Should semiautomatic weapons be banned?

[tallguy23]

Yes but I don't see it actually happening. We should focus on universal background checks, waiting periods, licenses, and keeping guns away from dangerous/mentally ill people.

[Kingpoleon]

No, and neither should all fully automatic weapons.

[Classic Conservative]

No, and neither should all fully automatic weapons.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Yes. (sane)

[Kingpoleon]

No, and neither should all fully automatic weapons.

FTR, I meant some fully automatic guns should be banned.



That being said, I absolutely support:
- A more strict mental health test
- An universal background check for violent crimes and police visits involving said person or the residence of said person
- A ban on most fully automatic guns
- More strict enforcement of federal bans on guns
- Eliminating the gun show loophole
- A minimum of 16-21 years of age to purchase a gun(let states pick an age in there)
- Therapy for potentially mentally troubled students at school
- 72-hour waiting period
- The right to own some weapons as property
- A legal precedent limit of "overly dangerous as a potential weapon", with the limit allowing certain assault rifles and automatic guns(such as the aged AK-47) and banning others

[dead0man]

It's weird to me, that people who generally seem to be know what they are talking about and are for gun control (there are a couple of them, calm down), still bring up the "gun show loophole" and never bring up straw purchases.  One of these avenues brings lots of guns to bad guys, one of these avenues does not.

[Green Line]

Of course, and it should go much further than that.

[fluffypanther19]

No. We need to focus on getting guns out of the wrong hands and addressing mental health challenges, not trying to limit the 2nd amendment, a way of life in rural areas.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I enjoy the posts that say semiautomatic weapons should be banned because they see semiautomatic weapons as an alternative.

[dead0man]

I enjoy the posts that say semiautomatic weapons should be banned because they see semiautomatic weapons as an alternative.

yeah, you'd think since we've done this with the same freaking people about 25 times now that a few of them would understand some of the most important terms when discussing the topic.  You'd also think they would understand more since they are SOOOOOO passionate about gun control.  Sure, it's only one or two times a year for about 2 weeks, but they are REAL passionate about it for those two weeks.  It's the most important thing in the world...at least until Trump posts on Twitter next or they pick up their uncle's book on EMPs.

[fhtagn]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

I wouldn't be opposed to banning both, in principle. But passing many other measures is way more effective and important, so it's just a principle for now.
Whatever the case, you can keep lecturing me about semiautomatic guns, but there are many more measures of gun control. I believe you didn't voice your opinion on them because of the immense need to lecture me about semis, I'll just hope that you do not oppose these measures of gun control, which proved very effective worldwide in stopping gun violence.
Would be a shame if you'd rather keep the American Gun Culture rather than prevent the next deadlyschool shooting.

[fhtagn]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

I wouldn't be opposed to banning both, in principle. But passing many other measures is way more effective and important, so it's just a principle for now.
Whatever the case, you can keep lecturing me about semiautomatic guns, but there are many more measures of gun control. I believe you didn't voice your opinion on them because of the immense need to lecture me about semis, I'll just hope that you do not oppose these measures of gun control, which proved very effective worldwide in stopping gun violence.
Would be a shame if you'd rather keep the American Gun Culture rather than prevent the next deadlyschool shooting.

There wouldn't be a need to lecture if you were actually knowledgeable about the guns you claim to hate.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

I wouldn't be opposed to banning both, in principle. But passing many other measures is way more effective and important, so it's just a principle for now.
Whatever the case, you can keep lecturing me about semiautomatic guns, but there are many more measures of gun control. I believe you didn't voice your opinion on them because of the immense need to lecture me about semis, I'll just hope that you do not oppose these measures of gun control, which proved very effective worldwide in stopping gun violence.
Would be a shame if you'd rather keep the American Gun Culture rather than prevent the next deadlyschool shooting.

There wouldn't be a need to lecture if you were actually knowledgeable about the guns you claim to hate.

I don't hate guns- soldiers with guns serving my country save my ass every day. I hate the fact that they're readily available in a way that clearly causes dozens of shootings every year. I'm also a 19-year-old university student in a country that has gun control, and coincidentally, doesn't have mass shootings every year. Presumably, the only time I'll have to touch a gun is when I'll be conscripted in 3 years, but since I'll be a Budgetary Structure officer rather than a soldier, it'll be merely ceremonious. But this doesn't prevent me from seeing the simple fact that there are two paths America can take- try something that worked everywhere else and impose gun control in an attempt to save countless Americans from future shootings, or don't do anything. It seems to me, that you support the latter.

[fhtagn]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

I wouldn't be opposed to banning both, in principle. But passing many other measures is way more effective and important, so it's just a principle for now.
Whatever the case, you can keep lecturing me about semiautomatic guns, but there are many more measures of gun control. I believe you didn't voice your opinion on them because of the immense need to lecture me about semis, I'll just hope that you do not oppose these measures of gun control, which proved very effective worldwide in stopping gun violence.
Would be a shame if you'd rather keep the American Gun Culture rather than prevent the next deadlyschool shooting.

There wouldn't be a need to lecture if you were actually knowledgeable about the guns you claim to hate.

I don't hate guns- soldiers with guns serving my country save my ass every day. I hate the fact that they're readily available in a way that clearly causes dozens of shootings every year. I'm also a 19-year-old university student in a country that has gun control, and coincidentally, doesn't have mass shootings every year. Presumably, the only time I'll have to touch a gun is when I'll be conscripted in 3 years, but since I'll be a Budgetary Structure officer rather than a soldier, it'll be merely ceremonious. But this doesn't prevent me from seeing the simple fact that there are two paths America can take- try something that worked everywhere else and impose gun control in an attempt to save countless Americans from future shootings, or don't do anything. It seems to me, that you support the latter.

I mean you're more than welcome to assume that, it'd just be another thing you're completely wrong on.

I just don't see the point in having serious debates on a topic when the opposition can't provide serious arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

I wouldn't be opposed to banning both, in principle. But passing many other measures is way more effective and important, so it's just a principle for now.
Whatever the case, you can keep lecturing me about semiautomatic guns, but there are many more measures of gun control. I believe you didn't voice your opinion on them because of the immense need to lecture me about semis, I'll just hope that you do not oppose these measures of gun control, which proved very effective worldwide in stopping gun violence.
Would be a shame if you'd rather keep the American Gun Culture rather than prevent the next deadlyschool shooting.

There wouldn't be a need to lecture if you were actually knowledgeable about the guns you claim to hate.

I don't hate guns- soldiers with guns serving my country save my ass every day. I hate the fact that they're readily available in a way that clearly causes dozens of shootings every year. I'm also a 19-year-old university student in a country that has gun control, and coincidentally, doesn't have mass shootings every year. Presumably, the only time I'll have to touch a gun is when I'll be conscripted in 3 years, but since I'll be a Budgetary Structure officer rather than a soldier, it'll be merely ceremonious. But this doesn't prevent me from seeing the simple fact that there are two paths America can take- try something that worked everywhere else and impose gun control in an attempt to save countless Americans from future shootings, or don't do anything. It seems to me, that you support the latter.

I mean you're more than welcome to assume that, it'd just be another thing you're completely wrong on.

I just don't see the point in having serious debates on a topic when the opposition can't provide serious arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alright, but so far I haven't seen any serious arguments against gun control from your side.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I mean, dozens of shootings per year out of more than 300 million guns in private hands is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Its like banning tide pods from all 300 million americans because 50 stupid kids tried to eat them. Obliterating our freedoms because a teeny tiny fraction of people abuse them is a recipe for dictatorship.

[Storebought]

I mean, dozens of shootings per year out of more than 300 million guns in private hands is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Its like banning tide pods from all 300 million americans because 50 stupid kids tried to eat them. Obliterating our freedoms because a teeny tiny fraction of people abuse them is a recipe for dictatorship.

That's a completely invalid comparison. And its premise is not right, either. Mass shootings are a more common form of death than natural disasters (tornadoes, heat waves) or terrorist attacks.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I mean, dozens of shootings per year out of more than 300 million guns in private hands is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Its like banning tide pods from all 300 million americans because 50 stupid kids tried to eat them. Obliterating our freedoms because a teeny tiny fraction of people abuse them is a recipe for dictatorship.

That's a completely invalid comparison. And its premise is not right, either. Mass shootings are a more common form of death than natural disasters (tornadoes, heat waves) or terrorist attacks.

Wait ... are you saying that more people in the US die in spree killings with guns each year than die from natural disasters? I really dont buy that. What I do buy, is that the odds of a particular firearm in privately owned hands in the US being involved in a spree killing is miniscule. And the only invalidity I see in my comparison, is that firearm ownership is a right specifically enumerated in the constitution whereas tide pods ownership is only protected through the due process clause.

[Kingpoleon]

It's weird to me, that people who generally seem to be know what they are talking about and are for gun control (there are a couple of them, calm down), still bring up the "gun show loophole" and never bring up straw purchases.  One of these avenues brings lots of guns to bad guys, one of these avenues does not.

I believe gun shows should keep registration and have notaries present to notarize the sales of guns, as well as a 72-hour waiting period to ensure that the buyer is legally allowed to buy weapons, in the same way that stores should do the same. I’m all ears for proposals to end straw purchases, however.

[Storebought]

I mean, dozens of shootings per year out of more than 300 million guns in private hands is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Its like banning tide pods from all 300 million americans because 50 stupid kids tried to eat them. Obliterating our freedoms because a teeny tiny fraction of people abuse them is a recipe for dictatorship.

That's a completely invalid comparison. And its premise is not right, either. Mass shootings are a more common form of death than natural disasters (tornadoes, heat waves) or terrorist attacks.

Wait ... are you saying that more people in the US die in spree killings with guns each year than die from natural disasters? I really dont buy that. What I do buy, is that the odds of a particular firearm in privately owned hands in the US being involved in a spree killing is miniscule. And the only invalidity I see in my comparison, is that firearm ownership is a right specifically enumerated in the constitution whereas tide pods ownership is only protected through the due process clause.

The odds of dying in a mass shooting is greater than for dying in a heatwave or tornadoes. I don't mean that it's greater than all natural disasters. The data come from Business Insider. Yeah, I'd prefer a higher quality data set, but the CDC isn't permitted to gather high quality statistics on gun shot fatalities.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I mean, dozens of shootings per year out of more than 300 million guns in private hands is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Its like banning tide pods from all 300 million americans because 50 stupid kids tried to eat them. Obliterating our freedoms because a teeny tiny fraction of people abuse them is a recipe for dictatorship.

That's a completely invalid comparison. And its premise is not right, either. Mass shootings are a more common form of death than natural disasters (tornadoes, heat waves) or terrorist attacks.

Wait ... are you saying that more people in the US die in spree killings with guns each year than die from natural disasters? I really dont buy that. What I do buy, is that the odds of a particular firearm in privately owned hands in the US being involved in a spree killing is miniscule. And the only invalidity I see in my comparison, is that firearm ownership is a right specifically enumerated in the constitution whereas tide pods ownership is only protected through the due process clause.

The odds of dying in a mass shooting is greater than for dying in a heatwave or tornadoes. I don't mean that it's greater than all natural disasters. The data come from Business Insider. Yeah, I'd prefer a higher quality data set, but the CDC isn't permitted to gather high quality statistics on gun shot fatalities.

They don't? Wow. So restricting lethal weapons to prevent dozens of teenagers from dying each year is bad for freedom, but freedom of informaton? Nah, who needs that?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I enjoy the posts that say semiautomatic weapons should be banned because they see semiautomatic weapons as an alternative.

yeah, you'd think since we've done this with the same freaking people about 25 times now that a few of them would understand some of the most important terms when discussing the topic.  You'd also think they would understand more since they are SOOOOOO passionate about gun control.  Sure, it's only one or two times a year for about 2 weeks, but they are REAL passionate about it for those two weeks.  It's the most important thing in the world...at least until Trump posts on Twitter next or they pick up their uncle's book on EMPs.

     It amazes me how people can be so gung ho about banning something that they really don't understand at all. I like to be knowledgeable about an issue before I start acting as if I have the truth, but that's just me.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Yes. I've seen no legitimate reason to require weapons explicitly designed for mass killing when there are handguns and other hunting rifles.

Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

and only in the early 1970s decided to scrap their common-sense approach and instead decided to pump millions of $ into political campaigns as a lobby group, which changed everything to the worse.

worse?  Gun crime has dropped since then.

Automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines must be completely banned.

Only 1 time since 1934 has a legal automatic weapon been used in a crime (and that was in the 50s).  Making fully automatic weapons more illegal than they are now wouldn't stop any crime at all.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

yes, but keep non semi-auto hunting rifles and pistols untouched, for hunting and self defense. It is much harder to kill many at once with a lower fire rate, and smaller clip, although sadly shootings would still happen, just less often and with less casualties.