5 ms·

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post. "automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings." Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have. "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns. I think you have a lot of reading to do.

tsycho 14y ago
I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.
- confusedNRA 14y ago
  When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field. Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun. Slightly different outcome. How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?
- clarky07 14y ago
  Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.
  - dmix 14y ago
    Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant. How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.
      - dmix 14y ago
        Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime: > Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...
  - tsycho 14y ago
    That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?
wisty 14y ago
There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of most people. Overall, murder rates won't change a lot. Husbands and wives will still be able to murder each other. Gangsters will fight with knives, or illegal guns. But mass murders will be harder to pull off. It might also make the police more effective, as they will rarely be outgunned.
- clarky07 14y ago
  Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell? I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them. Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.

tsycho 14y ago

I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.

confusedNRA 14y ago
When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field. Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.
- mpweiher 14y ago
  OK. "Operator" runs amok with a nerf gun. Slightly different outcome. How again is the highly efficient killing tool not part of the problem?
clarky07 14y ago
Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.
- dmix 14y ago
  Not only incidents where they were successful in self-defence but the perception of the potential victim being armed is also highly relevant. How much crime is deterred from happening in the first place, for example in states where its well-known that gun ownership is popular, is often difficult to track accurately. But there's a ton of statistics that show correlation in crime reduction.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Exactly. Compare gun crime in DC, which has tons of gun control, to lots of other places without gun control.
    - dmix 14y ago
      Indeed, new numbers come out all the time. This ones from 2011, from two states with some of the worst gun crime: > Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C. But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in...
- tsycho 14y ago
  That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

wisty 14y ago

There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of most people. Overall, murder rates won't change a lot. Husbands and wives will still be able to murder each other. Gangsters will fight with knives, or illegal guns. But mass murders will be harder to pull off. It might also make the police more effective, as they will rarely be outgunned.

clarky07 14y ago
Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell? I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them. Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.