of a reason you would need it therefore it should be banned. No, that's not how this works.

And yeah guns are just designed for killing people Not self-defense, or hunting, or anything like that.. just murder

---

Near Dylan said:

My focus here is on automatic assault rifles/weapons. Which, imo, arent necessary to hunt with, arent necessary to defend your home with, and arent necessary to spray into a crowd of looters.
Having a pistol is much different than having an automatic rifle.  Just because they are both guns and both shoot does not mean they should be treated as the same thing.
The Las Vegas shootings could not have happened with a pistol. It simply couldnt

---

Shroomism said:

Near Dylan said:

My focus here is on automatic assault rifles/weapons. Which, imo, arent necessary to hunt with, arent necessary to defend your home with, and arent necessary to spray into a crowd of looters.
Having a pistol is much different than having an automatic rifle.  Just because they are both guns and both shoot does not mean they should be treated as the same thing.
The Las Vegas shootings could not have happened with a pistol. It simply couldnt

---

Automatic weapons are not available to the public.

Just because YOU think certain rifles aren't necessary to hunt or defend with, who are you.. the world's foremost expert on all things?
Really, who the fuck are you to say what is or isn't necessary to defend MY home with? And where the fuck do you determine what's necessary or not?
In life, there are 15 quadtrillion to the 90th power of variables of things that can happen. There is literally no way in fuck you are capable of determining what is necessary or not, in every possible situation.
Having a pistol is NOT that much different than having an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. They are all guns that shoot bullets. Tools. Your logic is flawed.

911 couldn't have happened without airplanes, it just couldn't have. Ban airplanes

---

vinsue said:

Wonder what the general consensus and public reaction would have been if this guy shot up the Life is Beautiful Festival,
a different demographic than the, and I hate generalizing like this but "white bread, country music loving republican"
type target he did pick.

---

Shroomism said:

Just because YOU think certain rifles aren't necessary to hunt or defend with, who are you.. the world's foremost expert on all things?
Really, who the fuck are you to say what is or isn't necessary to defend MY home with? And where the fuck do you determine what's necessary or not?

911 couldn't have happened without airplanes, it just couldn't have. Ban airplanes

Literally, it's NOT necessary to EVER fly in an airplane. You can just drive or take a boat. Airplanes are never necessary and used in terror attacks to kill thousands of innocent people. Ban airplanes

---

Near Dylan said:

I just don't think the amount of situations that happen that would require someone to have an assault weapon are common enough to justify the sale of assault weapons.

---