My view regarding guns in the USA as a foreigner.

[Minimalist]

Just playing devils advocate.

If the idea catches on I'll work out the details, MH.  Right now, I'm not holding my breath.

[Anomalocaris]

We were in heavy bush so I carried a .50 revolver. I know they'll stop an angry boar.

Sure about that?

---

Just playing devils advocate.

If the idea catches on I'll work out the details, MH.  Right now, I'm not holding my breath.

Kill the NRA, details don’t matter.

[Cecelia]

I don't see why they don't require training and psychological evaluations (as well as background checks, and reference checks) for licensing. You know... like Florida wants to do with teachers. It's like Trevor Noah said... just cross out "teachers" and you've improved the bill significantly.

I guess we just don't value life enough to do that. Gee, and people say "Video games" make us devalue life.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We were in heavy bush so I carried a .50 revolver. I know they'll stop an angry boar.

Sure about that?

---

They have before.

[Anomalocaris]

No, an A-R15 is nothing else but a battlefield weapon.

Ridiculous.  An m4 is a battlefield weapon.  A 249 is a battlefield weapon.  A 240b is a battlefield weapon.  An AR-15 is a sporting rifle designed to evoke gi-joe feelings in people who look at it..which obviously works on the gun nuts -and- you.  It's a brilliant gimmick on merchandising..and, commercially, the purpose of an ar-15 is to sell accessories.

All guns are dangerous.  There's no need to call any particular gun what it isn't to establish that fact.  An AR-15 is dangerous regardless of the fact that it's not "a battlefield weapon", an even more vacuous term than "assault-style" rifles.  It is on that ground..not on the grounds of some firearm making your joe-balls tingly, that regulations are warranted.

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be an selective fire automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles like the M-14, and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder which guns firing full rifle cartridges can’t do.    It was sort of ground breaking mainly in that it used a smaller caliber full length round rather than rifle caliber short round like the AK-47 or StG-44.  

M-16 was the DOD name for the AR-15 when it was adopted in the 1960s. M-4 is just a shortened version of the M-16 and a close lineal descendant of the AR-15.

Modern guns sold commercially as AR-15 style range from guns that are essentially identical to the original AR-15, similar to M-16 and M-16A2, and guns that retain the external styling cues of the AR-15 family but mechanically substantially different.

An assault rifle is any rifle that is shorter than your typical full length rifle from the WWII era and fires a less powerful round than the typical WWII rifle so it is handier in close combat and can be fired accuractely at higher rate than any rifle firing full powered rifle cartridges, while at the same time the round it fires is more powerful than pistol rounds fired by full automatic submachine guns, so it can be used like a rifle out to medium range.

Most rifles the media call “Assult style” fit that definition. So most assult style rifles are full on assult rifles. Even those prevented from firing full automatic are still arguably assult rifles. M-16A2, the standard assault rifle used by the US military during the 1980s, lacked full auto capability.

---

Sure about that?

---

They have before.

Sure, it can happened.   But I wouldn’t bet the chance of that happening would reassure the life insurance company.

[Brian37]

Ridiculous.  An m4 is a battlefield weapon.  A 249 is a battlefield weapon.  A 240b is a battlefield weapon.  An AR-15 is a sporting rifle designed to evoke gi-joe feelings in people who look at it..which obviously works on the gun nuts -and- you.  It's a brilliant gimmick on merchandising..and, commercially, the purpose of an ar-15 is to sell accessories.

All guns are dangerous.  There's no need to call any particular gun what it isn't to establish that fact.  An AR-15 is dangerous regardless of the fact that it's not "a battlefield weapon", an even more vacuous term than "assault-style" rifles.  It is on that ground..not on the grounds of some firearm making your joe-balls tingly, that regulations are warranted.

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder.

The inventor himself never intended it for civilian use. 

I don't care, handgun or riffle, anyone who takes firearm responsibility seriously will always tell you to treat it as loaded and dangerous every time you handle one. No matter the type we have a climate in America that does not take that responsibility seriously enough. When you have a girl shoot her instructor with an Uzi at a shooting range called "Bullets and Burgers" , that says to me as a collective society we are NOT taking firearm safety seriously. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ridiculous.  An m4 is a battlefield weapon.  A 249 is a battlefield weapon.  A 240b is a battlefield weapon.  An AR-15 is a sporting rifle designed to evoke gi-joe feelings in people who look at it..which obviously works on the gun nuts -and- you.  It's a brilliant gimmick on merchandising..and, commercially, the purpose of an ar-15 is to sell accessories.

All guns are dangerous.  There's no need to call any particular gun what it isn't to establish that fact.  An AR-15 is dangerous regardless of the fact that it's not "a battlefield weapon", an even more vacuous term than "assault-style" rifles.  It is on that ground..not on the grounds of some firearm making your joe-balls tingly, that regulations are warranted.

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be an selective fire automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles like the M-14, and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder which guns firing full rifle cartridges can’t do.    It was sort of ground breaking mainly in that it used a smaller caliber full length round rather than rifle caliber short round like the AK-47 or StG-44.

M-16 was the DOD name for the AR-15 when it was adopted in the 1960s. M-4 is just a shortened version of the M-16 and a close lineal descendant of the AR-15.

---

They have before.

Sure, it can happened.   But I wouldn’t bet the chance of that happening would reassure the life insurance company.

I bet my life on being able to do it. Wanna know how that worked out?

[Anomalocaris]

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be an selective fire automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles like the M-14, and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder which guns firing full rifle cartridges can’t do.    It was sort of ground breaking mainly in that it used a smaller caliber full length round rather than rifle caliber short round like the AK-47 or StG-44.

M-16 was the DOD name for the AR-15 when it was adopted in the 1960s. M-4 is just a shortened version of the M-16 and a close lineal descendant of the AR-15.

---

Sure, it can happened.   But I wouldn’t bet the chance of that happening would reassure the life insurance company.

I bet my life on being able to do it. Wanna know how that worked out?

Wanna do it ten more times?

---

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder.

The inventor himself never intended it for civilian use. 

I don't care, handgun or riffle, anyone who takes firearm responsibility seriously will always tell you to treat it as loaded and dangerous every time you handle one. No matter the type we have a climate in America that does not take that responsibility seriously enough. When you have a girl shoot her instructor with an Uzi at a shooting range called "Bullets and Burgers" , that says to me as a collective society we are NOT taking firearm safety seriously. 

The Uzi is really not ergonomically thought out for controllability during full auto fire . Anyone who hands a full auto Uzi to a 9 year old should have found a different way to commit suicide that doesn’t involve endangering an traumatizing a minor.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wanna drive your car in the rain?

[Brian37]

I bet my life on being able to do it. Wanna know how that worked out?

Wanna do it ten more times?

---

The inventor himself never intended it for civilian use. 

I don't care, handgun or riffle, anyone who takes firearm responsibility seriously will always tell you to treat it as loaded and dangerous every time you handle one. No matter the type we have a climate in America that does not take that responsibility seriously enough. When you have a girl shoot her instructor with an Uzi at a shooting range called "Bullets and Burgers" , that says to me as a collective society we are NOT taking firearm safety seriously. 

The Uzi is really not ergonomically thought out for controllability during full auto fire .   Anyone who hands a full auto Uzi to a 9 year old should have found a different way to commit suicide that doesn’t involve endangering an traumatizing a minor.

Better solution, don't let minors handle firearms?