Gun Terminology

Hi Jow Forums

I know Jow Forums is not for gun control discussion but I am just asking to have some terms clarified for me and I genuinely want to inform myself about guns.
So, every time I see discussion of gun control, the terms most commonly used are 'semi automatic', or 'assault style'. And people always seem to take offense at these terms and suggest that their use is un-informed and laughable.
Someone on /tv/ told me that 'select fire rifle' was the correct term, but wikipedia suggests that means:
>Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode
So 'semi automatic' would be 'select fire' as would what I imagine 'assault style' to mean.

I'm not trying to get into an argument over whether this is justified or not, but If we wanted to enact laws to ban the guns most efficient for mass murdering crowds of people, what would the educated terminology and definitions to refer to those guns be?
I've been told over and over to 'ask Jow Forums' and now i'm doing it.
also as a side note i quite like guns, and would like to own a hunting rifle one day and hunt pigs and deer, but i would like a (bolt action?) gun, which requires a lengthy action between each fire, for sporting reasons.

Thanks

>wants to ban guns
>can't understand basic English
Sounds about right.

Attached: reaction image 006.png (278x323, 87K)

google it you spoiled retard
no one is going to spoon feed you

I don't want to ban guns, I want to use language which is accurate and non-offensive for people who care about them.

Do you enjoy having the general public uneducated about guns and using incorrect terms?

first of all: not all select fire weapons have a burst mode or fully automatic mode. those are typically only M16s/M4s used in the military, and you're not even allowed to use it unless you're in combat or maybe simulating combat.

semi automatic means you pull the trigger, the firing pin drops, the bullet in the chamber is fired, and the bolt draws back and ejects the brass before riding forward again to chamber a new round from the spring-loaded magazine.

semi-auto is one bullet at a time. and yes technically an AR-15 is "select fire" in that you can select between safe and semi. but there is no burst or auto fire without special permission and expensive licensing (which is being challenged in court now)

don't listen to the lazy retards here, Jow Forums wants you to be informed about guns.

Please do no post subhumans fats on Jow Forums

yes

thanks user.
So your average semi auto would have a 20-30 round magazine?
Whereas a bolt action hunting rifle would hold 6-10 bullets?

And I would assume that a bolt action rifle would take atleast twice as long to fire 10 bullets?

also is 'bolt action rifle' the correct terms for a gun which requires a manual action to chamber each bullet?

or basically, the kind of rifle which is inefficient at mass murdering a crowd of people

>So your average semi auto would have a 20-30 round magazine?
>Whereas a bolt action hunting rifle would hold 6-10 bullets?
that's about right, yes. bolt guns will typically hold up to maybe 5-6 rounds. same for lever guns, depending on the length of the magazine tube.

Attached: riflesmall.jpg (3333x2225, 710K)

You’re being very obvious with your anti-gun speak

yes, that is the average
bolt action rifles usually have clips which differ from 5-10 rounds which have to be manually chambered in

>bolt action
After firing the bolt must be worked by hand to load the next round
>semi auto
Pull the trigger, bullet fires - automatically load the next round into the chamber with trigger disconnecting - 1 bullet per trigger pull

>full auto
As semi auto but the trigger does not disconnect- continuous fire while trigger is held

>select fire
Capable of both semi-auto and auto modes
The selector is also the safety switch - this means I'll informed look at it and think its select fire
The only difference between semi-auto and select fire( capable of full auto) is internal

>assault weapon
Civilian terms vs military
In civil terms politicians use it to refer to a visual style that resembles military rifles - regardless of if its semi auto or not
Military meaning for assault rifle is a select fire rifle, capable of fully automatic fire
It is intentional misdirection by politicians to make people believe fully automatic weapons are commonplace

Semi-auto covers almost all pistols and civilian rifles - you can fire as fast as you are comfortable pulling the trigger
In hunting this is important if you only wound an animal to put it down with a swift clear follow up shot

>also is 'bolt action rifle' the correct terms for a gun which requires a manual action to chamber each bullet?
yes. the bolt is rotated and unlocked from the chamber and drawn back by hand, by the user. there's an extractor claw near the bolt face for ejecting. loading a new round is very similar to a semi-auto gun: spring loaded magazine.

lever guns are slightly different in that they need an "elevator" to bring the bullet up to be pushed in by the bolt but the manual nature of the action is the same.

Attached: boomersurfing.jpg (675x601, 168K)

Yes, but banning Semi auto also would ban all pistols - hence destroying any concept of self defense

So basically, a 'burst fire' or 'full auto' rifle is incredibly good at mass murdering a crowd of people.

A 'semi-auto' is good at it

and a 'lever', or a 'bolt action' gun can kill people but not a lot and it's not ideal for it, especially in the hands of someone relatively untrained and panicked?

So calls to ban 'semi-auto' guns are not using the wrong terminology or laughably inaccurate at all? It's just that some of the people who disagree pretend it is? Why do they do that?

>inefficient at mass murdering a crowd of people
Russia disagrees.

ok, that's a good point.
so 'semi-auto rifle' would be a better term, that just 'semi auto'?

because a pistol can inflict less damage with lower caliper bullets, has lower capacity magazines, and is less accurate?
Or is that wrong. Because mass shooters seem to favour rifles.

I wonder, how many people could you drop at a concert with a bolt action or straight pull rifle before panic took hold? Assuming a decent elevated firing position and a good shooter. Charles Whitman got 11 I think.

it doesnt matter what type of guns they ban, shooters will move onto bows and knives when all gunz r ilegel

>And I would assume that a bolt action rifle would take atleast twice as long to fire 10 bullets?
If the operator is well trained and in a hurry, maybe. But there's almost no reason to be shooting that fast.

Why are you asking these questions? Are you an opinion news writer? I'd like to let you know that just because a firearm is capable of something you don't like doesn't mean it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment. personal ownership of firearms isn't enshrined in the Constitution for hunting. or for sport shooting. or for larping as a cowboy. they're a guard against tyranny and oppression. which means the citizens' arms must be equal to the government's. it's written in plain english.

Let's not get into that. This isn't the place for it. And I already said that I would like to learn more about guns, get a license, and own one to hunt pigs and deer with one day. So I don't think I am 'anti-gun'.

Normally people want to ban "assault rifles", which is variable select that includes full auto. People are being disingenuous with language and are now referring to any 'scary looking' rifle, semi-auto or not, as "assault rifles".

Anyone with half a brain could kill piles of people with any of them. But still far less than cars, medical malpractice, drugs, alcohol, etc.

Nobody objects to the terminology ‘semi-auto’ being used, they object to the portrayel of them as killing machines because semi-automatic rifles account for ~5% of all America’s murders.

>the kind of rifle which is inefficient at mass murdering a crowd of people

The UT tower shooter would disagree

>get a license
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

Full auto is usually very bad if someone has the intent to kill
The follow up shots make precision almost impossible without proper training

Militaries use semi-auto most of the time
Fully auto is there so one man can 'suppress' a target to stop them moving so others can move to get a clean kill shot

Fully automatic weapons are feared because the seem intimidating but are not very effective at killing

A ban on Semi auto would ban 80%+ of all firearms in civilian hands

Yes you are.

Pro-hunting =/= pro-gun. To be pro-gun is to support gun ownership in all forms, and ultimately in the spirit of 2A

>Why are you asking these questions?
Because whenever I see or have gun control arguments, people dispute the terms used, and act like gun-control advocates are uninformed and using laughable incorrect terminology.

But as far as I can work out, they basically aren't, and those people are disingenuously pretending an argument doesn't make any sense when really they just disagree.

By the way, I respect and empathize with your position. I just think we should be able to have the discussion speaking the same language.

>and a 'lever', or a 'bolt action' gun can kill people but not a lot and it's not ideal for it, especially in the hands of someone relatively untrained and panicked?
any gun can kill someone.

>So basically, a 'burst fire' or 'full auto' rifle is incredibly good at mass murdering a crowd of people.
a burst or full auto rifle is incredibly good at shooting bullets quickly. that's it. only emotionally damaged mental deficients think of using them against civilians. do I need to report you to your local constabulary, user? that's what a red flag law would allow.

>So calls to ban 'semi-auto' guns are not using the wrong terminology or laughably inaccurate at all? It's just that some of the people who disagree pretend it is? Why do they do that?
Like I said. any gun can kill someone, or many someones.

there is an open charge to take people's 2A rights away because that's always how governments are. they concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands at the top. it's been happening for 250+ years in America, and look. the 1%. a runaway Congress. plutocrats who get bailouts and are immune to prison.

you do not want to be part of the taking of man's natural rights. that's the devil's work.

>So your average semi auto would have a 20-30 round magazine? Whereas a bolt action hunting rifle would hold 6-10 bullets?

magazines are separate from the rifle
magazines can range from 5 to 100 rounds

bolt guns can be from 1-5 if they do not have detachable magazines.

>I don't want to ban guns
>Here's why the tv box told me we should ban guns

One of the deadliest mass shootings in US history happened in the 30's with a bolt action rifle and a can of gasoline.

The AR pattern of rifle was designed in the 1950's. This technology is over a century old at this point with semi automatic and fully automatic firearms being built from the 1890s on.

None of it can be banned, none of it can be forgotten. You can build a fully functional machine gun in your garage from materials bought at the hardware store. You can make an auto sear to illegally make a fully automatic rifle out of a coat hanger.

Whatever antigun statists tell you about firearms and firearm crime is either a lie out of ignorance (shoulder things that go up.jpg. doesn't know rifles are used in almost NO crime, etc. ) or worse malice
>It's never been about saving one life, it's been about eroding your rights.

Firearms are simple machines that have existed in their modern form for over a century and a half. They can only make it illegal for YOU the law abiding citizen to own one.

All bullets are lethal with proper placement. It's not a video game, where smaller guns inflict "less damage".

Shooters prefer rifles because they are easier to shoot quickly and accurately. The AR-15's .22 caliber bullet is smaller than common pistol rounds, 9mm for example is around .38 caliber.

huh. so a single shot with an ar-15 would likely be more harmful than from a 9mm?

No. The opposite.

*less harmful

fair enough.

Attached: wp_liveoak.jpg (1282x1920, 524K)

It depends on factors like barrel length, barrel twist, bullet grain, type of bullet, etc.

That then brings into the point other questions
What defines a pistol?
The current definition is a short barrel (sub 14") and no stock (the recoil softening shoulder mount)

That means you can have AR pistols

That also lands on another point in the debate
AR is assumed by the I'll informed to mean Assault Rifle (a term that means select fire)
AR doesn't mean that it is simply a Brand of Rifles made by the Armalite company
Civilian AR's are the most common semi auto rifle and are also available as pistols

Which brings us to non sensible rules
In some states an AR pistol with a 12" barrel and no stock is legal
But the same gun with a 15" barrel is not
But the 15" gun can be made legal by fitting a different grip to replace the pistol grip

All 3 types of that however are exactly the same gun - you are only changing visual quirks

5.56x45 the caliber of your standard AR15 is based off the .222winchester round

A cartridge originally designed for shooting small game and coyotes.

Being shot with a gun is being shot with a gun.

For instance the Cumberland mass shooting in England wracked up a double digits death toll yet was committed by a guy with a single barrel shotgun and a rimfire target rifle. In short, round doesn't matter. Rifle doesn't matter. Crazy people will try to murder people and selling out your rights for a false sense of security isn't going to make you not die in an easily committed arson after Superman throws all guns into space, which is about what it would take to have a snowballs chance in hell of disarming the US populace of hundreds of millions of firearms.

It also doesn’t matter whether you’re shooting an AR or a Glock at the engagement ranges of your typical mass shooting, Vegas being the exception. If you got your reloading technique sharp enough you could probably get a decent score with an OU shotgun.

Pistol calibers are actually bigger than alot of rifle rounds. It's just that there isn't as much powder behind the bullet so it's less powerful. And the bullets tend to not have as sharp of a point on the nose.

Except you’re lying.

>oh well they’re BASICALLY using the same meanings
Precision and accuracy are important.

Handguns are used in more murders per year than rifles. If you think rifles are more lethal just because they're bigger you need to educate yourself.

this. rifles are easier to aim and can have larger capacities than pistols, and typically do more damage to internal organs. the AR-15's 5.56mm ammo is very fast, very flat shooting (the arc of its drop is shallow over distance vs other calibers), and cheap at the moment.

The entire gun debate between left and right should not exist because owning them is a right. Mass shooters are without exception emotionally damage people. If you want mass shootings to stop in America, you need to ask yourself why American mental health is so poor. You will find that we are in terrible shape mostly because of capitalism: media overconsumption, parental abuse and neglect, bullying, instagram creating unattainable goals and twitter creating unwinnable arguments. It is 100% okay to be openly racist against white people. Consider that. This, while affirmative action laws that "positively" discriminate against them are in the legal books.

We're in a bad way in this country and the sooner we stop participating in cultural suicide the sooner we will see a tapering off of these mentally unwell people taking out their anger on the public.

Attached: virgins.jpg (1920x1920, 1.31M)

I'm talking about mass shootings. So number of shootings or ability to kill one person are irrelevant.

not just visual quirks. how they handle, and barrel length affects maximum velocity for the bullet.

Attached: deletedtweet.png (1074x871, 120K)

I'm not lying.
I'm not even American either, I don't know why you're all assuming that I am.
I'm from New Zealand and I spend a lot of time in the backcountry camping and tramping and stuff. I own a property in the country near a lot of good hunting. I know quite a few people who hunt deer in the South Island. I have a big freezer and would love to kill game to eat.
I wouldn't mind getting into duck hunting too.

I'm not anti-gun. I'd love to get into it.

All i'm trying to do ITT is address the language used in gun debates and address why exactly the discussion is so toxic. I don't want to have the argument.

Do you understand the distinction between disagreeing with something and suggesting it doesn't even make sense?

...why?

I'd say its very relevant to the debate, as ever single grabber wants a ban of the big scarry assault weapons with the shoulder thing that goes up. Tell me, do you even know what qualifies as a "mass shooting" in America?

I see your point, but aren't generalizations necessary to discuss an issue?
And aren't most laws basically a line drawn in the sand, where things fall arbitrarily just either side of the line?

For example why can 17 year olds not drink but 18 year olds can? People 2 days apart can and can't. That doesn't make any sense. But that's just the inherent nature of laws.

>Tell me, do you even know what qualifies as a "mass shooting" in America?
Some definition falling within the realm of shooting a lot of people. Give me the letter but the spirit is self evident. Why do you have to act so patronizing about this? I literally made this thread to actively educate myself because i recognize that I am ignorant, and you still act like a dick about it.

not that user but the answer is 4 deaths not including the shooter. i don't know why he's trying to play stump the chump. just ignore him. i appreciate you trying to inform yourself and others and wish you well in pursuing your shoulder thing that goes up down under.

Fuck off and die.

You were wrong about assault rifles, you were wrong about the difference between various action types, you were wrong about the relationship between caliber and deadliness, you were wrong about the relationship between action type and deadliness.
You were wrong about every assumption you had about firearms terminology and how they worked and you came to the conclusion that it’s gun owners being disingenuous? You’re retarded.

The gun control argument doesn’t even make sense.

OP, I've replied with you a few times

Let me boil this down in a way that makes sense as best I can with a few bullet points

There are laws in place already that stop felons having guns

There are laws in place to stop the mentally insane from having guns

Fully automatic weapons are not available on the open market without severe background checks and tens of thousands of dollars

The issue of madmen getting guns is a matter of failures to Identify mental health issues - passing new laws wont help the current laws not being properly enforced

Most gun control revolves around conflating Fully auto and semi auto guns - using the fear of full auto to drive people

This is either misinformed people or people being deceptive

If "common sense" gun reforms to ban semi autos are passed then 80%+ of all guns will be made illegal overnight - any attempts to clarify subdivisions simply add bureaucracy to the system and make people change pointless features that dont affect the performance of the guns

This means that we risk a near complete removal of the 2nd amendment because of fear, misinformation and failures to police current laws

Gun control legislation seeks to have the government and its bodies heap inconvenience and injustice on the people because of those same bodies failing to duly act on current laws - why would we believe they will enforce these new laws any better than the current ones they are failing at?

OP is a fucking chode

Not in any meaningful way at the ranges that mass shootings occur

We are talking the difference of around 120 ft per second, on bullets in the thousands of ft per second

I applaud your efforts here user but hes just gonna post the same faggot shit again and again.

The ability to kill one person is relevant as every mass shooting is a series of individual murders in succession

You suggested banning rifles
A rifle can be fitted with a 5rnd mag, a pistol could have 12 to 15 rounds
Both are semi auto and lethal

>it is 100% okay to be racist against white people, and there are laws that literally discriminate them
This is probably one of the main reasons most of these shooters are white

A lot of sources use 3 or more and 2 or more deaths to qualify for a “mass shooting”. I think the fbi changed it to 3+

The reason the debate is so toxic is because the constitution protects the right to bear arms, it holds it to the same value as Life, liberty, freedom of speech, right to free assembly

The discussion of arbitrary gun control is no different to an america that a discussion on if the government should be allowed to censor you "for your own good"

The issue is you're coming from the point of view that you just need to find the guns that cant be used

The Christchurch Mosque for example used and abandoned 2 semi-auto rifles before falling back on 2 pump action shotguns and a lever action rifle

If you ban those you have effectively banned all major gun types

>Most gun control revolves around conflating Fully auto and semi auto guns - using the fear of full auto to drive people

>Full auto is usually very bad if someone has the intent to kill
>The follow up shots make precision almost impossible without proper training
>Militaries use semi-auto most of the time
>Fully auto is there so one man can 'suppress' a target to stop them moving so others can move to get a clean kill shot
>Fully automatic weapons are feared because the seem intimidating but are not very effective at killing
>A ban on Semi auto would ban 80%+ of all firearms in civilian hands

Do you disagree with this other user? He seems to suggest that it is infact semi auto, not full auto guns, which are the most efficient at mass killings.

Can I ask you another question. IF there was to be gun control, specifically to prevent and decrease the danger of mass shootings, what do you think that should be? It doesn't have to be something you'd support or something that would be effective in the scheme of things regarding killings in general. But just as a hypothetical. Around mass shootings, what specific gun control should gun control advocates be advocating for, if a ban on 'semi autos' doesn't make sense? Again, doesn't have to be something you support.

I'm not trying to argue that specific guns should be banned and I don't think this is the right context or place to have that arguement. I don't think I should shit up your comfy hobby board with politics.

My question is more: IF someone was to argue that certain guns should be banned, which should they be, and what language and terms should they use?

I realise that many of you view that arguement, that certain guns or any guns should be banned, to be inherently flawed, however I often encounter the point that the guns being suggested are wrong or laughable, not that any guns at all being suggested are wrong.

Or is it basically that there's actually no way to be discussing this, and be respected, that it's not about the terms used, but that anyone doing so you're going to laugh at and call a dumbcunt, because the whole thing is just so inherently flawed and offensive?

Calm down a moment, you are conflating multiple people talking to you at once

But as a general statement, to an American you are asking why should he have the rights given by the constitution.
To the more hot headed that seems intentionally offensive, which then enraged them when people are asking the question on limited knowledge bases

I've been giving you longer form replays like this one
But you'll have to wait a moment as I'm about to start driving
>t. A Bong lurker

>Gun control legislation seeks to have the government and its bodies heap inconvenience and injustice on the people because of those same bodies failing to duly act on current laws - why would we believe they will enforce these new laws any better than the current ones they are failing at?

This is actually a very good point, as is the need to address mental health issues, and others you haven't mentioned like cultural issues around hatred in your country. And I hear all that. And I am not trying to tell you what you should do or argue for it and I don't think it's my right to do so and nor is this the place. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to talk about.

Efficiency would be firing the least amount of rounds to achieve your goal. That has less to do with the type of firearm you use, and more to do with your accuracy/marksmanship.

Effective then. Do you really not understand what I mean? Don't make my question an issue of semantics when the answer is an issue of semantics.

Time for you to GB2R

It's like, say you were put in a debate, not an argument, but a formal debate, and the moot point was:
>we should ban certain kinds of guns to address the issue of mass shootings
and you were debating for, what would you say?

It's not your personal beliefs in a debate.

Different guns would be more effective in different situations. Just talking about killing people, any gun would be effective if the person was shot in a vital area, especially if medical help is not readily accessible.

This isn't really something that you can say "This type of gun is the most effective way to kill a whole bunch of people". It all depends on the situation.

If I were in a formal debate, the strongest pro gun ban position I could probably reasonably defend is full-auto machine guns.
Even then, the counter-arguments are numerous: when they were legal, they were extremely rarely used in crime. They aren’t really as great at mass slaughter as they might seem. Gun bans in general don’t work to reduce violent crime. The right to bear arms includes at least infantry small arms on par with what the government has.

Fuck off. No guns should be banned. Our second amendment rights are already being infringed upon, and I can't decide if I want our opposition to be more informed are not, but it makes me mad. I just want people to stop fucking with our personal liberties.

Attached: Fire Within.png (400x346, 85K)

>Can I ask you another question. IF there was to be gun control, specifically to prevent and decrease the danger of mass shootings, what do you think that should be? It doesn't have to be something you'd support or something that would be effective in the scheme of things regarding killings in general. But just as a hypothetical. Around mass shootings, what specific gun control should gun control advocates be advocating for, if a ban on 'semi autos' doesn't make sense? Again, doesn't have to be something you support.
>I swear its not a gun control thread!!1!!1

you're all pretty stupid and can't grasp basic concepts and next time you call me uneducated i'll know that i tried and tell you to go fuck yourself

Attached: aoc.jpg (243x242, 11K)

you could have said the same thing with far fewer words.
OP is completely unacquainted with guns, no reason to try to be smart. keep it simple.

>asks for help understanding gun terminology and function
>people answer and correct misunderstandings
>op refuses to change his thinking on anything he’s corrected on
>you’re all stupid mean jerks!

alright some of you have been helpful but most of you are dumbcunts

they should make murder illegal... just saying

Bong user has landed
Please take your time with this post as there are certain issues that are almost impossible to divorce from this debate

>Why you are receiving so many Snarky or rude replies from Americans
the entire question of gun control in America is radically polarized because 1 side think that there is not much valid reason to own a gun and it is simply a danger that should be removed, the other believe that it is an inalienable right, like liberty and freedom
They see these same arguements made day after day and it grows tiresome for them to have to continuously explain what they see as common sense and their legal rights

Imagine if you where forced to endure debate day after day on if the NHS should be abolished, its obviously just a drain on the tax system and horribly inefficient - Im sure you can see how you'd eventually get ground down and either get angry or just laugh at the people suggesting it - this is the same for the Yanks

I personally am a Bong and strongly pro 2A despite not having a dog in the race - I understand why it is needed and also have looked into how armed citizens would play a role in stopping governmental tyranny as the 2A is not the only safeguard working to that end as many pretend

The issue with your question on what guns are most dangerous in a mass shooting is that anything that makes a gun effective for hunting or self defense also makes it "more effective" in the hands of someone intending to do harm
And I mean literally anything that benefits either role
Comfortable ergonomics for a good hunting rifle make it easier to get a shot on a deer - or a person for example

I made the point before that Semi-Autos are the more effective killing tools - that is because if you have made a decision to do harm you can put 4 or 5 shots into a target in the time where an Auto might have fired 12 but only hit with 2-3 due to being unable to control it

>firing pin drops
Nigga wat
My AR doesnt have a fucking striker it has a hammer.

>or basically, the kind of rifle which is inefficient at mass murdering a crowd of people

Laughs in WW1.

Not really a safe assumption. My favorite pistol holds 100 rounds.

Attached: cybergat with transparent mag.png (614x822, 369K)

>Do you disagree with this other user? He seems to suggest that it is infact semi auto, not full auto guns, which are the most efficient at mass killings.

generally yes, that said if the vegas shooter did have a ww1 belt fed setup with plenty of ammo, something he could have easily afforded, it would have killed more...

Or if he just flew one of his 2 planes into the concert, that would have killed more than both.

or if he used a car bomb like he was thinking...

IMHO, guns are the least effective mass casualty weapon, full auto, semi or bolt.

I understand what you're saying.
I find it frustrating that no one ITT seems to understand what I am saying.

I constantly encounter people saying 'THAT gun control argument or THOSE terms or THAT specific type of gun to ban is laughable/ill informed/incorrect language/ you don't know what you're talking about.
It's rarely that i'm even talking about this, it's just when I see these arguments. Which is unavoidable. They are part of everyday life whether you care or not or want to be involved or not.
So I wanted to know what the gun-control arguments, terms, and language that might make more sense are.

No one has told me.

I've just had it explained that none of these arguements and no further control make sense, and why. And I respect that position even. But it's not the same as laughing at a specific arguement, saying a specific argument is ill informed.
What's the informed argument? "there isn't one". Well the implication often is that there might be.

It just seems rather disingenuous.
And this distinction, this actual specific issue i'm trying to adress, which genuinely is distinct from what everyone is sick of talking about and what has been said, seems to be an idea beyond you all's understanding.

Which is frustrating.

>All i'm trying to do ITT is address the language used in gun debates and address why exactly the discussion is so toxic. I don't want to have the argument.

The argument is so toxic simply because it's the informd vs the uninformed.

The uninformed anti's spout mentally retarded bullshit and pass themselves off as better than everyone.

The rest of us call them on their bullshit, state facts but the anti's don't care because they have feelings.

Mass shootings are a public menace, but a gun is only a tool

It is the mind behind the action that makes the tool turn to a foul end

You asked before what gun control legislation I would advocate in a debate - I ironically would propose the following

Repeal the laws on private ownership of full autos and roll them into a new legislature
Remove all costs associated with concealed carry licenses
All US citizens are subject to the Draft in wartime, thus training the public in firearms use is a duty of the govt in my mind

The way I would Implement this is to have the US Allocate some of its army budget into free training for anyone who chooses to use it - a full 3 to 5 day gun handling and safety course with a 1 day refresher every 3 years
Upon completing this the Goverment would grant that citizen the right to purchase a full auto firearm or a concealed carry licence - this way the public know all legal Autos and CCW users are trained
As reward for the conciensious citizen they would receive a Tax rebate on a weapon of their choice - be required to register that weapon, as it was purchase with gvt rebates - and Transfer of the weapon to any 3rd party would be classed as a felony

This gives the public the piece of mind and allows for a return to the standard that the citizens have access to the same base equipment as the military

If the position opposite yours, which you completely disagree with, yet respect, was to make more sense, but still contradict what you think and your personal interests totally, what would it be?

>All US citizens are subject to the Draft in wartime
I don't know why I'm bothering with this thread. I honestly had good intentions and was optimistic. You seem like an absolute fucking psycho.

Attached: Sarah Gadon.jpg (800x1200, 106K)

>If the position opposite yours, which you completely disagree with, yet respect, was to make more sense, but still contradict what you think and your personal interests totally, what would it be?

Well, the major issue is that they don't have any argument past feelings. If the anti crowed was being honest, they would not look at the tool used to kill, for it matters not if it is a gun, car, bomb, plane or fire, what matters is the motive.

The thing is, going after guns is like putting a bandaid on the situation. 99% of cuts you don't need a bandaid because they are small and scab up quick, but once in a while, you want to apply a bandaid. that is what shootings are right now, 99% of gun owners never hurt anyone, but that tiny few hurt a lot of people.

Now, if antis want to also be honest and still want guns banned despite all the facts, they would be targeting pistols as they kill the most for all firearms meanwhile all rifles, from grandpa's ww1 bolt action rifle to the most modern polymer rifle with 100 round clipazines are used to kill roughly 300 people a year, less people than are beaten to death by hammers.

so it's not only that the facts literally disprove the anita's and they refuse to acknowledge anything, they have the wrong target and they call anyone they disagree with 'baby killers' because we refuse to give up our weapons.

TL:DR, I can completely disagree yet respect people, however the anti's are so far off the deep end, I can't conceive of an argument that I could disagree with and still respect them.

Attached: 25oct2.jpg (620x387, 164K)

ok, so the gun control argument you would not respect the least would be calls to ban pistols?

also consider that it's not purely about statistics, that a mass shooting instills fear in people, that it is terrorism that affects people beyond that cold pragmatism of numbers of deaths. That a murder often has a motive but a mass shooting is to incite fear. There is a distinction. How you 'feel' about something is not nonsense.

And I get what you're saying
Saying
>all gun control arguments are nonsense
is a valid position
But often, people say
>this gun control argument/position is nonsense
the implication is that there might be a gun control argument/position that is educated and does make sense, but in reality, based on this thread, I think those people are being disingenuous and really mean that all gun control arguments and positions don't make sense.

Do you understand?
All I wanted to know was whether that was the case or not, I didn't even think it was, but I think it is.