Show of Hands

By congressional definition, they are.

Congressional definition is wrong. The government has already ruled that assault weapons are selective fire capable of full auto.

Incorrect. Go look again. Assault rifles include a huge list. I had the same thought a few weeks ago and had to look it up myself. I was honestly surprised and incorrect with about 25 arguments I had been in within the past year.

It's kind of a meaningless argument. A bolt gun in the right hands is a very effective assault rifle. Back in WWII, many Brits claimed they could hit a man-sized target with 10 rounds at 800 meters in under 10 seconds with their SMLEs.

As they are commonly used, an AR is more correctly described as sporting equipment.

Yea I know I know I've gotten that about 8,000 times today they're now commonly referred to as this type of weapon which MAY be popular misconception but I ran out of letter count in the poll and didn't feel like rewording myself so :P

Understood

Just citizens of course

Also I'm not proposing anything I'm just asking :P

Well this semiautomatic rifle can kill large amounts of people extremely quickly with its fast fire rate and large clip, which is where the controversy starts

And it IS used in the military and ALSO if you look at literally most of the past mass shootings we've had in a couple years they've almost all been done by this weapon I'm not picking a side im just putting the facts out there so others can make a educated decision on what to do

99.99% of them are not used for that purpose. Statistically, hands and feet are more effective killers.

I'm aware of the statistics don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that hands and feet don't commit mass shootings is all again not picking a side here

Based upon its actual use in the civilian world, the AR platform is simply simply sporting equipment much like a baseball bat. Which, by the way, are also used to kill more people than long guns (of which ARs are a small subset).

Are we more concerned people being killed or people being killed in a manner that provides shocking headlines?

Well you see I believe the reason that this came up is that the gun is used in shootings that are terroristic which is the problem. Sure multiple different murderers may use a baseball bat to kill one person but one person can kill 50 with this weapon and inflict fear into the whole nation which AGAIN I think is why this is a problem some people have with this weapon

People are afraid of them because because the only way most people ever see them being used is in sensationalized tragedies. Frankly, it comes down to ignorance. When is the the last time anyone saw a sportscaster cover Three-Gun National, the Camp Perry Nationals, or even a local Steel Challenge match?

Irri....your fear of guns is irrational. Guns are inanimate objects just like baseball bats and hammers. What you should fear is God.

ONCE AGAIN I ENJOY GUNS not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm afraid I'm just letting you know why there is another side to this issue as terrorists can't mass murder a nightclub or a kid can't shoot up a school with a baseball bat. Just give some thought to other end of the argument cause they do have valid reasons for their intentions

I have no desire to trade any FREEDOMS for safety. I am happy to take my chances.

Well it isn't about you. the people that aren't getting their right to live safely are for example the loss of and kids at newtown or the people at the nightclub. Not trying to guilt you into changing your mind but once a right affect and limits another right, we must limit it so it can't interfere with someone else's. FOR EXAMPLE, we all have a right to religious freedom, but if you use your religion to discriminate against for say homosexuals, it isn't allowed. Don't think it's unprecedented what people are proposing

No one wants to TAKE IT AWAY JJST limit it so it can't hurt others right to life

There is no "right to live safely". You just made that up. There is however a Constitutional RIGHT called the 2nd Amendment.

As far as homosexuality goes...God has already deemed that an abomination and it carries eternal consequences for those who engage in it.

"Right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness"

I feel you're taking the bible a little too literally. I myself am agnostic and don't give a shit about if God is real or if he's not, but nonetheless of your thoughts there's no need to demonize a group of people because of a book written 3500 years ago

Your ignorance of Gods infallible Word is the reason you find your own SIN so acceptable. The Bible was written over a period of 4500 years. It is not one book, it is 66 books written by both men and women, some poor, some rich, some famous some not so famous and yet all of them are still as relevant as tomorrow's news. The problem is not that I take it to "literally". The problem is that you don't take it literally. A mistake that brings eternal consequences with it.

I'm gonna be honest with you if all religion does is tear people apart like it does to the LGBTQ community then I'd rather not be a part of it. I don't need a book to tell me how to be a good person you do what you want but I'd rather be accepting to all in my life than follow a book so I get into a nice afterlife

Also I'm not questioning your religion at all I just can't say I feel the same

Also just a question for you since you feel this way: why is it that the religion is correct and all the others are false? Just wondering what you personally think on this matter

The Bible does not tell you how to be a good person. The Bible tells you how you can be SAVED and freed from the sin that consumes your life.

But can you really blindly follow a book that was written by PEOPLE not God? The pope insists that even atheists will go to heaven as long as they are good people so I don't see why you feel this way. As the messenger and speaker for God I just feel his word overpowers it but that's just me personally

Satan can not convince everyone in the world that God does not exist so what is his next best plan? To flood the world with as many many false religions, false prophets and false teachers as possible to confuse millions more. And Satan is good at what he does. The difference between Christianity and all the 100's if false religions is that a false religion will tell you , you can reach God by being a good person and doing certain things. Christianity tell you that nothing you can do is good enough. That your Salvation is by GRACE. It is a free gift you do not deserve but is given to you.

I am not Catholic and don't follow what the Pope says but if he believes an atheist will enter the kingdom of Heaven...he is sadly mistaken and he should read his own Bible more often.

Okay well I guess we'll never know what the truth is until we die anyway so there's no need in fighting or arguing

Irrlogical - back to your first response. Any semi automatic weapon can kill a lot of people, fire a lot of rounds and be used improperly. In fact, you can watch a number of videos where a person, with minimal training, was able to fire 30 shots with the 30 round capacity magazine just a second or 2 faster than using 3-10 shot magazines in the same gun. It's not the capacity, it's the shooter. Also, they aren't "clips" they are "magazines". Knowing the proper terminology makes any argument stronger.

Well okay fair point but the AR15 is better capable of doing so due to the way it's built and such and the only reason we're not having this argument with other weapons is because so far we haven't seen them used in mass shootings that's all it's bound to happen sometime in the future tho that's life

And, with as many AR-15s there are currently in the hands of citizens, they have only been used in a couple of the mass shootings. All have had semi-automatic pistols used. Not saying that makes it any less tragic, but it's not every tragic event includes the use of an AR.

Before the AR was so prevalent, we had other semi-automatic rifles being used. My deer rifle is a 30-06. It produces a far more powerful and catastrophic wound than the .223 round of the AR. In fairness though, all guns can be used for evil. The fact remains that very few,less than a percent, are compared with the number owned in this country.

Yup. The mini-14 has been around a long time as is functionally identical to the AR15 including standard magazine capacity. Heck, it isn't hard to argue the mini-14 is more reliable. I haven't heard too many people calling for a ban on those. It comes down to perception. A perception Bloomberg and company have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to create.

Well yes but it can shoot extremely fast and has a large clip which allows it to kill a lot of people quickly which is the argument and it IS used in the military as well

I once saw a movie where only the military and police had guns. It was called "Schindler's List"

Again, not a clip, but a magazine. Quantity isn't the issue. They make .22LR semi-automatic rifles with capacities on par with AR-15s. If you live in the country or more rural America, those were birthday presents to 13 yr old boys. More rounds, deadly firearm, but used responsibly (at least most of the time!).

www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/06/economist-explains-11 I mean it as that people commonly refer to them AS THESE TYPES OF WEAPONS my apologies if the wording was difficult

Gotcha. I did meet a few guys in places who actually had good hunting purposes.

Oh yea I know IM JUST WONDERING WJAT U THINK I like guns it's cool man I FEEL YOU

I'm not a gun guy. I think people misuse them and do dumb things thinking guns will always give them an out.

I low guns to an extent like skeet shooting and such is neat, I'm not all for hunting or anything but. I may end up getting for say a handgun for protection one day but I'm not sure why you'd ever need anything more than that and IF YOU DO please tell me what the hell is breaking into your house that you need a higher caliber gun to stop

How much robbers could POSSIBLY be coming in

Fair question. The number of bad guys is an issue. The days of one guy breaking in to steal your jewelry are gone. It's groups of 2, 4 or more that break into homes. Having a shotgun is probably the best defense for a home, but not ideal especially for a smaller framed female. Also, if you do have one of these home invasions, how many bullets are enough? Stats show that the average gun owner rarely trains with their gun. Given that fact, accuracy will be poor. Add in adrenaline and fear, accuracy for shots fired will be next to none. This wouldn't be a calm, shot once per person killing them, it will be chaos and confusion. So with that in mind, would 6 shots be enough? Maybe 10? How about 15 or 17? Remember, your heat rate is 175 and you can't think clearly due to the tremendous rush of adrenaline. You just emptied the first magazine and only hit (didn't stop) 1 of the 4 guys in your home and they are coming after you. Do you want another 5 shots or 15? Now you are up to 30....

Handguns aren't terribly effective defense weapons. They're small and unassuming, but they're fairly underpowered and difficult to handle relative to a rifle or shotgun. For home defense I'll take a short AR loaded with low penetration jacketed frangibles. If you're ever in a place where you need to defend against a home invasion I doubt you'll ever think you had too much ammo.

Shoeless, case in point: the local PD here is (in)famous for a defensive shoot against a man with a knife. Four responding officers fired 60 rounds total.....the bad guy was hit twice. As you point out, under stress who know what will happen? It also makes the point that average street cop is rarely as well trained as presumed. Many only shoot once a year to qualify. In fact, unless an officer I personally involved in the shooting sports, I wouldn't assume they're any better trained than a civilian with a CWP.

Absolutely agree. There are some fascinating statistics and case studies around the number of shots fired in incidents involving, police and federal agents and the % that missed being on target. I regularly teach a gun safety class and the #1 statement of people interested in owning a gun for personal protection is "I just want to shoot and wound someone, like shoot them in the knee or arm to get them to stop." When I explain the accuracy situation to them, the light bulb goes off and they finally understand that isn't realistic or even probable (at least not on purpose).

And, if they still don't get it, draw knee-sized circle on their seven target and see how times they can hit it doing a mag dump with shot timer. Handguns aren't nearly as easy aim as many people seem to think. Especially these tiny little things that are so popular right now.