AR-15's just get better press than the FN-FAL sad really.

OFCOURSE! No one needs an AR-17. OFCOURSE! What's next people are going to assume arms in the 2nd amendment means access to nuclear arms? What about landmines!? WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

(Tips: Read in Cenk Uygur voice.)

Edit: (If I must be serious for a moment. Sorry.)

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. According to the National Safety Council.

Upwards of 200,000 women use a firearm to defend themselves from sexual abuse each year. From Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."

Among many actual stats I could use...

*awkward cough*

I have a problem here.
While it is good that you are citing a source, it is also one of the most disputed, and hard to believe sources there is, regarding defensive gun useage.

buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million…

It is something however, that there will never be hard, concrete factual data about.

@Goldmarble I'm not entirely sure the site is arguing what you think it may be arguing.

Note, the myth isn't talking about the 2.5 million saved. But the idea it cannot possibly be accurate. In the article, the guy making the claim in question adds that his survey may be too low.

But I'm sure like all information and studies, it has its critics. And I don't disagree that it's hard to accurately show prevention of something.

"You don't need an AR for hunting!"

... Right... But the Second Amendment wasn't written for hunting. It would be retarded to guarantee a person's right to hunt.

AR-15's just get better press than the FN-FAL sad really.

If the FAL didn't have an import ban on its parts in the United States, it'd be more popular. There's also the issue on the caliber, 7.62x51 is more expensive with heavier recoil and a smaller magazine capacity than 5.56x45

The Tavor X95, however, you can even buy in Canada.

@Andrew Blade
Only on its parts? I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain I've seen one or two in second hand gun shops?

@Andrew Blade
Only on its parts? I'm no expert but I'm fairly certain I've seen one or two in second hand gun shops?

So I believe, and I may be incorrect, so I'm going to look this up once I'm done, that kind of like Russian AK's, you cannot import all of the necessary parts to construct them, but you may use parts that were already in the country prior to that embargo. I'll double check.

The Tavor X95, however, you can even buy in Canada.

Canada is honestly fairly lax on gun regulation. You can get about as many varieties there as you can here, from what I've seen.

brownells.com/aspx/learn/learndetail.…

If you want to read through that whole legalese and interpret it, be my guest. FAL's would be more common if there wasn't so many restrictions on them, for whatever stupid reason.

So there are less FN-FAL's in circulation because there are legislative restrictions on them? Good to know. Also a grenade launcher is one point *boggle*

Ah the underslung grenade launcher. What we experts refer to as, the noob tube.

@Goldmarble

But realistically speaking, a legitimate incident where someone shoots their gun to defend themselves is not too common. If someone takes out a knife as they approach me, and I quickly take out my gun and point it at them, they're more than likely going to run. Just the mere sight of a weapon is enough to deter a number of criminals. I get what you're saying about reliability, but the "what if" argument, in my opinion, is not stronger than what has already happened: hundreds of kids and adults dying in an educational setting (not including other places as well, which dramatically increases the number).

Cost comes into play, sure, but the price for just about everything else is only skyrocketing even more. Look at healthcare, for example. Sure, it isn't a "right", but it's damn ridiculous. We're talking about people's lives here, not a damn gun. I'd first like to see affordable healthcare and then worry about getting everything else right, like reducing gun prices in the event that they'd all be more expensive due to the mandatory biometric feature.

I'm arguing in favor of this because guns aren't going away, nothing anyone can do, it's a right. With that said, there better be effective alternatives in order to avoid, or more realistically, reduce the number of deaths in schools and other places as well.

@Goldmarble

But realistically speaking, a legitimate incident where someone shoots their gun to defend themselves is not too common. If someone takes out a knife as they approach me, and I quickly take out my gun and point it at them, they're more than likely going to run. Just the mere sight of a weapon is enough to deter a number of criminals. I get what you're saying about reliability, but the "what if" argument, in my opinion, is not stronger than what has already happened: hundreds of kids and adults dying in an educational setting (not including other places as well, which dramatically increases the number).

Cost comes into play, sure, but the price for just about everything else is only skyrocketing even more. Look at healthcare, for example. Sure, it isn't a "right", but it's damn ridiculous. We're talking about people's lives here, not a damn gun. I'd first like to see affordable healthcare and then worry about getting everything else right, like reducing gun prices in the event that they'd all be more expensive due to the mandatory biometric feature.

I'm arguing in favor of this because guns aren't going away, nothing anyone can do, it's a right. With that said, there better be effective alternatives in order to avoid, or more realistically, reduce the number of deaths in schools and other places as well.

If the mere sight of a gun reduces most criminals to flee, then why even carry a gun? Just carry a toy! Is this just something that you assume, or do you have actual data to support the idea that most criminals flee at the sight of a gun? And this biometric device can be built on new guns, sure, but what about all the guns currently on the market? Do you suggest forcing all the current owners to comply?

And then there's this- almost all professionals use firearms while wearing gloves. The same would apply to hunters in the winter, as well as anyone that cares to protect their hands. But they can't use the gun if they have to wear gloves. Biometrics are nice as an option, but mandatory? Not reasonable.

So, let's say we do get rid of guns, just hypothetically. We ban guns, we crush them all into dust, and they're gone. Now people are just going to commit mass murder with cars and bombs and knives. We haven't solved anything at this point except giving our government a citizenry that is completely at its mercy. If they say, "You have to join the military at age 18 and serve for at least four years," we can stop them from rounding people up and throwing them into the military. If the government doesn't like what someone is saying about them, there's nothing stopping them from crossing off the First Amendment and throwing them in jail.

Again, Venezuela is a current example in the hear and now. So are Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

You can't say, "it would never happen," because it's already happened other places.

We are a government of the people, but the best way we retain that is by ensuring that our governing officials have a healthy respect for what we can do to protect our constitution without their assistance.

So, let's say we do get rid of guns, just hypothetically. We ban guns, we crush them all into dust, and they're gone.

I'm for it!

<Snipped quote by Xandrya>

If the mere sight of a gun reduces most criminals to flee, then why even carry a gun? Just carry a toy! Is this just something that you assume, or do you have actual data to support the idea that most criminals flee at the sight of a gun? And this biometric device can be built on new guns, sure, but what about all the guns currently on the market? Do you suggest forcing all the current owners to comply?

And then there's this- almost all professionals use firearms while wearing gloves. The same would apply to hunters in the winter, as well as anyone that cares to protect their hands. But they can't use the gun if they have to wear gloves. Biometrics are nice as an option, but mandatory? Not reasonable.

So, let's say we do get rid of guns, just hypothetically. We ban guns, we crush them all into dust, and they're gone. Now people are just going to commit mass murder with cars and bombs and knives. We haven't solved anything at this point except giving our government a citizenry that is completely at its mercy. If they say, "You have to join the military at age 18 and serve for at least four years," we can stop them from rounding people up and throwing them into the military. If the government doesn't like what someone is saying about them, there's nothing stopping them from crossing off the First Amendment and throwing them in jail.

Again, Venezuela is a current example in the hear and now. So are Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

You can't say, "it would never happen," because it's already happened other places.

We are a government of the people, but the best way we retain that is by ensuring that our governing officials have a healthy respect for what we can do to protect our constitution without their assistance.

I don't have an exact number, obviously, but I'm just trying to argue my point. I doubt a regular gun owner in his house is wearing gloves in the middle of the night when a burglar decides to break in. I know obviously that professionals have their tactical gear--I was one of them, but I'm not worried about their guns ending up in the hands of their 15-year-old nephew with a grudge who has a slight chemical imbalance in the brain. I don't think it's a bad idea at all...and if you already own a gun, well, trade it in or something. Such inconvenience shouldn't be avoided at the expense of the lives of others.

Your scenario for hunters is an easy fix...fingerless gloves. Or even better, gloves with the option to keep the fingertips on or off. They sell them anywhere, especially up north where you need them the most.

And again, I'm not saying ban all guns because it's not even an argument, but the government has to do something. Sure, people may run others down with trucks, but they don't buy the truck with the sole purpose to commit murder. A weapon's only job is to kill, and if there are ways to help prevent innocent people from dying , why not go ahead and implement them? There's the right to own arms, and supposedly, the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". Those kids had a right to live, as well as the thousands of others in similar tragedies. I'm not even arguing against the right to bear arms, but I'm arguing for the rights of innocent people to be able to live a full, happy life.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment in the slightest, honestly. It gives far more benefits than problems, and most anti-gun liberals do about as much unbiased research into that as conservatives do with climate change. However something I will stress that @Xandrya brought up is, at least liberals are trying. They'll look at a mass shooting and go "something should be done" which is more than I can say for any conservative/republicans that I know. All they'll do is say the left is stupid and they hug their guns like 17 deaths is 'no reason to go overboard.' It's honestly disgusting.

Something to note that Oregon just did was ban domestic violence criminals from being able to own a firearm, which I think is a no-brainer already, but it's good to hear it's happening.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment in the slightest. At least liberals are trying. All they'll do is say the left is stupid and they hug their guns like 17 deaths is 'no reason to go overboard.' It's honestly disgusting.

The problem with that statement is, if that first sentence is true, you are not the establishment pushing for gun control. No one who actually understands guns, or the 2nd amendment wants what the mainstream/progressive left is pushing for on guns. Using the word liberal, is almost a farce because it's anything but. The policies they've came out with, do nothing to solve gun crime, already exist in law, or want to do something completely unconstitutional. No one is unsympathetic toward loss. People claiming otherwise and using dead children to push broken/unlawful policy is distasteful.

There's two camps here, one completely reactionary and misguided at best. (Passing laws out of panic, isn't intelligent.) Or two, rational thought and knowledge that gun control and gun bans around the world aren't effective in reducing crime. We already have laws that should have stopped this and in this case in particular there's far deeper problems that put holes in several arguments the left usually makes. I.E Only the police force was meant to have guns. In a case where the police were around but stood down while children and teachers were put in danger, injured and killed.

So, what they're trying to do is spread fear and misinformation. So I don't want to give them pats on the back for shouting with passion, since they have no evidence, policy and/or sense to back it up.

twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/968229… Seriously though "this" is liberal media "trying". F*ck me sideways, these people are dumb as bricks.

I'm not against the 2nd amendment in the slightest, honestly. It gives far more benefits than problems, and most anti-gun liberals do about as much unbiased research into that as conservatives do with climate change. However something I will stress that @Xandrya brought up is, at least liberals are trying. They'll look at a mass shooting and go "something should be done" which is more than I can say for any conservative/republicans that I know. All they'll do is say the left is stupid and they hug their guns like 17 deaths is 'no reason to go overboard.' It's honestly disgusting.

I dunno. I mean I get what you're saying here and there's a valid emotional anchor to it, and you're not wrong for that. It's just.... the left is railing against the NRA. Dana Loesch went to CNN's town-hall/circus and sat through some disgusting rhetoric (from the 'trying' left), and like.... hang on, here's a list of all the mass-murderers in history who were NRA members:

1. this space intentionally left blank

Frankly I've gotten used to the lashing-out, because it happens all the goddamn time (not only from the left, that's just where I notice it because I'm biased). I'm not judging anyone for lashing out after a bunch of kids got fucking murdered. I'm also, ya know, I'm not stoked on legislating that lash-out when it's so blatantly misguided. Like.... we just watched as three armed cops sat outside the school and let a bunch of kids die, and the response is "Let's take away guns, so that only THOSE SAME COPS can stop a killer?" Really? And I already feel bad about wording that as strongly as I did (which isn't that strong TBH), this is an emotional moment, feel that shit, I don't mean to condescend. Just saying. My answer's gonna be no, when we get to the part where they're pitching a "solution." Heads up on that.

School shootings have gone up since we made them "gun-free zones." I don't think it's insane to talk about letting teachers arm themselves to protect their students (provided we're also talking about training the volunteers).

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Well after an exhaustive search I was unable to find a single case of an AR-15 being used to inflict harm...

Well of course. But restricting responsible gun ownership in response to mass shootings is like taking cars away from sober people to combat drunk driving. If a law was gonna prevent criminals from doing criminal shit, then the laws against murder should've pretty much nipped this whole thing in the bud, yeah?