Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

In light of another massacre in the us, what your opinion on the right to bear automatic weapons like the ak47 and ar15?

Well, in reference to the shooting the man did not have automatic weapons-a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun. Having said that I do not see why anyone would need fully auto weapons. Well, I guess just to have them.

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Well, in reference to the shooting the man did not have automatic weapons-a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun. Having said that I do not see why anyone would need fully auto weapons. Well, I guess just to have them.

Ok i was thinking an AR15 was an automatic weapon...

Originally Posted by Martin103

Ok i was thinking an AR15 was an automatic weapon...

That just means that the media has done a successful job with you.

Originally Posted by HarleyFXST

That just means that the media has done a successful job with you.

Not at all,they just mention he had an AR15, it just means that i know nothing about guns.

Originally Posted by Martin103

Ok i was thinking an AR15 was an automatic weapon...

It is a semi auto. If you have a government stamp and maybe $30,000 dollars you can legally own one with a selector switch to go selective fire or full auto. I was thinking of the Palestinian a few years ago, in Israel. He didn't have a gun at all. Only a huge front end loader which he used to crush cars and run over pedestrians until the LEOs finally shot him dead.

Serial killer BTK (bind, torture, kill) caught after thirty years or so of being on the loose. He never used a firearm in any of his gruesome murders. Neither did Richard Speck or Theodore Bundy. When a crazy man wants to do bodily harm they will find a way. The killer of those poor folks in that theater should have been killed on the spot by the LEOs who caught him.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

It is a semi auto. If you have a government stamp and maybe $30,000 dollars you can legally own one with a selector switch to go selective fire or full auto. I was thinking of the Palestinian a few years ago, in Israel. He didn't have a gun at all. Only a huge front end loader which he used to crush cars and run over pedestrians until the LEOs finally shot him dead.

Serial killer BTK (bind, torture, kill) caught after thirty years or so of being on the loose. He never used a firearm in any of his gruesome murders. Neither did Richard Speck or Theodore Bundy. When a crazy man wants to do bodily harm they will find a way. The killer of those poor folks in that theater should have been killed on the spot by the LEOs who caught him.

I totally agree, but with one minor exception, " Let one of the deceased victim's parents kill him. "

I sincerely disagree with you here Jimmy. Apprehension of criminals is more than to punish them, it is also to learn about them. I think the fact that there have been a few of these horrid events in the history of the US means more needs to be understood about the people who undertake these horrific acts. Studying this individual could save lives in the future.


Also while it is true that crazy people who wish to do harm can do so without guns, don't they just make it a hell of a lot easier for them. Bundy confessed to 30 murders over 4 years, this guy killed 14 (?) people in minutes, and injured scores more. Would he have been able to do that without some sort of ballistic weapon? I very much doubt it.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

It is a semi auto. If you have a government stamp and maybe $30,000 dollars you can legally own one with a selector switch to go selective fire or full auto. I was thinking of the Palestinian a few years ago, in Israel. He didn't have a gun at all. Only a huge front end loader which he used to crush cars and run over pedestrians until the LEOs finally shot him dead.

Serial killer BTK (bind, torture, kill) caught after thirty years or so of being on the loose. He never used a firearm in any of his gruesome murders. Neither did Richard Speck or Theodore Bundy. When a crazy man wants to do bodily harm they will find a way. The killer of those poor folks in that theater should have been killed on the spot by the LEOs who caught him.

Bharner, would firearm proficiency classes have stopped this chap. NO! They would have made him more dangerous.
as you can see in this link

"http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/07/Gun-ownership-gun-deaths-correlation.jpg"

The USA has the greatest intentional firearms deaths compared to gun ownership numbers in the world. I think this has a greater relationship to the ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor in the USA if I am honest.
"Quite honestly there is no need for anything beyond a bow/crossbow for hunting and traps for small game. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain lazy."
I agree wholeheartedly.

Hirlau ... The greater issue here isn't whether he should have had access to automatic weapons ... but whether he should have had access to guns at all. I know that isn't what the OP said but it is what I think.
"I totally agree, but with one minor exception, " Let one of the deceased victim's parents kill him. ""
This is one of the most moronic and neanderthal statements I have ever had the displeasure of reading. An eye for an eye, in modern society, what would this really achieve? The people who are gone, are gone. It is very sad and I feel for the families of the fallen, but killing the perpetrator doesn't achieve anything at all. Death is no punishment, if I were to face life imprisonment or death I know my choice.

I have no issue with hunting, I have serious issue with weapons being readily available for the masses. I don't think there is a readily governable method of distributing firearms to those who will use them properly, so why allow anybody to have them?

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

...I have no issue with hunting, I have serious issue with weapons being readily available for the masses. I don't think there is a readily governable method of distributing firearms to those who will use them properly, so why allow anybody to have them?

So what would you say to the argument that the genie is already out of the bottle? We have millions and millions in circulation, and people argue that they need firearms to protect themselves against others with firearms.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I don't think there is a readily governable method of distributing firearms to those who will use them properly, so why allow anybody to have them?

Maybe because here in the USA we live in a free country and our founding fathers, after defeating the British empire, gave us the 2nd amendment.