Some semi-autos are easily modified for full auto fire, making the distinction one w/o a difference.
Joel Send a noteboard - 21/12/2012 10:53:59 PM
This is just a basic gun fact that absolutely no one with a microphone, tv camera or print column seems to have access to, but is not all that esoteric.
"Semiautomatic" means a gun shoots one bullet at a time.
I know this because I speak English, not because I work with a lot of gun nuts and hunters, nor because I read a lot of military history. It's just what the word means when applies to guns. That is every gun you have ever seen someone in the movies fire which did not have things moving outside the gun or was not shooting bullets like water from a hose. The latter is known as an automatic weapon, hence SEMIautomatic denoted a reduced function. Yet, judging by the way the term is repeatedly used, you'd think "semi" is some sort of superlative prefix, and semiautomatic weapons were just about the scariest things ever. By contrast, those huge rifles that look like hammerhead sharks and can explode your head a mile away are usually bolt action (you have to move a lever around before pulling a trigger, like the old cowboy guns, but more complex ), and the most powerful handgun on Earth, that can blow your head off, so do you feel lucky punk, is an old-fashioned revolver.
Semiautomatics are like the Apple of gun types - they do things themselves, for idiots, so they lack the power or capability of similar devices whose operator must do more of the work himself. And that might actually be a point against their use, or whatever, so it is hardly the sort of fact the more partisan vultures making a living talking about disasters might want to conceal. There is no rational motive for either side to want to hush up this tidbit, but they insist on using the term like it's the be-all and the end-all of dangerous objects.
Also, things I have learned from being a history/military buff.
- An AR-15 shoots a rather smaller bullet than most rifles, including deer rifles (and might be, IDK, knowing nothing about hunting and not owning or having ever fired any actual guns, too small to kill deer very effectively, them being so much bigger than people). It is the lame prototype version of the rifle most carried by US military forces, only theirs are made all military-sexy and ramped up. Yet, in the book Blackhawk Down, the soldiers were complaining that they were having problems with their beefed-up AR-15s (M-16 & M-4) because the bullets were going right through the drugged-up Somalis and doing little damage, so unless they hit a vital organ, they couldn't drop their attackers. The Delta Force soldiers (in the movie, those were William Fichtner's & Eric Bana's characters with the little hockey/bike helmets) were frustrated too, because they were having to use ordinary weapons, when as the US Army's premier elite soldiers, they had access to, and preferred, more powerful rifles that would actually put down their enemies.
- There is technically no such thing as an assault rifle: it is a casual use term, first coined by Adolf Hitler to describe a rather new type of weapon, that had DECREASED range and SMALLER bullets than the standard issue German rifles.
The Sturmgewehr 44, was so named, because it was intended for close-quarters fighting that had begun to characterize warfare in the 20th century. Prior to WW1, armies massed their soldiers and shot at one another in pitched battles, so range and power of the weapon and ammunition was a priority. When the 20th century rolled around and machine guns and really effective artillery made soldiers look into the ideas like "hiding" or "building a fort" you could no longer stand up and blast away from across an open field, and now you had to sneak up close and fight them at much shorter ranges, either to get around or past the things they built to keep away bullets, or else simply to be able to hit the much-reduced parts of their bodies that were exposed.
These new necessities required innovative tactics, called in German "Sturm" and in English "Assault". In other words, the big old guns were fine for standing on the defensive, or other purposes, but when you wanted to assault a position or a fortification, you were getting in close and didn't need the higher standards of range, stopping power or accuracy that had all been the goals of rifle development in previous eras. The troops the Germans trained to specifically carry out missions of this nature were named "Sturmtruppen" or stormtroopers. They were used to "storm" the enemy's trenches or bunkers or forts, and the implication of the term is speed and not a lot of concern for niceties like precision or finesse. There were mobile artillery guns in the second World War, meant to help soldiers with such tasks, known as Sturmgeschutz or Sturmhaubitze. They were not very useful in the standard role of artillery, since the armored vehicles had the guns pointed straight forward, rather than up in the air for a longer range. The trade-off was made so it could move safely and quickly to keep up with the foot soldiers and tanks. The sturmgewehr was so named, because it continued in the pattern of mobility and close combat specialties implied in other uses of the word.
It is largely a coincidence that the English equivalent term, "Assault" has an alternate meaning that refers to a crime of violence. In civilian life, assault weapons, in keeping with the military useage, would be superior for personal defense, due to the ease of use in close, emergent situations. No one keeps a high-powered sniper rifle or massive machine gun for self-defense, those being the weapons of someone engaging in premeditated mischief. The person who is not a highly-trained or dedicated marksman, also typically needs more bullets to thwart an attacker than the professional or psychotic with the time to build up a "one-shot, one-kill" level of proficiency, so the caterwauling about Jared Loughner's extended magazines was equally off-target.
Regardless of the sides or stances one takes on an issue, intelligent debate and policy cannot be formulated when no one has any idea what they are talking about. A frequently stated opinion by a lot of people is that while explicitly people-killing guns should be banned or restricted, hunting weapons are okay. I just want to throttle such people, because aside from the legal objections they don't seem to realize Deer and bears are bigger and tougher than human beings!. A weapon that will be effective against THEM will be equally effective against human beings, if not more so. Look at the aftermath of a car that rammed into a deer, versus one that only hit a person, and tell me that the devices built expressly to kill those animals are as safe as the compromising nitwits seem to think they are. If we don't know what we are talking about, people will nod along in approval as a ban is passed on weapons using terminology that strictly speaking, refers to the tradeoff of range and power in favor of the small size and easy portability and they'll smile with relief as weapons whose specific criterion is "overkill as relating to people" are exempted and protected.
The people who oppose firearms but are willing to make exceptions for hunting weapons are just as ignorantly mistaken as the people who are in favor of being able to buy just about any time of gun you want at the supermarket, but think "assault" weapons are a little over the top. Either way, attempts to base legislation on such ignorance is going to result in laws that completely miss the point.
"Semiautomatic" means a gun shoots one bullet at a time.
I know this because I speak English, not because I work with a lot of gun nuts and hunters, nor because I read a lot of military history. It's just what the word means when applies to guns. That is every gun you have ever seen someone in the movies fire which did not have things moving outside the gun or was not shooting bullets like water from a hose. The latter is known as an automatic weapon, hence SEMIautomatic denoted a reduced function. Yet, judging by the way the term is repeatedly used, you'd think "semi" is some sort of superlative prefix, and semiautomatic weapons were just about the scariest things ever. By contrast, those huge rifles that look like hammerhead sharks and can explode your head a mile away are usually bolt action (you have to move a lever around before pulling a trigger, like the old cowboy guns, but more complex ), and the most powerful handgun on Earth, that can blow your head off, so do you feel lucky punk, is an old-fashioned revolver.
Semiautomatics are like the Apple of gun types - they do things themselves, for idiots, so they lack the power or capability of similar devices whose operator must do more of the work himself. And that might actually be a point against their use, or whatever, so it is hardly the sort of fact the more partisan vultures making a living talking about disasters might want to conceal. There is no rational motive for either side to want to hush up this tidbit, but they insist on using the term like it's the be-all and the end-all of dangerous objects.
Also, things I have learned from being a history/military buff.
- An AR-15 shoots a rather smaller bullet than most rifles, including deer rifles (and might be, IDK, knowing nothing about hunting and not owning or having ever fired any actual guns, too small to kill deer very effectively, them being so much bigger than people). It is the lame prototype version of the rifle most carried by US military forces, only theirs are made all military-sexy and ramped up. Yet, in the book Blackhawk Down, the soldiers were complaining that they were having problems with their beefed-up AR-15s (M-16 & M-4) because the bullets were going right through the drugged-up Somalis and doing little damage, so unless they hit a vital organ, they couldn't drop their attackers. The Delta Force soldiers (in the movie, those were William Fichtner's & Eric Bana's characters with the little hockey/bike helmets) were frustrated too, because they were having to use ordinary weapons, when as the US Army's premier elite soldiers, they had access to, and preferred, more powerful rifles that would actually put down their enemies.
- There is technically no such thing as an assault rifle: it is a casual use term, first coined by Adolf Hitler to describe a rather new type of weapon, that had DECREASED range and SMALLER bullets than the standard issue German rifles.
The Sturmgewehr 44, was so named, because it was intended for close-quarters fighting that had begun to characterize warfare in the 20th century. Prior to WW1, armies massed their soldiers and shot at one another in pitched battles, so range and power of the weapon and ammunition was a priority. When the 20th century rolled around and machine guns and really effective artillery made soldiers look into the ideas like "hiding" or "building a fort" you could no longer stand up and blast away from across an open field, and now you had to sneak up close and fight them at much shorter ranges, either to get around or past the things they built to keep away bullets, or else simply to be able to hit the much-reduced parts of their bodies that were exposed.
These new necessities required innovative tactics, called in German "Sturm" and in English "Assault". In other words, the big old guns were fine for standing on the defensive, or other purposes, but when you wanted to assault a position or a fortification, you were getting in close and didn't need the higher standards of range, stopping power or accuracy that had all been the goals of rifle development in previous eras. The troops the Germans trained to specifically carry out missions of this nature were named "Sturmtruppen" or stormtroopers. They were used to "storm" the enemy's trenches or bunkers or forts, and the implication of the term is speed and not a lot of concern for niceties like precision or finesse. There were mobile artillery guns in the second World War, meant to help soldiers with such tasks, known as Sturmgeschutz or Sturmhaubitze. They were not very useful in the standard role of artillery, since the armored vehicles had the guns pointed straight forward, rather than up in the air for a longer range. The trade-off was made so it could move safely and quickly to keep up with the foot soldiers and tanks. The sturmgewehr was so named, because it continued in the pattern of mobility and close combat specialties implied in other uses of the word.
It is largely a coincidence that the English equivalent term, "Assault" has an alternate meaning that refers to a crime of violence. In civilian life, assault weapons, in keeping with the military useage, would be superior for personal defense, due to the ease of use in close, emergent situations. No one keeps a high-powered sniper rifle or massive machine gun for self-defense, those being the weapons of someone engaging in premeditated mischief. The person who is not a highly-trained or dedicated marksman, also typically needs more bullets to thwart an attacker than the professional or psychotic with the time to build up a "one-shot, one-kill" level of proficiency, so the caterwauling about Jared Loughner's extended magazines was equally off-target.
Regardless of the sides or stances one takes on an issue, intelligent debate and policy cannot be formulated when no one has any idea what they are talking about. A frequently stated opinion by a lot of people is that while explicitly people-killing guns should be banned or restricted, hunting weapons are okay. I just want to throttle such people, because aside from the legal objections they don't seem to realize Deer and bears are bigger and tougher than human beings!. A weapon that will be effective against THEM will be equally effective against human beings, if not more so. Look at the aftermath of a car that rammed into a deer, versus one that only hit a person, and tell me that the devices built expressly to kill those animals are as safe as the compromising nitwits seem to think they are. If we don't know what we are talking about, people will nod along in approval as a ban is passed on weapons using terminology that strictly speaking, refers to the tradeoff of range and power in favor of the small size and easy portability and they'll smile with relief as weapons whose specific criterion is "overkill as relating to people" are exempted and protected.
The people who oppose firearms but are willing to make exceptions for hunting weapons are just as ignorantly mistaken as the people who are in favor of being able to buy just about any time of gun you want at the supermarket, but think "assault" weapons are a little over the top. Either way, attempts to base legislation on such ignorance is going to result in laws that completely miss the point.
Here are a couple YouTube videos of AR-15s modified to allow fully automatic firing, the first displaying and describing the relatively basic modifications needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLD5yVl0PM
and the second demonstrating an AR-15 firing in both semi- and fully automatic modes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juo2H4_BFjQ
Banning fully automatic weapons but allowing semi-automatics easily and cheaply modified for fully automatic fire does little good. Considering that weapons like the M-16 were designed for fully automatic military use, then modified to allow their civilian forms only semi-auto fire, it is unsurprising they are easily and cheaply "unmodified" to restore fully automatic fire. Obviously that is a non-factor for many other semi-automatic weapons never, at any stage, designed to be fully automatic.
Many semi-automatic hunting rifles qualify: Todays BAR is a true hunting rifle that LOADS automatically without allowing fully automatic FIRE even by modification; it is NOT the WWII BAR, a true machine gun intended for a two man crew. The others are murder weapons due to rate of fire, not size of round; a .30-06 can take out a large buck, but not 30 of them in under a minute. Observing that many gun owners are so poorly trained they cannot hit targets without multiple shots is not an argument they should have fully automatic weapons (since all those stray bullets go SOMEWHERE... ) but to require they be adequately trained, a position I strongly endorse.
As a technical aside, while it is true that semi-automatic guns only fire one bullet at a time, that distinction is useless since the same is true of fully automatic ones. About the only gun one could argue fires more than one bullet at once is a shotgun (assuming it is not loaded with a slug.) With regard to the M-16, my understanding, accurate or not, has always been that their lethality is chiefly due to high rate of fire and rounds that fragment on penetration. The ability to turn limbs into hamburger with a single shot is definitely a case of bullets, not guns, killing people, but I have no military experience, and so will defer to others on that matter.
Note, by the way, I do not advocate banning fully automatic weapons for civilians, I just want to regulate the Hell out of them, which we do to a great degree. A brief google just now indicates the AR-15 can only be cheaply modified for fully automatic fire ILLEGALLY; buying a fully automatic AR-15, or performing the modification oneself, requires a ton of paperwork, background checks and about $10,000; it is comparable to buying a new car.
The issue is not what guns are available, but ease of availability to anyone, on demand. With the same screening, training, certification and permits mandatory for concealed weapons (in the few states allowing them at all) I have no objection to anyone having any weapon they can legally and practically obtain. I simply want the same standards applied to guns that apply to vehicles: Even bicycles require licenses (though I doubt a majority of riders have one,) as do mopeds, cars and semis, and training/licensing requirements increase in proportion to the dangers of unqualified use. Theoretically, I do not mind those with the means AND licensing requirements keeping an M1 Abrams or F-22 Raptor in their backyard, though the requirements for doing so should be prohibitively high for most people.
Let us be clear on a few things: The vast majority of Americans rightly oppose gun prohibition but support gun control. All 50 states prohibit convicted felons and the mentally incompetent owning guns. No reasonable person objects to that form of CONTROLLING GUNS, therefore anyone who opposes ALL gun control is unreasonable. Many people who insist "the only acceptable gun control is careful aim" not only accept but COMMEND mandatory screening, training, certification and licensing for their concealed weapons; that is also gun control, and I fail to see why what is reasonable and welcome for concealed guns suddenly becomes unconscionable and unconstitutional for openly carried ones. I have never once heard a single concealed carry advocate complain that background checks, training and licensing for concealed weapons is impractical, inconvenient, ineffective or intrusive, yet I cannot count how many times I have heard them trot out those objections to requiring the same for openly carried guns.
Every reasonable person supports some degree and form of gun control; how much and what kind is the valid and vital public discussion we must have. Only a small but rabidly vocal minority on each side debates gun prohibition either way. They are no more than distracting unpleasant noise in the pertinent discussion, and since the vast majority is rightly ignoring them anyway I deeply wish they would both stfu and let the rational adults decide public policy.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 21/12/2012 at 11:13:30 PM
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them?
21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM
- 1532 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer
21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM
- 985 Views
You're actually not right on that one
21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM
- 913 Views
That wasn't the point I was making
21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM
- 860 Views
You should probably clarify it then
21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM
- 1016 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post.
21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM
- 1171 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM*
21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM
- 527 Views
I think
21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM
- 847 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle'
21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM
- 856 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith
21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM
- 897 Views
I'm also an expert at math and physics, should I be more forgiving about those too?
22/12/2012 12:38:45 AM
- 843 Views
Re: I'm also an expert at math and physics, should I be more forgiving about those too?
22/12/2012 01:00:18 AM
- 870 Views
Well I appreciate your calling it pedantic when you aren't an expert, thanks for correcting me
22/12/2012 01:15:08 AM
- 928 Views
Re: Well I appreciate your calling it pedantic when you aren't an expert, thanks for correcting me
22/12/2012 09:35:38 AM
- 1056 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear.
21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM
- 863 Views
A bit of an aside, but I was reading that the gun used in the attack can be bought in Canada too.
21/12/2012 06:14:01 PM
- 868 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se
21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM
- 825 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense
21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM
- 882 Views
He is right about Australia
21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM
- 862 Views
No kidding
21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM
- 849 Views
If you knew all that
21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM
- 874 Views
Because I used wiki of course
21/12/2012 11:21:25 PM
- 921 Views
He said ""self defense" is not a valid excuse to own a lethal weapon"
21/12/2012 11:34:59 PM
- 796 Views
Yes,which is un-cited, but I did prove it's a valid excuse to use one, so...
22/12/2012 12:36:19 AM
- 917 Views
The difference between allowing someone to defend themselves with a gun they have
22/12/2012 01:09:40 AM
- 836 Views
Which you apparently think they shouldn't be able to obtain? Catch-22 comes to mind.
22/12/2012 01:17:25 AM
- 878 Views
Re: Which you apparently think they shouldn't be able to obtain? Catch-22 comes to mind.
22/12/2012 09:51:51 AM
- 898 Views
A wood chipper isn't a gun, and evidence without proof isn't evidence
22/12/2012 06:10:34 PM
- 847 Views
If only you'd asked him for a citation rather than just saying you thought he was wrong eh? *NM*
23/12/2012 12:29:30 AM
- 637 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant.
21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM
- 856 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets.
22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM
- 897 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns?
22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM
- 1061 Views
Court rulings have determined that your Constitutional Rights can be restricted for felony/insanity *NM*
23/12/2012 12:59:31 PM
- 557 Views
Activist judges should not make law.
23/12/2012 02:04:42 PM
- 871 Views
I agree, but the courts have already ruled that way so we are stuck. *NM*
26/12/2012 03:03:35 PM
- 523 Views
Then I guess we need the courts to rule gun owners need screening, training and licensing.
26/12/2012 03:46:05 PM
- 865 Views
No, if you want to restrict the 2nd (or any other amendment) amend the Constitution
26/12/2012 07:56:19 PM
- 836 Views
I do not want to restrict the Second Amendment, only enact the regulations it explictly allows.
26/12/2012 08:50:09 PM
- 898 Views
I disagree with your interpretation. The simple EXISTANCE of the BoR makes it binding on the states
27/12/2012 03:46:17 PM
- 863 Views
"Congress shall make no law..." restricts the STATES? How, exactly?
28/12/2012 03:03:19 PM
- 826 Views
The 2nd amendment does not mention Congress in any way. There is that reading issue again.
28/12/2012 10:02:41 PM
- 777 Views
You said, "the Bill of Rights," not "the Second Amendment."
28/12/2012 11:10:00 PM
- 866 Views
Copy-N-Paste, get over it. we are specifically discussing the 2nd amendment, not everything.
29/12/2012 02:24:30 PM
- 755 Views
Some semi-autos are easily modified for full auto fire, making the distinction one w/o a difference.
21/12/2012 10:53:59 PM
- 929 Views
Correction: virtually all semi-automatics are easily convertable
21/12/2012 11:23:35 PM
- 873 Views
I have seen nothing on turning a semi-auto BAR into a fully automatic one.
22/12/2012 01:11:12 AM
- 791 Views
What's a BAR? In any event, link a diagram and I'll let you know
22/12/2012 01:26:31 AM
- 787 Views
Confusingly, there are two: The BAR you and I think of, and the "Browning BAR," a current semi-auto
22/12/2012 01:07:30 PM
- 901 Views
Department of Redundancy Department gets to name a lot of stuff, like "Milky Way Galaxy"
22/12/2012 05:01:45 PM
- 1062 Views
It only bothers me when people who know better speak of "the Glieseian solar system."
26/12/2012 05:33:34 PM
- 945 Views
Both terms are pretty stuck now
26/12/2012 10:48:38 PM
- 1011 Views
You realize that encourages rather than discourages my opposition to the usage, right?
27/12/2012 01:23:15 AM
- 789 Views
Well I can't say it surprises
27/12/2012 04:29:06 AM
- 725 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands.
22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM
- 784 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands.
22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM
- 846 Views
Yes people can always still kill each other, humans are very ingenuitive
22/12/2012 04:42:04 AM
- 817 Views
I took a driving exam when I was 16, and have never been tested since, nor will I ever be.
23/12/2012 01:17:05 PM
- 963 Views
Never is a long time; just renewing a license requires retaking the eye exam most places.
23/12/2012 02:16:54 PM
- 883 Views
Rather hard to do an eye exam online or through the mail.
26/12/2012 03:08:06 PM
- 967 Views
Yes, it is, which is why I have always had to go by DPS for a new license.
26/12/2012 03:50:04 PM
- 792 Views
Tennessee and Florida pass them out like candy. For several years TN offered a no ID license
26/12/2012 08:02:39 PM
- 801 Views
I still find it odd they require no eye test, that either allows the blind drivers licenses.
26/12/2012 08:58:57 PM
- 844 Views
Oh yeah, we have wandered off course *shrug*
27/12/2012 03:55:55 PM
- 951 Views
Voter registration while getting a drivers license is distinct from the ease of licensing.
28/12/2012 03:35:34 PM
- 925 Views
Re: Voter registration while getting a drivers license is distinct from the ease of licensing.
28/12/2012 10:14:32 PM
- 721 Views
If you can prove someone voted illegally, call the ACLU and claim your $1000.
28/12/2012 11:18:38 PM
- 877 Views
puhleeze.... election fraud is a fact. Pick a state, ANY state, ANY election...
29/12/2012 02:41:40 PM
- 830 Views
Clip size is meaningless, semi-autos and even revolvers can be reloaded VERY quickly. *NM*
23/12/2012 01:20:59 PM
- 521 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout
22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM
- 926 Views
typical NRA bullshit response
22/12/2012 04:53:40 AM
- 865 Views
typical Moondog bullshit response
23/12/2012 01:06:12 PM
- 871 Views
of course! there is no connection between having a gun and shooting someone. got it
23/12/2012 02:33:18 PM
- 757 Views
There is no corelation between decidng to kill someone and what tool you use.
26/12/2012 03:11:08 PM
- 817 Views
By that logic no one needs a gun for self-defense; a coffee mug is perfectly adequate.
26/12/2012 09:06:51 PM
- 866 Views
I can kill you with my coffee mug... RESPECT THE MUG but I wouldn't, I might spill the coffee.
27/12/2012 04:08:52 PM
- 729 Views
So you are saying you do not need a gun then? I will keep mine anyway, thanks.
28/12/2012 04:19:03 PM
- 817 Views
You covered a bunch of different things, and completely misrepresentted what I wrote
28/12/2012 10:28:24 PM
- 859 Views
Home made explosives are pretty much always illegal; I did not want to overlook legal ones.
28/12/2012 11:44:19 PM
- 1052 Views
Re: Home made explosives are pretty much always illegal; I did not want to overlook legal ones.
29/12/2012 03:31:01 PM
- 802 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed
22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM
- 979 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM*
23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM
- 558 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification.
23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM
- 797 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM*
26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM
- 493 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution.
26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM
- 906 Views
Yes you are.
26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM
- 706 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar.
26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM
- 873 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to
27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM
- 932 Views
Ironically, you misspelled "learn."
28/12/2012 05:15:17 PM
- 1165 Views
I know, I thought about going back and fixing the typo, but thought it was funny so I left it. *NM*
28/12/2012 10:34:06 PM
- 520 Views
2 commas or 4 makes no difference one is a 12D the other is a sentance.
28/12/2012 10:55:31 PM
- 801 Views
It makes a huge difference when (incorrectly) claiming to know the text.
28/12/2012 11:31:51 PM
- 1113 Views
and by REGULATED, the authors meeant "able to use it effectively"
29/12/2012 03:47:57 PM
- 870 Views
You are wrong.
22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM
- 883 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it.
22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM
- 806 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns
23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM
- 902 Views
She also had many knives, and blunt objecs around the house. Tools are only as good as the user
23/12/2012 01:10:58 PM
- 895 Views
So clearly she wasn't prepared enough... btw, do we know she was sleeping?
27/12/2012 10:52:03 AM
- 833 Views
That she 1) was in bed, 2) had guns for self-defense and 3) was shot 4 times strongly suggests sleep
28/12/2012 11:49:20 PM
- 906 Views
She was asleep with him in the house.
23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM
- 875 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one...
26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM
- 815 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd.
26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM
- 791 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time...
26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM
- 775 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers.
26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM
- 791 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM*
27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM
- 497 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM
- 784 Views
Your point being?
27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM
- 774 Views
I am certain it would have been better, though not good, if she had been awake and shot him.
27/12/2012 02:16:13 PM
- 891 Views
So the situation of Nancy and Adam shooting at each other
28/12/2012 07:44:12 AM
- 900 Views
No, I believe they were both mentally incompetent to have guns; that does not mean EVERYONE is.
28/12/2012 02:19:51 PM
- 818 Views
As a father, I would rather kill my own child than have him kill 26 other people.
27/12/2012 04:35:02 PM
- 730 Views
And as a father, you are somehow clairvoyant?
28/12/2012 07:43:08 AM
- 787 Views
Nice flippant unthinking reply, you and moondog should get together. *NM*
28/12/2012 04:55:14 PM
- 540 Views
How is my reply flippant? Your statement was unthinking, not mine.
29/12/2012 06:59:04 AM
- 824 Views
YOU asked if it would have been better for her to kill her own child instead, I answered.
29/12/2012 03:52:02 PM
- 833 Views
I asked if a shoot out between mother and son had been better, not whether she should have killed
29/12/2012 08:54:09 PM
- 771 Views
You make no sense.
31/12/2012 06:07:50 PM
- 843 Views
I make no sense to you because you probably just don't understand my point.
01/01/2013 08:09:11 AM
- 921 Views
Maybe the heat death of the univers occurs before you finally have a cohearant thought
01/01/2013 07:34:31 PM
- 835 Views
You do realize that resorting to personal attacks reveal an inability to make sound arguments? *NM*
02/01/2013 06:01:33 PM
- 592 Views
That is not an ad hominem attack, and your prior post was not very logically coherent
02/01/2013 08:59:16 PM
- 917 Views
Instead of actually showing why my arguments would be incoherent or why I'm immature, he just said
05/01/2013 02:02:23 AM
- 914 Views