17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

[Koharu]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

The lack of critical thinking skills here is amazing. No, I will not shoot someone, even in that circumstance. There are ways to hurt someone or escape from them that do not involve a gun, but human instinct in these situations is quite often to freeze up, and no gun will help with that. Add in the fact that the gun is more likely to be used against me than it is to save my life... nope. Not going to let your fear-mongering be the excuse for why guns should be easily available.

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

[Joey1996]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

Still trying to figure out how banning semi-automatic rifles would end school shootings...

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument. The fact that guns are used far more on non-shooting activities doesn't mean that they aren't an issue. They are used for shootings, that's a fact. There are almost no shootings in countries with gun control, that's another fact.

Still trying to figure out how banning semi-automatic rifles would end school shootings...

Sure, banning them won't be enough, but did you ever think of the innovative idea of doing several things to counter a problem?

[Horus]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

[Joey1996]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and I've listed those things itt.

1. Universal background checks, that also account for social media posts.
2. Reconstitution of Obama era laws that prevent people who are deemed too unstable to handle their own funds from purchasing weapons.
3. An end of the gun show loophole.
4. A ban on weapon modifications which turn semi-automatic weaspons into fully automatic weapons.
5. Stricter laws against the movement of guns across state and county lines.
6. Preventing people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing weapons.

These are all reasonable gun regulations that all sides should agree to and will lower the amount of gun violence in this country.

[America Needs R'hllor]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

Yeah, we need measures against Police brutality. But can you not see the difference between a policeman who's supposed to defend the law and id trained in the use of such weapons and a random person who has no idea and is in no official duty? Seriously, what even is this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, that's good. But there is no reason that random, untrained people should own a semi, it only has potential for harm. So why not do what you suggested, and ban semis?

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

[Joey1996]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

Yeah, we need measures against Police brutality. But can you not see the difference between a policeman who's supposed to defend the law and id trained in the use of such weapons and a random person who has no idea and is in no official duty? Seriously, what even is this argument?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, that's good. But there is no reason that random, untrained people should own a semi, it only has potential for harm. So why not do what you suggested, and ban semis?

Because that just isn't reasonable, the US has a unique gun culture which wouldn't allow something like that, at least not at this point.  And I do believe that there are responsible gun owners who should be allowed to own a weapon for protection or hunting. I certainly think that if we're banning civilians from owning semis then police shouldn't have them either, especially given the fact that they kill unarmed people as is.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Just on CNN. Looks like the fbi really ed this up.

Yup, they were alerted about this guy months ago

Just like they were about Tamerlan Tsarnayev (The Boston Bomber #1). They really should act on tips faster

[Strudelcutie4427]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

The lack of critical thinking skills here is amazing. No, I will not shoot someone, even in that circumstance. There are ways to hurt someone or escape from them that do not involve a gun, but human instinct in these situations is quite often to freeze up, and no gun will help with that. Add in the fact that the gun is more likely to be used against me than it is to save my life... nope. Not going to let your fear-mongering be the excuse for why guns should be easily available.

Well thats fine for you, have fun with that. If a guy breaks into my house with the intent to harm anyone in my family, the only ways he'll be leaving is in an ambulance or a body bag. I have the right to use deadly force to protect people and property

[Karpatsky]

If the assualt weapons ban extended until 2007, 32 VTech students and faculty would still be dead. How about we focus on gun regulations that will actually stop mass gun violence instead? Restricting the movement of guns across state lines would actually help enforce gun laws in urban areas like Chicago and Baltimore.

Not to mention 'assault weapon' in general is a useless term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon
Is this a good definition?

No. The qualifications don't make sense. Prioritizing stuff like pistol grips or the 'ability to accept' (not the presence of) certain features rather than concrete things like caliber or ROF is non-sequitur. It's a term meant to scare people because it sounds like 'assault rifle' - which actually means something.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

[Karpatsky]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

The lack of critical thinking skills here is amazing. No, I will not shoot someone, even in that circumstance. There are ways to hurt someone or escape from them that do not involve a gun, but human instinct in these situations is quite often to freeze up, and no gun will help with that. Add in the fact that the gun is more likely to be used against me than it is to save my life... nope. Not going to let your fear-mongering be the excuse for why guns should be easily available.

Well thats fine for you, have fun with that. If a guy breaks into my house with the intent to harm anyone in my family, the only ways he'll be leaving is in an ambulance or a body bag. I have the right to use deadly force to protect people and property

+ the gun is not a defense, the gun is a weapon. 'Human instinct' might be to freeze up, which is why anyone who actually wants to protect themselves rather than just look tacticool gets training on usage. The fact that without training a weapon is less useful does not in itself make the weapon unuseful in general.

[Karpatsky]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

You can disagree with his argument without pretending it doesn't connect logically, because it does. You are much more likely to successfully use your car to get to your destination than you are to be in a car crash. This is an argument against banning cars. You might think that the rate of car crashes is high enough to make it unjustifiable, but it doesn't make the argument itself 'not make sense'.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

The lack of critical thinking skills here is amazing. No, I will not shoot someone, even in that circumstance. There are ways to hurt someone or escape from them that do not involve a gun, but human instinct in these situations is quite often to freeze up, and no gun will help with that. Add in the fact that the gun is more likely to be used against me than it is to save my life... nope. Not going to let your fear-mongering be the excuse for why guns should be easily available.

Well thats fine for you, have fun with that. If a guy breaks into my house with the intent to harm anyone in my family, the only ways he'll be leaving is in an ambulance or a body bag. I have the right to use deadly force to protect people and property

+ the gun is not a defense, the gun is a weapon. 'Human instinct' might be to freeze up, which is why anyone who actually wants to protect themselves rather than just look tacticool gets training on usage. The fact that without training a weapon is less useful does not in itself make the weapon unuseful in general.

Oh I am trained. I've been shooting for 6 years and I was trained by my cousin who's an Army sergeant. Being able to shoot a gun is something I think every (sane) person should learn to do

[ProudModerate2]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful. 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

This is one of the worst arguments ever.
What planet are some of you from? Good God!

[Devout Centrist]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Guns are the bulk of the problem. I say this as someone who loves to go with friends or relatives to the range. Shooting is great, even cathartic. I think that the Second Amendment ought to stay intact as it is.

But there needs to be more regulation. When this is how law enforcement traces guns used in crimes, when we block the CDC from researching gun violence, when we ignore the problem and deflect, deflect, deflect...we're doing nothing to address the issue. Planting our heads in the sand is a surefire way to get nothing done.

It's not just mass shootings, either. Gun crime is rampant across this country, in disparate localities and different communities. Are we to believe that this is simply the cost of doing business? Are we really going to ignore the issue staring us in the face?

There are measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Gun control is necessary. We needn't abolish the Second Amendment or confiscate all firearms to fix the problem; we just need to be honest with ourselves and realize that guns are part of problem.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

Not all guns are used in deadly school shootings, but all deadly school shootings use guns.  Specifically, certain kinds of guns.

I'm comfortable with forcing indigenous peoples and others to use more primitive guns to hunt with very strict regulations and quotas for these more dangerous guns.  Like each native community gets so many permits and the guns are doled out when someone is going hunting in places with high polar bear populations, for example.  Then the gun is returned, or you are arrested.

The hunting argument is no longer valid, because we found a workaround. 

So really what is your argument here?  Because I doubt what I said above has convinced you to change your mind.  Instead, I think you just want to be able to own and shoot these guns and deflect responsibility and blame for deadly school shootings anywhere else so you don't lose that convenient access to your hobby.

[Koharu]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Guns are the bulk of the problem. I say this as someone who loves to go with friends or relatives to the range. Shooting is great, even cathartic. I think that the Second Amendment ought to stay intact as it is.

But there needs to be more regulation. When this is how law enforcement traces guns used in crimes, when we block the CDC from researching gun violence, when we ignore the problem and deflect, deflect, deflect...we're doing nothing to address the issue. Planting our heads in the sand is a surefire way to get nothing done.

It's not just mass shootings, either. Gun crime is rampant across this country, in disparate localities and different communities. Are we to believe that this is simply the cost of doing business? Are we really going to ignore the issue staring us in the face?

There are measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Gun control is necessary. We needn't abolish the Second Amendment or confiscate all firearms to fix the problem; we just need to be honest with ourselves and realize that guns are part of problem.

Precisely.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

If we ban semis, that means everyone. Cops too. Only the military. It's amazing how many liberals, who call themselves anti police brutality, want these killing machines to stay in the hands of cops, while the black guy next door who just wants to protect his family is disarmed.

Honestly Assault weapons should eventually be banned for everyone including cops. It would better to wind down to handguns, I don't see a reason to disagree with that unless you want militarized weapons on the street.

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

Well for starters, I'm not a cultural conservative. But nice try.

And what I am saying is looking at facts. The vast majority of these guns you hate aren't used for a purpose that involves killing humans, especially in America. So to blame them for mass shootings because they were used in a small handful of events is just plain silly and ignores the truth. If you take away this particular "type" of gun, you do nothing to stop someone who has decided they wanted to harm a large number of people from actually doing it. They'll just find another way. And then we are back to square one again because you're ignoring the real issue.

[fhtagn]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Please tell us what experience you have with hunting, especially for large game that can actually kill you if you aren't careful.
 

This is a sentiment I've heard from pretty much every recreational and/or subsistence hunter who I have ever engaged with on the subject. As for me, I have zero interest in ever hunting so I actually have no dog in this fight (and am agnostic on certain types of gun control). I'm just here to rustle your jimmies. If you guys want to go hunting with an semi, be my guest, just know there are whole communities of sportsmen who think you're a weenie.

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

My man. Glad we're on the same page here 👌

Funny that you seem to be speaking about entire communities that you are not a part of, and only know a small handful of folks who are a part of them.

Uneducated, delusional lefties who know nothing about guns and hunting really have no business speaking about it. Take your Clozapine and move on.

I love how hunting becomes the major, fateful issue, rather than dozens of school shootings every year. But oh, sure, be comfortable with your hunting... the murdered teenagers can wait.

These guns are used A LOT more in hunting and recreational shooting and not harming people than they are in mass shootings. Clearly the gun isn't the issue.

Not all guns are used in deadly school shootings, but all deadly school shootings use guns.  Specifically, certain kinds of guns.

I'm comfortable with forcing indigenous peoples and others to use more primitive guns to hunt with very strict regulations and quotas for these more dangerous guns.  Like each native community gets so many permits and the guns are doled out when someone is going hunting in places with high polar bear populations, for example.  Then the gun is returned, or you are arrested.

The hunting argument is no longer valid, because we found a workaround. 

So really what is your argument here?  Because I doubt what I said above has convinced you to change your mind.  Instead, I think you just want to be able to own and shoot these guns and deflect responsibility and blame for deadly school shootings anywhere else so you don't lose that convenient access to your hobby.

What you are suggesting is wasting taxpayer dollars on a program that absolutely cannot work, and forcing more people in prison over silly regulations that serve no real purpose. 

I thought you folks actually cared about wanting to reduce the incarceration rate, not make it worse?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

Well for starters, I'm not a cultural conservative. But nice try.

And what I am saying is looking at facts. The vast majority of these guns you hate aren't used for a purpose that involves killing humans, especially in America. So to blame them for mass shootings because they were used in a small handful of events is just plain silly and ignores the truth. If you take away this particular "type" of gun, you do nothing to stop someone who has decided they wanted to harm a large number of people from actually doing it. They'll just find another way. And then we are back to square one again because you're ignoring the real issue.

And what are the real issues? Does America have a larger population of madmen? Are Americans somehow genetically prompted to go and use guns for mass shootings? Why is this a big problem only in your country, if not because the rest of us have gun control?
And I'm aware that banning a particular type of gun won't solve the problem. I'm for many different measures of gun control, such as the ones Joey listed. My argument for banning assault rifles is just that this is a military weapon not meant for civilians, and there is no reason to require that when there are handguns\non-automatic hunting rifles. It only causes additional danger and makes no sense.
And btw, I'm not for "putting more people in prison" or taking away guns from people. Those who already own guns... well, there's nothing the government can do. I very much do not like the thought of police or, god forbid, military breaking into the homes of people and taking away their guns. That's nonsense. All I want is stricter gun control, and that doesn't put people in prison.