Trump to meet US video game industry heads on Thursday

[TeePee]

Modern Sporting Rifles are most often used for sporting purposes aside from hunting, mostly different forms of Target Shooting and competition. Right now there is a massive interest in 3-gun shooting sports. There are hunting uses for semi-automatic rifles for smaller game, here's one example (Because it's entertaining!):



Of course, if you shot a bear with .223, you'd likely just annoy it. A .45-70 lever action is what you need. It's not semi auto, but it's light weight enough to carry and actually capable of doing some damage.

.50BMG rifles, including the M82 are available to the public. They are quite expensive and obviously completely impractical to carry anywhere. Strangely they aren't used in crimes. I mean in the history of the US, no one has ever been murdered with a .50BMG.

[Corky34]

There is no gunshow loophole, that's another myth. Buying a gun at a gunshow requires that you follow exactly the same laws as anywhere else in the State.

When PolitiFact fact checked it back at the start of 2016 they said there is a gun show loophole.

Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

[Tabbykatze]

There is no gunshow loophole, that's another myth. Buying a gun at a gunshow requires that you follow exactly the same laws as anywhere else in the State.

Reh-heh-heh-heallllyyy?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=United+States%2...ger+buys+a+gun

[Zak33]

.50BMG rifles, including the M82 are available to the public. They are quite expensive and obviously completely impractical to carry anywhere. Strangely they aren't used in crimes. I mean in the history of the US, no one has ever been murdered with a .50BMG.

are you just pleased to see me Teepee or is that .50 cal M82 in your pocket?

[TeePee]

When PolitiFact fact checked it back at the start of 2016 they said there is a gun show loophole.

Reading is key. As your own quote clearly states, there is no difference between buying at a gun show and anywhere else, the same laws must be followed.

[TeePee]

Reh-heh-heh-heallllyyy?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=United+States%2...ger+buys+a+gun

Yes. The same laws must be followed at a gun show as anywhere else.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If I lived in America I'd not want or require an assault rifle.

But if I lived where coyotes were endangering my livestock and my dogs... I'd probably at one point, realise that I'm better off with a semi automatic large calibre gun which.. oh... is nearly an assault rifle anyway.

A gun is a gun.

And I didn't say an Assault rifle, .. but a multi shot semi auto larger calibre.

Fully Automatic isn't essential BUT look at it like this, where a fully automatic would be a real boon.....shooting a Coyote with rapid fire pattern of 3 to 5, 5.56mm while it's running is just so much more efficient than trying to get a single shot into it's engine room while it pegs it across the farm, and you reload the bolt of a .260 or .308

are you just pleased to see me Teepee or is that .50 cal M82 in your pocket?

YOU made a STATEMENT making a case for semi-automatic weapons. You did a politician level thing where you started off I don't support them,BUT on FURTHER thought yes,you can use them in XYZ ways.

YOU made a statement that a "gun is just a gun" and then you made an example of "needing a semiautomatic weapon" to shoot animals.An M82 which is semiautomatic and large calibre is according to you is a just another gun. This is why the M82 was used as an absurdism,to point out the level of weapons you can buy which fits what you said.

An M82 which is used to go through armour.

Its been pointed out to you don't need semiautomatic weapons for shooting animals and I told you people I knew had to protect their farms from Elephants,Leopards and poachers,they did fine with normal weapons. That didn't fit that scenario:

I'm not interested in Elephants or Moose. Where did that even come from? I said Coyotes.

Do you even consider the rest of the world has dangerous animals which cause problems.

I am still not seeing any need for fast firing automatic weapons with quick magazine reload in any of these scenarios. Well only if its as a "toy" which at least would be honest,but 9/10 its for some absurd scenario out of an action film.

Going back to what you said:

are you just pleased to see me Teepee or is that .50 cal M82 in your pocket?

So if the weapon cannot be concealed its fine. Since an AR15 is hard to conceal,I assume that AR15,etc and any assault type weapon is fine??

Do you honestly think I have seen enough debates from people on the internet over the last 10 to 15 years where they start off "reasonably" saying they don't support "certain weapons" and then use sideways logic to then show those weapons are perfectly fine and it ends up being:

"don't ban any gun or limit any people who can use them".

[Corky34]

Reading is key. As your own quote clearly states, there is no difference between buying at a gun show and anywhere else, the same laws must be followed.

Just because it's called the gun show loophole doesn't change that it's a loophole or that private sellers don't have to carry out background checks, talk about quibbling over semantics, would you prefer we called it the private seller loophole?

It's starting to become clear, what with trying to turn it into an argument about semantics, that you're so wedded to ideology of gun ownership that you've lost your objectivity.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just because it's called the gun show loophole doesn't change that it's a loophole or that private sellers don't have to carry out background checks, talk about quibbling over semantics, would you prefer we called it the private seller loophole?

It's starting to become clear, what with trying to turn it into an argument about semantics, that you're so wedded to ideology of gun ownership that you've lost your objectivity.

Dude,seriously its not worth it - TP and co love their guns. They see any talk of restricting certain kinds of guns, more gun control or any mere criticism as attacking their hobby,so let them be - its not the first time we had a debate about guns and you have more chance getting a straight answer out of Gove and it went round in circles(even on here before you joined and also about semi-automatic/automatic weapons). They can get loads of semi-automatic guns with bump stocks and large magazines,get worried about cougars and terrorists and end up probably shooting themselves or a bystander in the process.

It always reminds me of this image.

[TeePee]

Just because it's called the gun show loophole doesn't change that it's a loophole or that private sellers don't have to carry out background checks, talk about quibbling over semantics, would you prefer we called it the private seller loophole?

It's starting to become clear, what with trying to turn it into an argument about semantics, that you're so wedded to ideology of gun ownership that you've lost your objectivity.

Because it's not a loophole, it's the way the law was designed to work.

[TeePee]

are you just pleased to see me Teepee or is that .50 cal M82 in your pocket?

Now I'm sad that I don't have a .50!

(Actually the largest calibre I own is .704, but it doesn't count....)

[Corky34]

Because it's not a loophole, it's the way the law was designed to work.

And what's the evidence of that? Because if that's the way the law was designed to work then why did senators put forward a bill in 2009 to close that loophole?

[peterb]

Except this is something which happens relatively often. The Shooting in Texas last year was stopped by a neighbour who used his firearm to shoot and stop the killer. While the police failed in Florida on this occasion, they usually do a better job. There was a coach who confronted the killer, and protected several students. If he had been allowed to have a firearm with him, the outcome might have been different.

It might - if the gunmen had seen the coach going for a gun, or suspected he might have been carrying a gun, he (the coach) would have been a priority target - eliminate the greatest threat first. Same applies to arming teachers, they then become the first target.

But all this arms escalation is just masking the underlying cause, the ready availability of lethal rapid fire weapons and the macho wild west gun culture which isn't helped by the subversion of the second amendment to the constitution.

[TeePee]

It might - if the gunmen had seen the coach going for a gun, or suspected he might have been carrying a gun, he (the coach) would have been a priority target - eliminate the greatest threat first. Same applies to arming teachers, they then become the first target.

But all this arms escalation is just masking the underlying cause, the ready availability of lethal rapid fire weapons and the macho wild west gun culture which isn't helped by the subversion of the second amendment to the constitution.

The coaches and teachers are already targets, because they are most likely to try to protect their students. Let's help them do that!

The underlying cause of the high murder rate? We've already seen that's cultural, mostly the product of gang violence and the failed legal justice system. Mass killings? Again, they happen everywhere, but the US with it's disasterous healthcare has failed the mentally ill. No one blames lorries for vehicle attacks.

But in what way do you think the Second Amendment has been 'subverted'? It's a very clear statement, and any form of gun control is a subversion of that Amendment, your tone suggests that's not what you meant.

[peterb]

The second amendment referred to a "Well regulated Militia" and the implication was - until 2008 that the right to bear arms was within the context of that militia. It was only by a narrow margin that the Supreme court upheld the right of individuals to carry weapons.

The requirement for each State to have a standing militia was in the context of the 18th century. Is there still that requirement now? Would it harm the integrity of the United States if that amendment was repealed. Constitutions are not set in tablets of stone, as the other 26 amendments would indicate.

With regard to lorries as a weapon, its true they can be used as a weapon (although hardly a concealed one) in addition to its primary purpose. The primary purpose of a gun is as a weapon.

[Normanyakuza]

Just close all the damn gun shop. bam! ez