In light of another massacre in the us, what your opinion on the right to bear automatic weapons like the ak47 and ar15?
Printable View
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.
If I were king, I'd probably restrict gun ownership to shotguns for home defense and bolt-action rifles for hunting. Not gonna happen any time soon, though.
EDIT: I was going to say the same as the above poster about the terminology, but Wikipedia does say that "automatic" can also refer to semi-autos. Live and learn.
Talk about a fiery thread,,,
Unless the investigators found altered weapons, the shooter had a semi-automatic long gun/rifle.
I have no problem with AR-15's or semi automatic clones of the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 (AK-47).
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.
Automatic means you pull and hold the trigger and bullets keep coming out until you release the trigger.
Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are fine. As are fully automatic rifles. I have a couple friends with M16s or pre-ban auto sears. They're fun to shoot once or twice but goodness the ammo cost is more than I can afford (not to mention 12+k for one gun) .
I just wish that firearm safety and proficiency classes were more available and less expensive.
And that people would realize an object is only as bad as the person using it. A hammer isn't inherently bad. A nail gun isn't inherently bad. But they both get used for bad things from time to time.
Cut thru the B.S folks,something needs to be done,Who needs High Cap mags? for what?who needs 6000 rnds of ammo? for what? Just because people feel it is there right to do so,Nobody hunts game animals with an AR 15 or an AK,why do they even exsist (read the book AK 47) even the man who invented the damn thing is appalled (Kalishnikov) at what is happening today with the AK.
Go to any local gunshow, you want full auto Aks, no prob, hang in the parking lot, are trunkloads of them,you want Uzis, you want conversions for AR15s
Bring cash,This stuff is all over the place,the rules need to change to apply to the currant demonic, mentally warped sociaty that is america today,and the numbers of them are growing by the day.
As a lifelong NRA member. I want all but hunting arms banned JMO
Fully automatic weapons have their place in the military and some sectors of the police force. They should not be in the hands of the general public. Semi-automatics are all anyone should need, be it hunting or protection.
I frequently use semi automatic rifles for hunting game. My 10/22 for squirrels, groundhogs, and rabbits when I'm shooting at longer ranges than I'm comfortable using my silenced air rifle at.
I use my AR-15 for coyotes and groundhogs at ranges further than I trust a .22 for. I'm planning on picking up either a 6.8spc upper or a .300 Blackout upper for deer and hog hunting with it. We have a lot of coyotes and wild dogs around here so I like having plenty of ammo to take out some coyotes with if I happen to see any while I'm out for deer. And I often do see them in areas that I hunt. Last fall I saw 3 coyotes chasing a buck at midday. And all I had was my 30-30 with 3 rounds in it and 3 in my pocket. Only buck I saw last year, too. Ain't gonna happen this year.
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.:p
Eta: I've been to a lot of gun shows and have bought and sold in the parking lot. I've never seen any full autos or the like in the parking lots. Plenty inside from the class III/NFA dealers.
Anyone that doesn't like automatics has never fired an M249, M240b, M2, or Mk19. More fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Well, that's disturbing, pixelfixed. Do you have an article or something to back up how easy it is to modify these rifles that are originally designed as assault rifles (i.e. military purpose) and sell them to the unscrupulous lollygaggers outside the gun shows? No doubt they can be modified, they were all designed to be capable of fully automatic fire. That they also function very well as varmint and large game rifles is also beyond question.
I'd like to know if our current media sweetie-pie, Holmes, was using the converted, fully-automatic kind.
I have this strange feeling you won't be swayed in your opinions, regardless of what anyone else has to say.
I think you are angry, as I am, about the incident. But,, to quote you, "demonic, mentally warped sociaty that is america today.." is not 100% true. I work hard to teach my son the values that you and I enjoyed years ago. I have hope for the future. I don't feel that the future rests on more gun or drug laws, for that matter. It has always and will always, start with the "Home". You heard the report about the subject's mother not being surprised, that it was her son.
Would it have made people feel any better if the subject had used two revolvers and a shotgun to kill those twelve people? No, it would not have. Possibly the wounded count would have been less, but 12 dead is twelve dead.
From the wikipedia article in question:
"An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired.
The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed."
So the term "automatic" refers to the loading, not firing. What's wrong about that?
----------
On the main topic, this is all just about where we as a people draw the line, right? Otherwise, if you try to interpret the 2nd amendment in some absolute fashion, why can't we privately own Stinger missiles?
First of all, I don't use Wikipedia as a source for any of my information gathering.
If you are going to push the above "cut & paste" as the definitive source for the meaning of the words "automatic & semi automatic", in their relationship to weapon function; then please give me the name of the individual who "up loaded" this to Wikipedia, so I can review his qualifications.
This is only fair, is it not?
WOW the amount of misinformation flying around is staggering.
An M-4 is already set up for 3 round burst. It's not hard to go from there.
Heck, the first time I did a trigger job on a 10/22 I stoned the sear a bit too much and one trigger press resulted in a mag dump.
And yes, technically speaking a handgun of the glock type persuasion or an AR 15 is an autoloader. But it does not a fully automatic firing weapon make. Heck, there are some sweet autoloading revolvers out there.
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.
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?
You can change the law, gun amnesties really do work. There would be people who fought it but if you change the law, the law is changed. People have to get used to it, make sure people know they can turn their guns in, and that if they don't they will be given lengthy prison sentences for not complying.
I understand. I just have seen too many errors on Wiki over the years that it has been online. If something is important for me to learn about , I first study the teacher. I don't know much about anything in life, but what little I do know, came from great teachers.
'We start carrying semi automatics, they buy automatics, we start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds...'
Batman Begins
I am sure the people of Colorado are enjoying their freedom. What you are saying is that because of something that happened in the distant past, you should maintain that right for all of eternity? There are hundreds of laws in every country that should be rescinded, times change and so should the legal system.
While I'm certain that more stringent gun control laws will eventually be enacted here in the US there will be revolution in this country before the masses hand them over.
We Americans have a proud history or being stubborn bastards. I grew up in Massachusetts but down here in Virginia the American Civil war is still often referred to as "the war of Northern agrression". Going in to hollows of the mountains in the area life hasn't changed much in the last hundred years. I know many people with no running water or indoor plumbing. I grow some of my own food and kill as much of it as possible (hell, this year I've chased two squirrels down and killed them with my pocket knife. The buggers were getting in to my house and I chased them out) but these folks either raise their own cattle / pigs/ sheep or shoot a lot of game. The government will get their lives before their freedom.
The true shame in this fiasco is that Colorado is a right to carry state, so why did no one stop this madman, because the theater had a no guns allowed policy. They insured that their patrons would be victims, one armed citizen could have put quick end to the "Massacre" but instead of "an armed society being a polite society", many in our society insist on disarmament of the lawful citizen in favor of them being prey for the ruthless and insane. How many dead and how many wounded for the sake of someone elses whimsical view of a perfect world?
BTW, This thread is being watched. Feel free to advance any viewpoint you wish but be polite about it. If the topic upsets you, let it go and enjoy one of the many guns and razor threads in "The finer things in life" forum.
As long as they are purchased and acquired within the boundaries of the law, I have no problem with it. Guns don't kill people.
People kill people. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Those "arms," aren't specified.
"The government will get their lives before their freedom."
I think this kind of says it all. Is taking away their guns really taking away their freedom. Think of the masses that won't go out at night for fear of being killed in the inner cities. Surely those people have had their freedom taken away by the government already. Freedom is a term I see banded around a lot by Americans. From an outsiders perspective, there are greater things to fight over than the "freedom" to carry weapons.