The debate "An AR15 civilian rifle is NOT a machine gun M4s and M16A2s military issues are machine guns" was started by
April 14, 2018, 7:45 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, MrShine and 13 visitors agree.
4 visitors disagree.
please stop comparing guns to cars. they have nothing in common. one is a tool used by virtually everyone to live their lives. the other is a tool that is almost exclusively used to kill people. it has absolutely no uses outside if killing people and hunting.
there are even more deaths from heart desease, do you want to try to link guns to eating healthy? you are making false comparisons, it just derails the conversation.
not everyone is going to be capable of properly using and caring for a gun. alot of people are stupid, have anger issues, mental issues etc. if every driver had a gun in his car then road rage would be alot more deadly. if every spouse who has ever been cheated on had a gun handy, we would have alot more dead spouses.
there is no good reason to want everyone to have a gun. research shows it doesn't stop crime, it does increase the number of deaths.
"plenty, not all"
Plenty = enough. Enough gun owners for me to support gun rights to fight against gun control, that ultimately attempt to criminalize all of us.
"considering the fact that 90% of people think they are above average drivers (which is clearly impossible), what makes you think many people dont overestimate their gun capabilities, situation control, and their own self control?"
Why do you trust people to have auto mobiles over a person with a gun? There are about 88,000 deaths per year on average than 33,000 deaths per year by firearm. If you ask me, those deaths over automobiles is pretty strong grounds for forcing people to rely on public transportation like busses and trains, following the ban in ownership of all sports cars, "regular" cars, and trucks alike. If we can't expect people to be personally responsible to use a machine gun, we can't expect people to be personally responsible to owning a sports car; controlling their emotions and impulse to kill people with them.
"how many over confident idiots do you think it would take to make a situation go south? cause when it comes to automatic weapons, I would guess 1 would be enough, definitely 2. and in a crowded mall, even 10% idiots could be dozens of idiots."
I would support you more If the state government makes training facilities available in every reachable of ground in the United States that is free for everyone, and incriminate those who use the firearms in a neglect manner because they didn't take the training to have less overly confident idiots. Those people in your hypothetical situation should be criminals after they have committed the crime, not before. I would spend more of my tax dollars on firearms training facilities than gun laws that aim to make me a criminal.
"There are more than plenty of people doing this in America, as we speak, that are responsible enough to take firearms training to make sure the chaos is taken to a minimum"
keyword: plenty, not all.
and whether that plenty is 30% or 80% or 10% of the total population, you suggested everyone (outside of jail) be armed, which still leaves a substantial amount of people who are not as responsible, or capable, to properly control the scene and their own internal adrenaline.
to that i have 2 issues.
1. considering the fact that 90% of people think they are above average drivers (which is clearly impossible), what makes you think many people dont overestimate their gun capabilities, situation control, and their own self control?
2. how many over confident idiots do you think it would take to make a situation go south? cause when it comes to automatic weapons, I would guess 1 would be enough, definitely 2. and in a crowded mall, even 10% idiots could be dozens of idiots.
"are you so confident that nobody ever jumps the gun? or assumes the guy shooting the attacker is the shooter? or gets confused by a coordinated shooter situation where 1 or 2 intentionally hide in the crowd to make people doubt who the shooters are and how many of them there are?"
There are more than plenty of people doing this in America, as we speak, that are responsible enough to take firearms training to make sure the chaos is taken to a minimum every single day and doing very well at it; this is especially true in "Constitutional Carry" States (13 total). The true chaos with guns are only in impoverish cities with guns that criminals obtained illegally, along with a lack of training those individuals have.
those privateers didn't own the cannons and could not do what they willed with them. that is far from the same situation we are discussing. so I'm not sure if you wanted to revisit your respect for them. anything about the road rage shootings I brought up and how truck mounted machine guns would affect that?
as to the mall scenario "Rather quickly (permitted the civilian or officer has the *right training*)"
I noticed your using the singular, and absolutely, a well trained gun or 2 would be excellent. I was referring to everyone of age in the mall being armed. not a citizen, but 100 citizens whipping out weapons of varying caliber. are you expecting organized cooperation? I'm expecting chaos! your also assuming the attacker (assuming it wasnt an exploding pipe false alarm) is an idiot while all the bystanders are pros. neither of those conclusions are reasonable. are you so confident that nobody ever jumps the gun? or assumes the guy shooting the attacker is the shooter? or gets confused by a coordinated shooter situation where 1 or 2 intentionally hide in the crowd to make people doubt who the shooters are and how many of them there are?
remember, reality can get complicated. 1 sentence never explains it properly.
"I'm sure some people more extreme then you will claim your promoting governmental overreach by not allowing chainguns or something."
You know what? I can still respect those people because America had privateers having crew operated cannons on merchant ships back in the War of 1812, when they were permitted to pillage against British forces with the Letter of Marque; they were highly effective. And no, I don't mean permitted to have those cannons. The only problem is that privateering is pretty much illegal during WW1.
"as to the everyone but prisoners armed, how do you think a shooter situation in a crowded mall would play out?"
Rather quickly (permitted the civilian or officer has the *right training*) much like the shooter that got shut down by the Maryland resource officer in March 2018, but the problem is they don't have much coverage in the news because it's not sensational like a shooter against completely defenseless crowd of people. So I suggest looking up a YouTube channel called First Person Defender to see how complicated in defending yourself can be, even if such has a firearm and the other person assaulting you doesn't.
In essence, proper training of civilians and law enforcement saves lives, not a form of gun control.
I'm just trying to figure out where you stand. I'm not sure how you came to the firearms only from the 2nd ammendment. I didn't see anything more specific then arms which could mean anything. I'm sure some people more extreme then you will claim your promoting governmental overreach by not allowing chainguns or something. I'm pretty sure I've heard people defending hand grenades which opens the explosives door wide open. personally the truck mounted machine guns sound pretty mad max crazy to me. considering the frequency of road rage involved shootings.... this could get crazy.
as to the everyone but prisoners armed, how do you think a shooter situation in a crowded mall would play out?
You are still blowing this out of proportion like you were with nukes and explosives, tank guns and chain guns are not firearms (this is concerning small arms). Miniguns and machine guns can be used operated by a single individual, while tank guns and chain guns must be mounted on a solid vehicle with a crew operating the weapon.
it could take just 1 depending on the caliber and where it hits, but usually not. I never said 1 shot, I said non repeating. because otherwise it's too easy, there is no struggle. I made a separate thread for this tangent.
the slippery slope was intentional. I wanted to see where Mathew stood on the issue. we were up to truck mounted machine guns. the cunnondrum being a rights based ideology which should technically keep the government from enforcing any restrictions.
Nemiroff, it feels like you may not know what you're talking about when it comes to hunting. It may be easier to discuss the self defense bits because narrowing the conversation to hunting has not yielded any valid points other than an opinion for cowardly hunters. But if you absolutely must... Can you tell me how many shots it takes to get an animal, deer, boar, or otherwise? I suppose One is a correct answer in the right place, but one is not THE correct answer. In fact, experience informs us on what is the correct answer because it follows personal rules for engagement. Unloading into a sandbag does not account for an actual struggle between Hunter and prey. Hunter must find before he can shoot, and stay hidden for the most part. How unfair is it to use what is available if the skill required to hide is a bigger factor?
That part being said, you also know why you can't argue for the higher end armaments and want us to come to the same conclusion. I will give you a different one.First, let's establish a cutoff point at anything higher than a "machine gun" to keep the argument from getting to varied or heated. It's a bit of a slippery slope on what is necessary, the UK is starting on knives and if a person in possession has a good reason. When the government defines that, you think they'll be right the first time? A hand can punch, but a knife can stab and slash, and kill double digits in China, scary!... is about the equivalent argument.
It is not possible for some citizens to control their own damage with these weapons. Some guns are percise and allow on scene judgement to use. On the other hand, some are impercise and cannot control damage. Machine guns are not necessarily one of them, since a mount is an important factor and it's use isn't as simple as pulling the trigger, obtaining one too and it's use! when is the last time a "machine gun" was used in a crime? I wouldn't necessarily need to make a survivalist argument or protection against the government if I limit myself to guns themselves.
Could stopping a threat at seven meters (average confrontation distance or lower) with an explosive kill yourself too? Yes! Can I pick up a carcass blown to bits? No! It really is a matter of utility, and making a comparison lets experience (or maybe even just research and thought) speak for itself.
are chain guns and miniguns (the tank mounted ones) included in machine guns?
and how about nonexploding cannons? they are basically just big guns with fat bullets that take down walls and armor.
how about armored vehicles? we have truck mounted machine guns, would it be acceptable to plate them so we have tanks without exploding shells driving down our interstates?
if your scared of being mauled, dont go hunting alone, or dont hunt big predators. but if your gonna use automatic weapons or cheat codes, just go fill a bag with red paint and unload. it's the same skill level.
the key word in my hunter point was "for sport".
if I say this doesn't apply to survival, dont give me a counterpoint about survival. that would just be us agreeing.
"so how about these large, with tripod, or mounted machine guns? are they acceptable?"
Yes, because they're firearms. Everything above the lethality of firearms like cluster bombs, explosives, rocket launchers, missiles, and cannons are the ones that supposed to be regulated like the machine guns now; subjected to some paperwork but no special taxes on them.
most shooters unload and then run for it or kill themselves few actually reloaded unless they were in a safe place like the Las Vegas shooter. and even a few minutes of unloading can let people run away and get some distance. to say it's the same as continuous shooting is beyond logic.
as for the hunters. I deliberately stated this isnt about defense use or food gathering, even against animals. so your argument that some people use it "legally to defend themselves TO SURVIVE" is irrelevant.
in reference to hunters who claim to do it for sport and claim they need an automatic weapon, even semi, to be "sportsmanly". those guys are f***ing cowards and deserve to be insulted. even if it's a lion, step up, unload, done. like a skill-less coward.
as I said, if your doing it to survive, use any tools necessary. why did you ignore that blatant statement in your response?
"soldiers train for countless hours on how to reload quickly. and even with the muscle memory it takes time. reloading is a massive opening and as a progun person you should know this."
You clearly never operated a weapon and again making assumptions, it only takes about a few hours of practice to reload quickly on the weapon they are trained for. And out of how many accounts of mass shootings can you find in any crime reports of someone actually charging into the attacker with the gun unarmed? NONE! That opening is practical for others only if that law abiding gun owner has an opening, and the huge problem is you're the people who restrict the magazine capacity and firearms in general on such individuals.
"people dont drive to work for sport, they drive for survival. if the hunter is defending his home or hunting to eat he can use whatever tool is effective. if your using a 15 capacity rapid fire and calling yourself a sportsman, you are coward."
There are many more accounts of people in the United States using their firearm legally to defend themselves TO SURVIVE, more than the ones who assaulted others with them. This argument of yours in particular consists more of an attack and insult hunters, than an objective argument. If you can attempt to use less insults, I'll attempt to stuff less words in your mouth. Deal?
the 2nd amendment doesn't specify firearms, just arms, aka armaments, aka anything that's a weapon. and I said I plan on simply escalating until you say stop. the intent was to speed up the discussion by skipping to the conclusion, but instead you didnt even address the next step.
so how about these large, with tripod, or mounted machine guns? are they acceptable?
"There is no evidence that proves that a person that possesses a gun magazine that holds more than 15 rounds of ammo is likely commit a crime"
what the hell is this responding to? nobody said this! this is retarded. I'm going to assume you dont know you can push the back button to reread what your replying to without losing what you typed but at some point... well how would you debate someone who just makes up exaggerated nonsense and shoves it in your mouth?
"nor being more efficient in killing people when the person can simply reload after the magazine is empty."
soldiers train for countless hours on how to reload quickly. and even with the muscle memory it takes time. reloading is a massive opening and as a progun person you should know this.
"Also, calling hunters cowards for having a 15 round magazine loaded into their guns is illogical as calling car drivers lazy for not walking to their destination"
people dont drive to work for sport, they drive for survival. if the hunter is defending his home or hunting to eat he can use whatever tool is effective. if your using a 15 capacity rapid fire and calling yourself a sportsman, you are coward.
Animals want to survive, and can make multiple hits if they need to escape. To take it to another extreme, wouldn't the need to chamber every bullet cause the animal to escape? Isn't seven meters (not that far, but definitely a starting distance for rookie practice at ranges) pretty hard for a moving target? Anyhow, if you're confident everyone can get that first shot or a follow up on a spooked boar, you might be in the minority.
We could also discuss the self defense point due to how often it will wound instead of kill people even, or how the number of attackers should never be assumed. A Korean man defending his shop during a riot for example will need to lawfully have a gun that fits his needs (going real specific, for a existing case). Would the rioters give him room or follow the law themselves solely for the gun law? Of course he shouldn't wait until they're next to him.
There is no evidence that proves that a person that possesses a gun magazine that holds more than 15 rounds of ammo is likely commit a crime, nor being more efficient in killing people when the person can simply reload after the magazine is empty. Also, calling hunters cowards for having a 15 round magazine loaded into their guns is illogical as calling car drivers lazy for not walking to their destination, they got a pair of good legs to get their right? Might as well force everyone to rely on public transportation, instead a privately owned car if we can't expect people to responsibly use machine guns or any other firearm that "supposed" be military use only.
You really mentioned WMDs? You are punching the scare crow here, and deviating from the topic quite a bit. Nukes and chemical weapons are not firearms! My argument here is making machine guns and other related firearms unregulated, that's it and my line in the sand. I can defend myself with a machine gun with full auto and a belt May just as much as I can use it for hunting, I can't do that with a nuke as it makes the animal completely destroyed and no part of the meat is safe to eat due to radiation.
And no, my goal is not to arm everyone, my goal is to arm everyone who isn't in jail and the ones who have unfairly been stripped of their right to bear arms unfairly by unjust and arbitrary gun laws. Like preventing people going to jail just because the state made highly arbitrary laws of that person shooting more than 10 times in the gun range, having a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, and other gun laws that do nothing to curb dangerous behavior.
I don't know what is included in the "hunting rifle" category, but if it's got 15 bullets on rapid fire, that hunter is either a coward or doing it for survival, not sport.
either way, Machine gun is a big category, and the guns can get pretty big too. some have to be stabilized with a tripod, maybe rigged to the back of a pickup. is that also ok?
I did say I plan on escalating until you say stop, so rather than telling me what you wont ban, tell me where you plan on drawing the line, cause I'll get to wmds in about 5 posts.
in addition to the mentally ill you have desperate criminals, evil criminals, ordinary people who snap, and children that are good at getting into things (which is all of them). also, I dont see a knife or hot oil killing 17 people without special ops training. poison isnt a mass murder weapon, definitely not with ricin.
here's the biggest difference with guns. all other murder methods either require difficult execution (poison, bomb, oil), or an in your face, physically exhausting blood bath (melee). with a gun its point, click, dead. even a retard or a kid can murder dozens. and you want to arm everyone?!
cars, poisons, swords, all can kill, but none of them can kill so many, so easy, with no effort or no skill, and so fast.
ps, cars can hit many people, but most wont be fatal. unlike guns with rapid fire/multi hit
I mean little to no regulations on firearms (like airguns in the United States)! No heavy restrictions on machine guns, no criminal/mental health screenings before purchasing a gun, no "assault weapons" bans from any state, local, or federal level that arbitrarily ban features that are in no way more dangerous than "hunting rifles."
And there is no difference in banning a person from having a firearm even outside of prison, when an airgun is highly unregulated and can be used just as effectively for defense or assaults as a firearm. If that person has stabbed and murdered someone with knife, that person is dangerous enough to be held in prison equally as much as is of he or she murdered someone with a firearm.
Does it bother me when a mentally ill person is outside of a mental health facility with a firearm? Yes, it bothers me just as much as if the person were to have a knife, cooking on a stove with hot oil that can be thrown on someone's face, potatoes that can be synthesized into bombs more lethal than any firearm in existence, and handling poisons made right in their home using castor beans to make highly lethal ricin. If that person has murdered many people without a gun and went around the gun restrictions on him, he needs to be restrained.
how high would you like to go in the arming for citizens? I didn't understand your response.
also, your prisoner answer makes no sense! taking away the right to firearms is far less extreme then taking away someone's liberty. life in prison is only given to the most brutal murderers, not everyone who has killed. once they paid their price to society we have no right to hold them, but we may want to keep them away from fire arms. sure he can still kill with a knife, a bat, or even his bare hands... but he will kill alot fewer people that way.
I'm sure you believe the mentally ill are too dangerous to have firearms, should we start locking them all up even without a crime? one can be too dangerous to have a firearm and still not be dangerous enough to have their liberty taken by the state.
Why is that convicted murder even outside of prison to begin with? If a person is too dangerous to have a firearm, that person is too dangerous to be out in public, period.
That convicted murder would just simply use any tool in his disposal to murder people efficiently as much as that person didn't use a firearm, that person should stay in jail!
so you want guns to be completely unregulated? you want a convicted murderer to be able to get out of jail and go buy himself a machine gun?
The removing of regulations should stop if they were unregulated as air guns, that simple.
but "as fast as you can pull the trigger" is still too fast, imo.
according to your rights argument, the gov had no right to limit a gun to "only" semi auto. allowing for actual machine guns in the hands of people.
I would like to lower the fire rate, but how high of a caliber weapon would you like for civilians to carry? I believe if gov has no right you would be ok with full on assault rifles? machine guns? mount em on your car? I can obviously keep escalating, where and how would you stop it?
By ATF definition, it is a machine gun. So yes I know what I'm talking about.
an M16 isn't a machine gun. do you actually know what you are talking about?