Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it's not a troll thread. It's a simple question that challenges the assertion that high regulation and gun bans won't work. They do work otherwise we'd be seeing more mass shootings carried out with fully automatic weapons.
Boom. Tell me that doesn't cave in the whole "criminals will just get guns anyway" argument.
No it's not a troll thread. It's a simple question that challenges the assertion that high regulation and gun bans won't work. They do work otherwise we'd be seeing more mass shootings carried out with fully automatic weapons.
Boom. Tell me that doesn't cave in the whole "criminals will just get guns anyway" argument.
NO THEY WONT. Because we can see they won't.
Yeah, just ask Paris and Belgium.
They are a perfect example of what you are saying aren't they?
Or maybe I just posed a question you can't squirm a favorable answer to gun ownership out of?
So I'll ask it again: If criminals will be undeterred by stricter gun laws, why do we see so few mass killings by automatic machine guns?
Are you going to tell me with a straight face most mass shooters simply don't want to use an automatic machine gun if they could?
1. Tanks are very expensive to buy, maintain and operate. They also require multiple crew members, separate drivers/gunners ect.
2. Tanks are big, loud, slow and telegraph their approach to anyone within earshot or visual range......bombs are cheaper, more concealable, only require one person and arguably just as effective.
3. Not that many tanks for sale out there really and the ones that are are from military surplus....no private companies out there making tanks, because there is no market for private tank ownership .
4. Life is not the movies.
Fully automatic machine guns are overrated and misrepresented in Hollywood.
They burn through ammunition very quickly in real life. A 30 round magazine is empty in a matter of a few seconds, and the continuous recoil causes muzzle rise that makes you miss at least half of your shots.
So a shooter would have to carry a lot more ammo to hit less targets. Even the military doesn't use the full auto setting as much as you would think. It's mostly an intimidation and suppressing fire tool in combat situations.
Machine guns are more useful when there are people shooting back.
Gun free zones eliminate the possibility of victims shooting back, so there is simply no need for fully automatic weapons.
You would think that would be a more preferable weapon for a domestic terrorist or mass killer because it could do far more damage and kill far more civilians than an AR-15.
I wonder why domestic mass killers just don't use tanks? Or why so few use fully automatic machine guns?
You would think that would be a more preferable weapon for a domestic terrorist or mass killer because it could do far more damage and kill far more civilians than an AR-15.
I wonder why domestic mass killers just don't use tanks? Or why so few use fully automatic machine guns?
You don't understand the subject and started a topic making a huge error! You don't know what you are talking about.
As mentioned you can buy tanks, I seen privately owned ones that still are operating, freaking awesome by the way, google it in your area, the owners sometimes lets the public see it on display for a fee(hey you can't blame them for making money in return you are entertained).
You can make your own projectiles, not effective in a military campaign, but effective enough against non armored targets at less than 50 yards. Google it, but you will end up on a DHS list, don't worry it is almost weird not to be on a list these days.
Other people have mentioned the other reasons as well.
You don't know what you are talking about.
You don't know what you are talking about.
You don't know what you are talking about.
If you don't know what you are talking about, how can you expect to convince the other side? We just laugh, and don't take you seriously. Like the firearm debates.
No it's not a troll thread. It's a simple question that challenges the assertion that high regulation and gun bans won't work. They do work otherwise we'd be seeing more mass shootings carried out with fully automatic weapons.
Boom. Tell me that doesn't cave in the whole "criminals will just get guns anyway" argument.
NO THEY WONT. Because we can see they won't.
I can't really find any production numbers so take this with a grain of salt. It's is more about supply, the amount of NFA firearms in our country is miniscule compared to semi-auto, bolt action, lever action and single shot firearms. And the ones that are legal are highly prized and well secured. Remember , any legal class III firearm has to be manufactured prior to 1986. There really just isn't that many around for the criminals to steal.
Gun bans don't work, at least now. Look around you. Look at the violence in our inner cities , some of which have the highest firearms restrictions. As far as I know teenagers can't buy a hand gun much less carry it with them and that seems to be the highest demographic for gun violence. Sure , I'll give you this, had firearms been banned 50, 60 years ago....sure it might work. There just wouldn't be that many in circulation, now with 300 million in our country.. not a chance. Not to mention, anyone with the slightest bit of ingenuity can figure out how to lob a projectile in a way to kill someone.
If gun bans worked, why does the UK have a ban on knives ? Really...someone can't carry a fricken pocket knife over there. And violence is running rampant. They have programs like "save a life, surrender your knife" .... really ? What next , scissors ?
We have a violence issue, and mental health issues in this country. That is where the focus should be. Gun bans are a temporary Band-Aid that makes the anti's feel good and want to sing kum ba yah together. Facing the real issues is much to scary for them.
You would think that would be a more preferable weapon for a domestic terrorist or mass killer because it could do far more damage and kill far more civilians than an AR-15.
I wonder why domestic mass killers just don't use tanks? Or why so few use fully automatic machine guns?
No it's not a troll thread. It's a simple question that challenges the assertion that high regulation and gun bans won't work. They do work otherwise we'd be seeing more mass shootings carried out with fully automatic weapons.
Boom. Tell me that doesn't cave in the whole "criminals will just get guns anyway" argument.
NO THEY WONT. Because we can see they won't.
Most people don't have the 5000-6000k to buy an automatic weapon.
Tanks are legal as well.
Might as well ask why people aren't using rail guns.
This is a troll thread designed to inflame and argue from no position of substance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
