PF, fair point, I don't know the international distinction as opposed to the US one. However, if this weapon was purchased legally in the United States, and unless this shooter went through an extensive process of background checks, money, etc., it was not an automatic weapon.

And thank you.

Wait, hold on, when a gun is made more "easy to operate" unpack what that that word operate means in context of todays events

Let me help you before you say something else that is stupid, it means easier to aim, control, and conceal. You're telling me it isn't more lethal?

Santa, a flash suppressor makes a shooter harder to identify from a distance, which was not a problem here. Adjustable gun stocks are just that. You can adjust them. Or you could just buy one that fits you and doesn't need to be adjusted. In no way does that make it more lethal.

Go on! A pistol grip? You mentioned that! What does that do?

they are designed to me a more efficient killing machine in different environments, and in this case the gunner showcased their efficiency.

None of those things I listed, which are add-ons that "make" a weapon "assault" actually helped the shooter in this case. Now, if this was a case of a sniper, a flash suppressor may have helped. If so, he wouldn't have been using that type of weapon though. The adjustable stock does not make it easier to conceal, nor easier to operate than a one size stock fitted to you. Other items that make it "assault" are grenade launchers (the grenades themselves are illegal), a bayonet mount (as of yet, don't think we've had a case of someone being bayoneted...), or the pistol grip. In this scenario, yes, a pistol grip would make a gun easier to handle.

Oh is that why you left it off your explanation? Interesting...

how does it feel to be a mass shooting supporter Cyrus. Were you proud of what you accomplished today?

I had not finished yet, sorry for the delay.

full of shit.

Sadly, I have not yet achieved the lofty goal of typing 100 WPM so I understand my slowness can be aggravating. My apologies.

so you were planning on posting two functions you earlier mentioned, change topics, end a post, and go back to the third?

Or were you just leaving it off because it flew in the face of your point?

Actually yes, I typed my 2030 EST post before refreshing. I actually thought it was convenient because I already answered your question :/

Can you be less of an asshole Santa?

on 2025 EST you mentioned two functions left off the one that was useful in the shooting. You chose to do that to further the stupid argument that Assault rifles didn't give the shooter an advantage. Whatever happened after 2025 doesn't matter. Just normal NRA smoke and mirrors.

Gobbledy Gook, that's a negative and go fuck yourself

Well, I'm not going to argue with you on emotions. If anything I said was incorrect, I'd be happy to recant it.

Also, please note that pistol grips are not something exclusive to assault rifles.

Claus, I'm just going to support Gobble's statement. Your attacks on KC are completely unwarranted, unnecessary and detract from the discussion.

Oh what a surprise, the other mass shooting supporter got butt-hurt.

Living in a fantasy world arguing that Assault rifles are less lethal than blunt objects kind of detracts from any discussion as well, but you don't see me whining about it.

I don't remember PF making any comments supporting a mass shooting (actually nobody did), or even guns in general...

At last, a solid statement to dispute. Actually, what I was referring about assault rifles vs. blunt objects was the *fact* as reported by the FBI that more people were killed in 2013 with blunt objects than assault rifles (haven't yet checked 2014 and 2015 is not out yet). I don't mean to say they are less lethal, they just kill less people.

Could it be that blunt objects are more readily available than Assault Weapons?

Or do you have another hair brained explanation?

I'm glad you came to the obvious explanation, yes. It was never my point to say that they were "more lethal." That is completely you on that one. So, once again, have I said anything incorrect?

Claus, I'm considering making you the first person I've ever muted. Please stop with the radom and pointless personal attacks. They serve no other point other than to make you look like an ass.
If you want to actually participate in a discussion on gun control, go ahead and stay. If you want to unfounded attacks on people, find somewhere else to do so.

Anyways.... I disagree that assault rifles aren't a danger just because more people were killed without them than with them. What you conveniently forgot to mention was that guns account for 69% of all homicides in the US. I don't think proponents of gun control only want to limit rifles, but also handguns and other guns, as to limit all gun related deaths.

Also, the fact that rifles are used less than blunt weapons to kill someone doesn't avoid the primary use of an assault rifle: to kill someone. Most knives or hammers are simply not designed to be used as murder weapons, which cannot be said for rifles.

Look, I also think it's a bad feature of American culture that guns are held in such high regard, but you are really being an asshole.

It seems the people with real sense are finally arriving.

"Where do you live and how does your debates look like?"
I live in the United States, where a lot of people apparently assume you have to choose between no guns or no restriction to guns whatsoever. That's an extreme dichotomy which is absolutely idiotic.

""I think the US would have been better off going the Canada route."
Me too Leon. Then they would be more liberal, have free healthcare, and not have access to so many freaking stupid guns."
Because they have no access to guns, right? Eh. While their gun culture isn't nearly as obsessed as ours, they have a pretty wide access to guns. They would be somewhat more restricted, and by and far more accidents would be prevented (because of safety requirements), but someone could still get guns. I actually think Canada's gun laws are some of the best fit for the United States personally. Most guns are used for hunting or sport, so those are the easiest to acquire.

"We can all clearly see that Muslims are over-represented among mass shooters, yet nothing is being done about it."
So are people under 30. If you want to take his religion into account, also take into account it's Ramadan, a time where Muslims are taught they need to be on the whole more spiritual and kinder to others, a time where violence is beyond abhorred. Wahhabis ignore that so that they can spread political violence for their own ends.

Very few people want to ban guns, sadly. Nobody of influence, anyway. So the dichotomy is really between no gun regs or let's go back to pre-Bush gun regs. That dichotomy sums up the relatively narrow chasm in American politics, in a nutshell.

@KingCyrus, for you to sit there and defend Assault Rifles as not being dangerous after what just happened shows you are an absolute piece of shit. Guns in general can be used for protection, for hunting, for sport (though I'd gladly ban them all). There is absolutely no reason to own an assault rifle other then to murder things. That is what they are designed for.

As for their definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon (US legal definition included)

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name.[3] At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3] The origin of the term is muddled and has been attributed to politicians, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself.[4][5][6][1] It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode.[5]

Please note "DESIGNED AND CONFIGURED FOR RAPID FIRE AND COMBAT USE". So please, explain to me a situation where assault rifles seem like reasonable things for people to own. As for your fucked up logic about them being less dangerous then other weapons because they kill less people.

Grenades kill less people in the US each year then regular guns. Nuclear Bombs kill less people in the US each year then guns. Do you know why this is? It is because it is stunningly obvious they are extraordinarily dangerous and should not be owned by citizens. And could you get a grenade illegally in the US, probably for the right price. The reason that people don't is because it's hard, easy to get caught, and expensive. The same reason more killers don't get Assault Weapons, because they are expensive to get legally or illegally. So while your argument on the surface seems reasonable it's really based on a bunch of false or irrelevant statements.

As for your disturbed attempted to blame Islam for being more dangerous then guns, please give it a rest. It reveals you as a massive bigot and a disgusting human afraid of what you don't understand. Muslims are inherently peaceful, but just like every religion in history, it is distorted for people to gain power. The problem lies with the premise of religion and not with just Islam. Either argue for or against all religions. Anything else just shows ignorance and a lack of understanding of world history.

This is the problem with our society. We continue to defend a broken system. How many people have to die before you're willing to consider preventive steps? Does it need to be someone you personally love being mowed down before you start questioning whether guns should be as available as they are? You cannot argue our system works. So unless you have any brilliant ways to make it better then shut the fuck up while the big boys are girls who care about human life and preventing more murders like this speak.

@TrPrado "Because they have no access to guns, right? Eh. While their gun culture isn't nearly as obsessed as ours, they have a pretty wide access to guns."
I live in Alberta, the most redneck part of Canada. I think I can pretty safely say that no one here has the ridiculous love of guns. People here recognize it's use for hunting, but nest to no one thinks they need it to defend from home invasion, nor to publicly carry them.