There is no need to be aggressively stupid here

I do understand what it means. He is being facetious while we are being serious and literal. In other words, we are debating like mature adults and he is debating like a juvenile.

 

REASONABLE, here, is purely subjective. I might think it's REASONABLE to punch you in the face for talking. Because you and others have misused your first amendment right, I might think it's REASONABLE to strip everyone of their first amendment rights. Regardless of how stupid that is, CAPITALIZING the word REASONABLE won't make it any less ridiculous.

 

Maybe you'll be the next one the "ratio" guns down; maybe your kids at the mall, the movies or at school.

Even so, no worries... it's just YOU, YOUR family, friends or loved ones... an "extremely small" loss. So be it.

I have a lot of rights and so do you; how much you want to bet that you don't determine them all? (Got Absolute Autonomy?)

This nation will change (it always has); it is inevitable. (Welcome to reality.)

BTW... I despise your views on this.

 

You cannot legislate personal responsibility and values. They have to be cultivated organically. Any plan that involves government social engineering is likely to fail.

 

The problem is the definition of "reasonable". There are many powerful people in politics that think "reasonable" means a complete ban. NY Mayor Bloomberg, Rahm Emmanuel, even Obama has supported gun bans in the past. Obama was even Director of the Chicago based Joyce Foundation from 1994 - 2002, Joyce proposes gun bans and supports most of the major gun ban organizations in the US.

One side literally would take away all the guns if they could, and all appearances are that gun confiscation is their ultimate goal. With that goal in mind, they will never be satisfied with your idea of reasonable gun control. They will see your ideas as incremental steps to their ultimate goal.

Look at the "high capacity magazine" issue. Right now, the rhetoric is that nobody needs a 30 round magazine. Limit it to 10 rounds, and the arguement will be that nobody needs a 10 round magazine and it should be limited to 3 (the shotgun limit for hunting in many states). Even that wont be good enough. After a person kills 3 people with his 3 round capacity weapon, the arguement will be that "if only the shooter didnt have those 3 round magazines....". The gun control side will never be satisfied.

As far as 10k people being killed, its near 30k per year in the US. 16k are suicides which I dont count as homicides or a threat to society. Most of the remaining firearm caused deaths are related to drugs and gangs.

 

You really think that this gun is used for hunting because it's more accurate? It's not an automatic. And accurate, really? Is that your complaint about it? Do we need hunters to use less accurate guns?

 

You keep demonstrating how ignorant you are. I recommend you stop while you're way behind...

[video=youtube;JbC5mEc6ipE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbC5mEc6ipE[/video]

 

Yes we know. Now go back to shoot Halo with your Chinese friends please.

Thank you.

 

Depends in the user. I like it because it is accurate, light weight, the customization possibilities, I am quite familiar with it, and I can use it left handed.

 

It won't stop stupid but if it makes people just stop and think.

The event last week isn't even a blip on the total numbers people killed and maimed by firearms each year but maybe those numbers can be reduced. Around 100 pre-school kids were killed last year by guns. If we could save half of those kids by teaching and reminding people about safety would that not be worth the cost?

If gun owners want to protect their "rights" they need to step up and work with people like me looking for reasonable solutions. Some of something is better than all of nothing.

 

Makes hardly any difference. The amount of rounds you can put down range per minute are less important than how accurately and precisely you can fire the weapon. I know this because I have ample experience with firearms in training and combat settings.

Why would you be so eager to defend the use of pistols, which have been used to murder 32 people at Virginia Tech?

 

A six shooter could be used to shoot six children in the head. It could even be quickly reloaded, or use a special magazine (homemade mag, just sayin') that could allow it to carry about as many as the shooter wants, to include 100.

So, would you defend a six shooter? Or is the problem with the shooter, and not the gun?

 

The 5.56 NATO, as are all (that I am aware of) designed to be less powerful than the likes of the 7.62 NATO to better facilitate automatic fire.

An assault rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO is easier to handle than an automatic rifle being chambered in 7.62 NATO. Having shot an automatic FN FAL before, I can attest to the unweildly nature of full auto 7.62 NATO.

 

I don't think it's people being aggressively stupid. I think it's a case of an unfortunate designation. If you've never heard of ArmaLite, wouldn't you tend to think "Assault Rifle" when you see the designation "AR-15?" I know I did.

 

uh, the 5.56/223 is in no way too powerfull. Most hunting rifles are much more powerfull, and capable of shooting far greater distances than the 5.56/223. My hunting rifle is chambered in 7mm rem mag. I have taken several deer with it at 700+ yards. It is 3 times more powerfull than the 5.56/223.

your post was the type of ignorance the OP was referring to. And I'm not tryint to be arrogant or insulting. But this is the problem with trying to debate this issue. Most people arguing on your side have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

 

Pistols are DEADLY and can be used to kill MULTIPLE targets in a SHORT period of time:

[video=youtube;AfvMJxQUiOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfvMJxQUiOc[/video]

Anyone with military or law enforcement background should know this!

 

An AR-15 uses a light flat shooting .223 cal bullet that is very common in small/small medium game rifles. It is too weak for any real hunting.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

The only practical difference between an AR-15 and a military M-16/M-4 is the lack of a 3-round burst setting. And when I was in the military, the ONLY time I ever fired my rifle on 3-round burst was Final Protective Fire training in Basic.

Semi-auto AR-15's are functionally identical to military rifles.

 

Absolutely DEADLY pistol shooting:

[video=youtube;OHgCbt5HqJc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHgCbt5HqJc[/video]

Each shot fired is a DEAD target.

 

Regulations to remove Stupid from the pot serves to protect other gun owners and their rights.

 

True, however a quick Google search and problem solved.

 

It's still the gun. And these kids weren't shot with precision. Just tons of bullets flying every where. No need for those guns to exist regardless of your six-shooter analogies.

 

Other than the fact they lack the feature that determines military applicability, automatic fire.

They are not functionally identical to the M-16 series of rifle.

 

No, is it MORE accurate? One would hope if you use it for hunting you hit what you aim at in which case its fire rate is not an issue.

You did not address the question.

What is the utilitarian reason for the design?

 

Or to ignore your inability to reload your firearm quickly.

Your handgun is included in your definition.

Are you going to move the goal posts now?