Can someone please give me a valid reason to own a semi auto gun?
 

Ok, I believe the general public is stupid and should not have semi automatic weapons. this includes handguns.

I have no problem with any single shot rifle or shotgun or pump, lever, or bolt action long barrel gun.

why does a private citizen NEED a semi-automatic weapon other than "I want it"?

the constitution thing is bullshit, semi auto didn't exist when it was written.

so gun nuts, lets have it.

why do you need semi auto?

why are you an idiot?

:2 cents::2 cents:

To protect themselves from da gub'mint. Once they have that semi-automatic, the Navy SEALs will think twice. :1orglaugh

Getting some No Signals over here.. .

Idiot...

they get these weapons because they are angry and then meet assholes like you :2 cents:

Manually chambering the next round can slow down aiming at your next target. Maybe.

I don't know. I think it is the constitutional rights of US dwellers to bare arms. If they fire off more quickly, great. Just don't fire them at other people and all should be good.

Similar to driving a car into a packed restaurant. We all drive, yet, we all don't drive our car into people... quickly and multiple times.

i can't think of a reason not to

Why does anyone "need" alcohol?

Why does anyone "need" fireworks?

Why does anyone "need" a swimming pool.

Why does anyone "need" a boat.

You get the picture....

I'll take anti-2nd amendment folks seriously when they can make a rationale argument as to why alcohol consumption should be legal, and guns not legal, when alcohol leads to more death, destruction and broken families than a gun. Outside of medical uses, there are no beneficial aspects of alcohol (other than getting buzzed and destroying body). At least with guns you can play the self defense card (though I suppose you could throw a bottle of Patron at an intruder to slow him down).

i like poo

no I don't get the picture, your argument doesn't make sense to me and it falls back to the no guns idea. A pump shotgun is more than fine to defend any home. I never said no guns, I said no semi auto

Canadians... http://i.imgur.com/4yVqPIW.gif

Like I said, idiots........

Now... Go Fuck Yourself!

To protect your house from black people?

Ok, let me write this in crayons for you.

First, people enjoy shooting because it is fun. Like a lot of hobbies, it is dangerous. People like to drink to excess. Why? Because it is fun. The U.S. tried banning alcohol consumption before. Did it work? No. Is banning guns in the U.S. gonna work when there are already millions of guns in circulation. No. It ain't rocket science.

If you want to save lives, prioritize harms. IMHO, again,alcohol is responsible for more destruction and death in this country than guns, and it isn't even close. But people don't want to ban alcohol. Why? Because EVERYONE drinks (and most drive drunk at least once in their lifetime). So the anti-gunners are just like, "well I don't like shooting, but I like to drink, so let's ban guns." Its like 2nd grade reasoning.

I'm all for public health regulations, but not hypocricy (sp). Some people like to ride motorcyles. Some people like to drink. I like to shoot semi-autos. Shit happens with all three of those hobbies, but banning them doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you have the common sense of at least a 3rd grader.

Simply because in the US we have a right to. And unfortunately that includes the idiots as well, where do you draw the line?

Since you don't live in the US how about a Canadian explain it to you

I'd say the reason would be for fun.

Never shot one, but I watched Piers Morgan almost piss himself shooting one the other night on t.v.

It looked like it would be kinda fun to go out in the middle of the desert here and just mow down a cactus with a machine gun. :)

Why does anyone need internet porn?

i lose so many sperm to cocky angel

Same reason anyone can own a car that can go well over 100mph. Because to some people its a hobby, a right. Just because you dont understand or dont have a reason to own one doesnt mean others share the same view.

the only reason is : 'Murica, fuck yeah!

the internet didn't exist when the constitution was written but I still like my freedom of speech.

Cactus Killer :mad:

I guess according to Sleazy, we should all have muzzle loaders.

Semi-autos did not exist when the constitution was written. But then again, neither did Sleazy.

I have two good reasons.

One, when the big earthquake hit California, I was in a place called Santa Cruz very close to the epicenter. It is a coastal town with really only one highway going in and out of it. That, plus many other roads around it were destroyed. That meant a run on grocery stores and basic necessities became scarce fast. That coupled with the fact that people were dying under rubble and people were upset more could not be done faster to save or find them meant agitation set in very quickly.

That meant the threat of violence set in very quickly. Society was upended and you would be amazed how fast even a town of mellow affluent old hippies and young surfers and university students becomes so feral. Ready to fight. Ready to rape. Ready to kill. Humanity can be more beastly than any beast. Think of what went down during Katrina, much of which is still not published.

Then I was living in downtown LA when the LA riots hit. At least 50 People were circling our building as a pack behind a slow moving van yelling, "we know you're in there! We're coming to get you!". Later we drove, heavily armed to the closest police station, forget using 911, and we asked the riot geared-up cop what to do. He said very matter of factly, "Don't just start shooting people, but if someone crosses your threshold... unload your clip." At that point I knew, once again, society had completely upended in a matter of hours.

Traffic signals may have been working, but no one was paying attention to them if you understand my drift, and that makes the road a very dangerous place. Guns are like cars, the faster they go, the more rounds they shoot, yes, the more dangerous they are, but not necessarily in the hands of someone safe and respectful of the laws of the road.

As Sun Tzu once said, "In times of peace, the gentleman will carry the sword at his side".

My god :1orglaugh

Correct. Our founding fathers meant freedom of speech for the spoken or written word only. The internet wasn't around then so obviously it can't apply. Only the technology at the time matters. So censor away no one here should care.

.

You don't decide what I do or don't need.

See the 4th line of the first paragraph.
http://www.literature.org/authors/po...-pendulum.html

I can't give you any reason...

Because there isn't any, obviously.

And the right the own one is such a fucking retarded excuse.
There are a million things you have the right to own. You see all those gun nutter rednecks buying all those items?

No.

Ask them why not. It's their right to own it.

"Gun nutter red necks" don't seem to be the problem. Career criminals and middle class misfits seem to be.

This is where your stupidity shows ...
Why not, because they do not want to.......But if they Wanted to it is their right!

You can't say because you have a RIGHT you HAVE to own it... STUPID.

The main legit reason would be if you are a hobbyist/competitor in target shooting. A friend of mine does shooting tournaments where they have to use three guns on three different courses. One is a shotgun, one is a semi-auto pistol and one is a semi-auto rifle. For him it is a hobby, he keeps his guns locked up in a safe and is a responsible owner.

The other potential reason is to feel safe. Some people have it in their head that having an assault rifle for home defense will keep them safer than another kind of gun. The reality is there are very few actual cases of home invasion/burglary where you might be home and need to defend yourself. In the event that happens, there is no guarantee you will even be able to get to your gun to use it.

In reality, beyond shooting/collecting there is no real "need" to own one. That doesn't mean that I think they should be outlawed. To me gun violence is a social problem, not a gun problem and we are a long ways from even considering dealing with the social problems that bring about much of the gun violence in this country.

The correct response to the brutal slaughter of school children.
 

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide.

Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun control laws, including public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre


The ownership of semi automatic weapons was already banned in the UK because of this :

The Hungerford massacre occurred in Hungerford, Berkshire, England, on 19 August 1987. The gunman, 27-year-old Michael Robert Ryan (b. 18 May 1960), armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself. A report on this incident was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, from the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Colin Smith.

The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988[2] was passed in the wake of the massacre, which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech). Ryan's collection of weapons had been legally licensed, according to the Hungerford Report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

I remember both very well. The only public outcry at the time centered on removing guns from society.

Bizarrely no one suggested more guns would be the answer, and no one suggested the teachers and children should be armed.

I can think of one similar incident in the UK since Dunblane. (Cumbria 2010) Whereas it seems the US insistence on being armed to the teeth results in regular gun massacres of innocent bystanders whose only crime was to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

:2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Alot goes to the we are going to over throw the government fantasy especially with blackie blackenstein as President. But we have seen the reality of it. A gun guy goes on youtube , you try and take my guns,I'm going to be the first shot first in the new revolution. The state takes away his carry license. Does he grab arms no he backtracks on his statements.
Also, some gun lovers believe if you cant have one type of gun, then you are taking them all away but you aren't.
The sad truth is we have people shooting up schools, movie theaters with guns and ammo bought legally, so there is a problem somewhere in the works that has to be fixed. I think nothing should be banned but it should take a little more effort to be able to get something that should considered be a tremendous responsibility.

Funny, because that's what all you imbeciles do when it comes to guns.

uh huh. and how many women and children will you be murdering in the process? either way, its fear based thinking which gets people nowhere.

Cops are allowed them. Period.

because I want to?

Thank god you're not American.
I think your lack of intelligence has been on display for years. Toss this post on that pile

Always a good time on GFY when an angry, mental midget challenges the crowd.

why do you need a car that go's over 85 mph?? i think 85 is the highest in the usa :)

I find most of the people who want them are a little crazy.