Dec 14, 2015 16:07:05 GMT -6 Fast Jimmy said:

And you are taking fringe examples and trying to make a case for allowing any person on the planet to own dangerous weapons just for the sake of owning dangerous weapons.

And the AR-15 certainly is really weak... the Umpqua Community College shooting 73 days ago only resulted in the shooter killing nine people. He should man up and buy a MAN'S GUN... he could have killed double that, easy!

How does that disprove my statement that the AR-15 is a weak gun? I never said it couldn't kill anyone.

Also, earlier you said "I consider anything not designed for either hunting or pedestrian home defense (handguns and shotguns are, statistically speaking, the most effective for repelling a home invasion) to be military grade. They are weapons developed for war."

Talk about moving the goalposts. Are you really trying to claim that the AR-15 is a military-grade weapon?

Dec 14, 2015 16:12:45 GMT -6 Fast Jimmy said:

If it can easily kill, then who the frick cares how much less powerful it is compared to others? It's a deadly weapon, one that could be used by a third world country's military who can't afford anything better. Should I designate "bargain bin military grade" versus "top of the line military grade?" It's a weapon designed for warfare, period. It may be outdated or out spec'd, but it's purpose and design is to allow a soldier to kill numerous people with little damage to themselves. Why should this type of weapon be given to anyone but soldiers or others whose job it is to provide security?

Do you consider a slingshot to be a military grade weapon?

The AR-15 is not viable in military combat engagements. Ergo, it is not a military grade weapon.

Dec 14, 2015 16:18:08 GMT -6 Fast Jimmy said:

If you can kill nine people with a slingshot, you and I can have a legitimate discussion about the need to regulate slingshots.

Meanwhile, a dude less than 80 days ago killed nine people with an AR-15. I've known people who were deployed overseas for years and who didn't kill nine people with "military grade" weapons.

Again - what word would you use to classify a gun that isn't for hunting and which would be less than useless for home or personal defense?

There isn't a word for that, because there is no reason to single out that category. People can kill with knives. Do we need to ban those as well? People can kill with their bare hands. Do we need to cut off everyone's hands to ensure they don't inflict harm on others?

Dec 14, 2015 16:25:35 GMT -6 Fast Jimmy said:

Again... show me an instance where someone has gone in and, totally unprovoked, killed nine people with a knife or their bare hands.

By your logic, we should allow people to buy C4 and anthrax because you can run over someone with an automobile.

Google "Osaka school massacre."

I don't see the parallel between C4, anthrax, and an AR-15. C4 is an explosive, and anthrax is a bioweapon. I haven't defended either of those. My point is not that nothing dangerous should ever be banned; rather, that something should not be banned just because it has the potential to be used for violence.

Dec 14, 2015 16:45:40 GMT -6 Fast Jimmy said:

The Osama school massacre was eight. Not nine. I knew you were going to reference it the second I wrote it.

And the difference is intentionality. A knife is like a handgun - it can reasonably be said to be used for self-defense.

Nowhere can you make the case that you'd use anthrax for self-defense. Nowhere can you make the case that you'd use C4 for self-defense. And nowhere can you make the case that you'd use a sniper rifle for self-defense. These are all weapons designed solely for the purposes of war or other open conflict/pitched battle.

LOLWUT? Osama school massacre? It was only eight, so that means it doesn't count? The AR-15 a sniper rifle? Please.

If AR-15s were banned, do you think that shooting wouldn't have happened? Is that what you're claiming? It's probably fortunate that the idiot used an inefficient gun like the AR-15, when he could have easily opted for more powerful weapons.