17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[Karpatsky]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Ok

Maybe you're right and semi-automatic weapons are useful for hunting after all.

Sorry to take so long to reply to your post, I was out for a jog with my rocket-propelled sneakers. Thankfully those sneakers made me six times faster than usual, or I would still be out there, actually exerting myself!

Kids these days with their fancy technology, right? I for one never use these fancy 'bicycles' or 'cars' to get places. As for hunting, I don't know why anyone should need anything more than a crudely sharpened stick - if you're not chasing game dozens of kilometers across the savanna to tire it out before the kill, you shouldn't be hunting at all!

[Karpatsky]

If the assualt weapons ban extended until 2007, 32 VTech students and faculty would still be dead. How about we focus on gun regulations that will actually stop mass gun violence instead? Restricting the movement of guns across state lines would actually help enforce gun laws in urban areas like Chicago and Baltimore.

Not to mention 'assault weapon' in general is a useless term

[Karpatsky]

If the assualt weapons ban extended until 2007, 32 VTech students and faculty would still be dead. How about we focus on gun regulations that will actually stop mass gun violence instead? Restricting the movement of guns across state lines would actually help enforce gun laws in urban areas like Chicago and Baltimore.

Not to mention 'assault weapon' in general is a useless term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon
Is this a good definition?

No. The qualifications don't make sense. Prioritizing stuff like pistol grips or the 'ability to accept' (not the presence of) certain features rather than concrete things like caliber or ROF is non-sequitur. It's a term meant to scare people because it sounds like 'assault rifle' - which actually means something.

[Karpatsky]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

The lack of critical thinking skills here is amazing. No, I will not shoot someone, even in that circumstance. There are ways to hurt someone or escape from them that do not involve a gun, but human instinct in these situations is quite often to freeze up, and no gun will help with that. Add in the fact that the gun is more likely to be used against me than it is to save my life... nope. Not going to let your fear-mongering be the excuse for why guns should be easily available.

Well thats fine for you, have fun with that. If a guy breaks into my house with the intent to harm anyone in my family, the only ways he'll be leaving is in an ambulance or a body bag. I have the right to use deadly force to protect people and property

+ the gun is not a defense, the gun is a weapon. 'Human instinct' might be to freeze up, which is why anyone who actually wants to protect themselves rather than just look tacticool gets training on usage. The fact that without training a weapon is less useful does not in itself make the weapon unuseful in general.

[Karpatsky]

Sorry, but this is a disappointingly flawed argument.

You just don't like that a valid argument doesn't fit your narrative.

...No, it just doesn't make any sense. Like, 0 sense. Saying X is not the problem because it's also used for good purposes is not a valid argument when X is used by people in the only western country X is easily accessed to do dozens of shootings a year.
Let me be honest- when arguing with your side (cultural conservatives) about various issues, even abortion, I sometimes struggle to find counter arguments. But this gun debate is the easiest one of them all- I'm serious when I say that I found no logical or challenging argument out of any of the anti-gun control arguments in this thread thus far. The only ones that might make sense are Joey's, and he only opposes one specific measure that I support.

You can disagree with his argument without pretending it doesn't connect logically, because it does. You are much more likely to successfully use your car to get to your destination than you are to be in a car crash. This is an argument against banning cars. You might think that the rate of car crashes is high enough to make it unjustifiable, but it doesn't make the argument itself 'not make sense'.

[Karpatsky]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Guns are the bulk of the problem. I say this as someone who loves to go with friends or relatives to the range. Shooting is great, even cathartic. I think that the Second Amendment ought to stay intact as it is.

But there needs to be more regulation. When this is how law enforcement traces guns used in crimes, when we block the CDC from researching gun violence, when we ignore the problem and deflect, deflect, deflect...we're doing nothing to address the issue. Planting our heads in the sand is a surefire way to get nothing done.

It's not just mass shootings, either. Gun crime is rampant across this country, in disparate localities and different communities. Are we to believe that this is simply the cost of doing business? Are we really going to ignore the issue staring us in the face?

There are measures that can be taken to reduce gun violence. Gun control is necessary. We needn't abolish the Second Amendment or confiscate all firearms to fix the problem; we just need to be honest with ourselves and realize that guns are part of problem.

Precisely.

Yeah, I think a lot of the hatred around this issue is because politicians on both sides find it expedient to exaggerate the position of the other side - liberals want to take away your guns, conservatives don't care about kids, etc.