Anonymous #2 18w

only assault rifles because they’re used most in school shootings. pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, and more would still have been legal. and the whataboutism doesn’t change OP’s point

8

Anonymous alphanerd 18w

I’m actually asking. These guys hide from me.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

You can campaign on giving every puppy free toys but if you want to ban guns or ban assault guns or whatever you're not getting my vote 😭

-1

Anonymous #3 18w

Also whats the difference between an assault gun and every other gun because I can't think of a gun on Earth that couldn't be used to assault someone

-1

Anonymous #2 18w

“Kamala said something I didn’t like, that she realistically would be entirely incapable of doing, so instead I just voted for the Nazi child rapist who promised to do untold and immeasurable damage to our country”

8

Anonymous #5 18w

Didn't vote

0

Anonymous #2 18w

Hey thanks for destroying our county bro, I’m glad the livelihoods of everyone around you matter less than your privilege to own and operate a machine the founding fathers never would have dreamed existed!

3

Anonymous #2 18w

an assault rifle is a classification of gun not a gun used for assault... they’re select fire (swap between semi and full auto) and used worldwide by militaries. they are a weapon of war and that’s why they’re selected by shooters

1

Anonymous #2 18w

if you didn’t vote why are you complaining so much. you raised Kamala’s assault rifle ban (while not even knowing what an assault rifle is) as if your thought process was “one side wants to reduce shootings by banning a type of weapon we realistically don’t need and implementing common sense gun laws. the other wants to commit an ethnic cleansing. guess i can’t decide because these are both bad”

1

Anonymous #5 18w

Sorry I don't take messages from anti gunners who use this argument on the internet, if you would like me to read your comment I can give you my address and you can ride here on a horse and tell me.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

My thought process was "This person wants to ban my guns and just lost any chance of winning over my vote"

1

Anonymous #2 18w

one singular type of gun that has no practical use outside of a shooting range or war. they’re not taking your pistols, your shotguns, hunting rifles. and it was banning manufacture, importation, and sale. existing owners would still have theirs but we probably would have instated an optional buyback program.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

I use mine for hunting and self defense plenty

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Also yes they literally would be taking my pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles

1

Anonymous #2 18w

Or trying at least 😭

1

Anonymous #2 18w

no they wouldn’t. you fundamentally do not understand what Kamala’s stance was. Her ban was ONLY on the manufacture and sale of assault rifles. No confiscation of them, no ban on other types of weapons. Kamala herself is a gun owner.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

I hunt with my assault rifle plenty

1

Anonymous #2 18w

cool. you would have kept it under Kamala. read my past two comments.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

No I wouldn't have because I manufactured the lower during this administration

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Regardless of that, there would have come a point where I needed parts to swap out on it and they would've already been illegal because of people building ARs from parts.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

okay, so you wouldn’t have been able to buy one. you still could have bought another small game rifle. only thing you’d lose is your ability to empty your clip into a rabbit. and if you need to do that you’re a terrible shot

1

Anonymous #2 18w

buyback program and replace it? semi-auto is insane overkill for small game anyways

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Ok bud, I want you to go out into the woods and find a 1000lb grizzly, and then after that you can tell me how much I do or don't need follow up shots.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Make sure to get within 20 feet cause thats how far I was literally 2 days ago

1

Anonymous #2 18w

the civilian round for an AR-15 is .308 remington are small game rounds. if you’re fighting a grizzly with that you’re already losing.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

308 is plenty for a grizzly especially with quick follow ups, people have killed them with 22 long

1

Anonymous #3 18w

But right down the road from me I can get it in 338 lapua or 50 bmg AR uppers too so if you still don't feel confident with a big game rifle round, you can go anti material.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

.308 winchester yes. .308 remington which i mentioned no.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

Shot placement is everything though, bears can tank a metric fuck ton of energy so you need to hit either brain or skull to guarantee to stop a charge.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Either round is plenty capable if a 22 can do it

1

Anonymous #2 18w

brain or spine**

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Also I can't even find .308 remington cartridges online, are you sure thats a real round? I was thinking you had just mistaken the naming conventions with 7mm-08 remington and 308 winchester

1

Anonymous #2 18w

Which are pretty similar rounds, IIRC it's the same case. But the one most commonly found in AR10s is the 308 winchester, not the 7mm-08 remington

1

Anonymous #2 18w

i am getting mistaken yes

1

Anonymous #2 18w

Also the one I have

1

Anonymous #2 18w

you took down a grizzly with a generally accepted minimum caliber to do so?

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Fuck no, I don't want to shoot one of those guys unless I really have to, and if I really had to I would very likely still be in the hospital after 2 days. I sprayed him and he was just curious of me so he ran off.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

so you used bear mace? why tell me to go into the woods and fight a grizzly then say i don’t need follow up shots if that’s not even the tactic you took. holy false dilemma batman

1

Anonymous #3 18w

308 is by no means a minimum caliber though, there are plenty of documented cases of grizzlies being taken down by 9mm, 22 long, 223/556, 7.62 (which is basically the same as 308 but with a lower powder charge), etc etc. Hell even the general recommendation (10mm auto) for bear carry only offers about half the straight line penetration of a similar 308 round

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Curious vs aggressive. I'm fine spraying a curious bear who doesn't know what I am, if I even see an aggressive grizzly bear on the same path as me I'm immediately shooting.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

bear spray is what’s recommended for an aggressive bear too tho

1

Anonymous #3 18w

In studies that won't release their methodology, sure. I've never seen any serious person recommend against carrying many different forms of bear protection as long as you are aware of how and when to use them and are effective with them.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Obviously, use the spray first, but don't act like its 90% effectiveness rate is the end all be all

1

Anonymous #2 18w

formal studies are required to release their methodology in order to be verified and reproduced what are you talking about. and yes, redundancy is a good plan, but there are other options than an assault rifle which you yourself have supported here. if they were banned you would simply swap out a weapon

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Bear spray studies aren't usually formal studies though, they're conducted by the bear spray company for advertisement on the cans. I'm sure that Buffalo Bore would tell me their 10mm is 100% effective against grizzlies if they wanted to.

0

Anonymous #3 18w

If assault rifles were banned I would simply break the law when out in backwoods, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

0

Anonymous #2 18w

You stupid motherfuckers cuck for your ARs to “fight a tyrannical government” and then when the government is actively killing and kidnapping citizens and demolishing the Constitution all you can do is continue jerking off with all your guns. Please do us all a favor and just admit with your chest that you don’t feel like a man unless you can own and shoot a weapon consequentially also capable of murdering 20 school children in 5 seconds.

5

Anonymous #5 18w

Lol if I wanted to fight a tyrannical government I'd be asking for less restrictions and lower prices on fuckin artillery and kamikaze drones and armored personnel carriers. My AR is for hunting and personal/wilderness self defense like I said earlier

0

Anonymous #5 18w

Also school children killed per 5 seconds is not a real metric of what a gun does in any way thats just a sensationalist opinion you tacked on

0

Anonymous #5 18w

If you have a problem with it being semi auto or holding 30 rounds say it with your chest buddy

0

Anonymous #2 18w

i think the word you’re looking for is “hyperbole” and an AR-10 at 700 RPM *could* definitely hit 20 people in vital spots within 5 seconds depending on who’s holding it. again they were designed for war.

2

Anonymous #3 18w

So could grandpa's 12ga pump action shotgun or a 44 mag revolver with wadcutter but not much of that in the news

0

Anonymous #2 18w

…because in the deadliest attacks the weapon used is often an assault rifle

1

Anonymous #3 18w

The ar platform is also the most common rifle in america so that'd make sense

1

Anonymous #2 18w

I don't think its cause an ar is some exceptionally deadly weapon of war. We were just questioning if it could even kill a bear, and rightfully so

1

Anonymous #2 18w

a bear and a person are two very different things

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Well yeah but you'd expect it to be like some type of anti material weapon or something with the way you make it out to be

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Talking about all types of loose metrics, school children killed per 5 seconds and RPM on an AR15 like this is the god damn terminator movies. I dare you to find one person besides Miculek who can fire that fast.

1

Anonymous #2 18w

i wasn’t saying it’s happened, only that it’s possible. it’s why i put “could” in asterisks

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Well my point with the bear thing was that your average AR15 must not be *that* deadly of a weapon if it can't even kill a bear compared to plenty of semi autos that can

1

Anonymous #3 18w

and yet an AR-15 has been used in some of the deadliest shootings. Pulse, Sandy Hook, Uvdale among them

1

Anonymous #2 18w

because yes, an AR-15 isn’t the ideal weapon for a bear. but people are not bears.

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Just because a honda civic is involved in more tragic crashes doesn't mean its exceptionally deadly compared to a semi truck

1

Anonymous #2 18w

It can also be due to a number of other factors like there being more honda civics on the road than semi trucks. See what I am getting at?

1

Anonymous #2 18w

yes i do, but that doesn’t carry over to shootings when only 20-30% of mass shootings are done with assault weapons AND those shootings are the most deadly

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Idk what an "assault weapon" even is, thought we were talking about assault rifles. Is that just a scary sounding name for a gun that you want to ban?

1

Anonymous #3 18w

I like "ghost gun" better if thats what you're after

1

Anonymous #2 18w

assault weapon = assault rifle I use them interchangeably. and it’s an actual classification as I explained earlier

1

Anonymous #3 18w

a quick google and it turns out both are legal terms that mean the same thing

1

Anonymous #3 18w

What does it mean though? It's clearly not the same as assault rifle because I have seen a glock on an "assault weapons ban" and that is not even a rifle

1

Anonymous #2 18w

we’re getting into semantics here and moving away from the original point. but assault weapons are “semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use.” an assault rifle falls into this, though in my comment you pointed out I was talking specifically about assault rifles

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Every firearm is designed for combat use, they are weapons

1

Anonymous #3 18w

Do you mean designed for the military? So like Grandpa's 30-06 springfield that he brought home from the war and only used for deer after? Or just designed for modern militaries? Is there a cut off date? What if I get an ancient chinese fire lance?

1

Anonymous #3 18w

I guess my point is that seems like too broad of a definition to draw any conclusions from shootings related to these "assault weapons". Was that the same one used in the study or was there a clearer definition?

1

Anonymous #2 18w

An assault rifle is easy to define very specifically, it is a select fire rifle firing intermediate cartridges with relatively flat trajectory intended for modern militaries to be able to engage hostiles out to about 300m effectively.

1