Should semiautomatic weapons be banned?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?