It's tough to pull your trigger 3x/second for an extended period, plus the gun will get too hot.

That's why the Las Vegas murderer had an arsenal. As soon as one got too hot he picked up another.

Sheeple sounds like a lot of Trump supporters.

BTW, Chicago is #18 for per capita gun deaths (per 100,000 population) in American cities. The per capita in Chicago is 27.9. That's half of St. Louis (59.3). Still worse are New Orleans and Detroit. The list includes Miami, Baltimore, Oakland, Washington D.C., etc., etc. before you get down to Pittsburgh, followed by Chicago. Chicago just has a big population -- and most of the deaths are inner city drug war battles -- probably the same in the other on the list.

Are we missing something, at least regarding gun deaths in cities? Could legalizing and controlling drugs help? Gun deaths took a dive after Prohibition ended.

Alaska has the most gun deaths per capita, followed by: Louisiana, Arkansas, Montana/Wyoming (tie), Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Carolina/Tennesse (tie), Mississippi, West Virginia, Idaho/Arizona (tie), Nevada, Kentucky, Indiana, and Georgia.

Most of these states have lax gun laws. Many are big 'gun culture' states. I don't think legalizing drugs would help with this list -- it's just easier to kill with a gun where there *are* a lot of guns.

So, I have a lot of mixed feelings. I don't really like the idea of people having assault rifles, but, there are a lot of them out there. On the other hand, I don't really like the idea of people being told, by our government, that they cannot have them.

Related to this, I really don't like the idea of our police routinely carrying guns (or being militarized) either.

Personally, I'd be fine with more stringent gun control laws. I'd also like to see guns removed from the hands of most police officers.

I really don't know what anyone would want with an assault rifle.

I haven’t read any of the responses...I just wanted to answer your question with the first thoughts that popped into my head when I read your post.

“For what use does an American citizen need an assault rifle?”

To shoot a church full of people while they pray.

To launch a deadly attack on thousands of people while they enjoy a concert.

To enter a school and shoot innocent children.

To enter a college and shoot your classmates and/or professors.

To fire at the backs of people as they watch a movie in a dark theater.

To kill animals while they graze just for the fun of it.

To shoot politicians as they practice baseball.

To enter a hospital and shoot the medical personnel.

To kill police officers while they protect during a friendly protest.

To kill protestors who believe in something you don’t.

To kill those that work in our judicial system.

To drive by a house and shoot through the walls.

To make society afraid.

imstillchloecat -- your answer arrived at exactly the same moment that I posted and you gave a lot of information in your post. Did you really answer the question: "What does one do with these?"

I want to add one more thing to lukkirish's list.

To stop a deranged killer who has just shot up a church full of innocent people.

The good guy who stopped the killer used an AR-15. Had he not used that rifle as his weapon of choice for the situation who knows how many more people would have died that day. Because he chose that weapon he was able to wound (perhaps mortally) the deranged killer despite the deranged killer wearing a bullet proof vest. Where was the killer going after he left the church? How many more lives would he take that day? We don't know because the good citizen with the "assault" rifle made sure we wouldn't have to find out.

Yes, bleusblue2, I did really answer the question: I use mine for plinking.

What else do you expect me to say, when that's EXACTLY and ONLY what I use mine for?

I don’t think anyone knew what plinking is. I went to YouTube to watch it. I had never heard of that before. Is it expensive?

I know my kids go to gun ranges and complain about the cost to get in and the cost of ammunition.

And I would like to respond to Watchomel.

So what about all the others? Just because 1 guy stopped 1 person, doesn’t mean a 1000 others need to carry an assault rifle, . He could have just as easily killed the idiot with a standard gun...after all they all KILL.

I am not a gun supporter and have no interest in arguing with someone who is. Just like you, I have every right to my opinion and perspective.

JeCrigler - I can buy a box of 20 rounds of Tulammo brand .223 for about $5-$6, and I generally buy about 200 rounds at a time, so $50. Sometimes, if I know we're going camping near a range or on private land, I'll buy about 1,000 rounds - because it goes fast when you spend a few hours plinking (which means shooting at targets/cans/bottles/pumpkins/etc). I pre-load my 30- and 40-round magazines before I go (I have a dozen-or-so of those), and take my speedloader to make reloading faster/easier. I don't want to sit at a range and have to load magazines.

Outdoor ranges here in my state at state conservation areas are free. That Tulammo is dirty, dirty ammunition, though - makes the gun filthy and a biznatch to clean afterwards. I can buy higher quality ammo, of course (up to about $1/bullet), but why would I spend that much money just to put holes in pieces of paper (or old pumpkins or old watermelons)?

I also take my handguns to plink - again, I buy cheap ammo for plinking. I have better ammo that I have in my gun for self-protection, and I shoot target practice regularly to keep my skills up.

He could have just as easily killed the idiot with a standard gun...after all they all KILL.

Not likely in the situation he found himself in. Why do you think police, sheriffs etc. don't rely on handguns in swat situations? How often to we read the police waited for backup to arrive? A single cop with a personal firearm is no match for a bad guy with a rifle.

A few of us state facts and those that are anti gun wish to argue. You don't want to learn so please do stay away from firearms. You would be a danger to yourselves and others.

Rifles are not personal carry weapons. Rifles and handguns perform differently as do sub groups among them and the load (ammo) used. You don't use a paring knife to carve a turkey. Same with firearms. All shoot but a pellet gun is far less scary than a Sport Rifle.

I’m here to learn. I’m the type of person that doesn’t like making decisions without knowing each side before making up my mind.

Assault rifles aren’t new but they’re new to me because of the public shootings. I knew the SWAT & military use them, but never payed much attention.

Sometimes I feel our government representatives don’t investigate enough before making decisions.

imstillchloecat : what is "plinking?"

I have heard the word "sheeple" and I know what it means. To me it means the person using it has shut down conversation and has become a "sheeple" themselves. Or something similar enough.

Mind you, I grew up around guns, shot them from age six or seven and onwards, and because I will be having a farm with livestock, WILL have guns in my possession. Foxes in the hen house, coyotes after the goats... An animal needing to be put down ASAP due to injuries from whatever cause. And yes, I do eat venison, squirrel and bear.

Dad was a member of the NRA until the mid 80s, when he quit the organization because they were getting way too political for him (he was Republican).

Guns, like cars and Home Depot trucks are all tools. We need to use any of these things wisely. Without paranoia from either direction.

I'll need to know something about "plinking", however. What is it?

Plinking is informal target shooting. Artemis you probably plinked without knowing the word. Back in the day even a group of teens could go out and shoot at cans, bottles,rocks or logs in the woods or in a field. It was common to brings firearms when camping in wilderness area to plink for recreation. Now with all the regulations, in states like California, it is almost impossible to just go out for a day of plinking. A few ranges have plinking areas set aside but they are not common. I really envy imstillchloecatthat she still lives in the "America" I grew up in.

A lot of sheeple on Facebook. Apple also has a following referred to as "sheeple".

Another thought or so": I am glad the guy in the town had a gun to take out the church murderer. He did so away from the environment of the church, and this worked out great.

A couple days before, the WalMart shooter didn't get apprehended for several hours later because so many people in WalMart pulled out their own guns (not firing, but these were all on WalMart video) that it took the cops a long time to decide which gun-puller was the culprit. That guy could have done a lot more damage before he was apprehended.

What I am saying here is NOT that I agree with one side over the other, but if we are gong to DISCUSS this, we need to take into account both sets of incidences. The church shooting WAS resolved by someone on the ready AFTER this guy left the church. The other situation was impeded since the guns were pulled inside the site, but we were fortunate in that case that he didn't continue his rage or whatever it was that "inspired" him.

I am certainly NOT saying I know ultimate answers, but I am tired of politics
"informing" viewpoints. This whole situation is far more complex than any of us (yes, including myself) can come up with relying on easy answers.

Watch, I guess when we shot at old soda cans in the back yard, that would be "plinking"? Thanks to know a new word. We called it "target shooting."

Plink away. Sharpen those skills, that you use to do...what? Are you a member of the military or police?

Do you feel unsafe without wearing your gun when you travel abroad?

How is gun control a 'political' matter? Not to me.

Cars and Home Depot trucks have benign uses. Anything *can* be used for another purpose. The gun was invented and has been 'refined' for the purpose of killing -- why artemis_ma tells us a gun will be needed on a farm. Artemis_ma does not plan to use a vehicle to kill varmints or humanely put down an animal.

Two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides. I don't know how many others are fear- or rage-related -- instant, primitive-brain reactions made lethal with a convenient gun -- that occur before the brain's reasoning ability kicks in with, "Wait!"

I'm not afraid of being murdered in a planned massacre. I am concerned about instantly 'successful' suicides made possible by easy access to guns -- and instant gunfire from a fearful or angry person whose remorse won't save my life.

I only know it (the word plink) because my DS told me some years ago that's what he does when in the Nevada desert. That is just fun. He has taken some really intensive firearms training out there.

I think it really comes down to not only enforcing the laws we do have without adding new one to the confusion but firearm safety courses. I was talking to a women friend not long ago. She was so proud that now she was "ready" to buy a gun. Her training. A single evening class at a community center for women. Scary. I don't want to be anywhere near that gal with a gun.

I think people should have to take an approved course in safety and responsible gun ownership. Not just on paper but with mandatory minimum range time. Just like getting a driver's license.

What is little known but really frightening is how little time is spent in police academies in firearms. Many go through their careers just qualifying once or twice a year. I may have told this elsewhere but I knew a really nice lady who was a sheriff deputy. Every year she would have to go on desk duty. Why? Because when she was doing the annual qualifying she would mess up her shoulder. That tells you right there someone was not skilled nor practicing to better her skills.

Look at this. Many comments are by LEOs. It's crazy. The average person thinks these are well trained guardians of safety.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/

artemis - I actually defined plinking in one of my posts.

chisue I guess someone needs to shoot those damn pumpkins ;)

imstillchloecat, sorry I missed that, and I thought I'd read through twice, although I didn't ready every post twice.... Understand the definition now.

I can't see any use or need for a gun that'll shoot multiple rounds per minute in ordinary society.

The rumours that I've heard are that it's unwise for ordinary travellers (as apart from the smugglers connected with the underworld) to bring any gun into Canada, that they'll lose them at the border.

ole joyful

I have no interest or intention of ever having a gun in my hand much less my home. We obviously have different believe systems.

joyfulguy,

I've crossed the border over 15 times this year and haven't been subjected to more than a few questions about money, weapons or mace, alcohol.

I rarely see a car in the inspection lane. I doubt there are many guns confiscated at the US/Canada border because 99% of citizens who own a gun are law abiding citizens.

joyfulguy, then you must only approve of muzzle loaders! LOL

Even a revolver can fire "multiple rounds per minute."

I wonder why you would feel safe in Canada without a weapon.

The Canadaian list of massacres has MUCH less casualties than America’s list.

Plus I don’t carry a gun here so I’d be terrified to take a gun into a foreign country. If the country is dangerous enough that I need a gun for protection I WON’T be going there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

Canadians own guns and Canadians commit homicides with guns, about 120 per year. Most military and police veterans in Canada own a gun. I know some that own the Daniel Defense V11.

There are civilian gun ranges in Canada. Guns are sold in Canada. Assault rifles are sold in Canada. Shooting ranges are very busy on weekends.

If Canada was equal in population, do you think the crime rate would increase or decrease?.

Seems like some of you have never visited Canada and if you have, you were not observant.

Canadians DO hunt and kill wild game. That may surprise some of you who consider hunting the same as slaughtering.

Transporting a rifle or handgun to Canada is a simple process. Complete the paperwork and declare them at the border. Sure, you'll be inspected and expected to have the proper paperwork and ownership records.

Brushworks said: If Canada was equal in population, do you think the crime rate would increase or decrease?.

You don't need to ask this question -- statistics are adjusted for this item. Gun ownership in the US is more than triple gun ownership in Canada. Homicides in US are around ten times the number in Canada. Mass murders are more statistically too -- anybody can look it up. Canada doesn't have an NRA.

Do we have some NRA members here? Has the organization come out against legislation to ban bump stocks?

A story in my newspaper says a Republican House Representative from Pennsylvania received hundreds of phone calls from his constituents when he voted for legislation to ban bump stocks. The article implied this was something the NRA opposes, on the basis of some (to me wacky) idea that any laws limiting guns will lead to 'the government' ripping every gun out of public hands.

HAS the NRA opposed restrictions like this legislation against bump stocks. No? If yes, on what basis?

Watchmelol wrote:

• A few of us state facts and those that are anti gun wish to argue. You don't want to learn so please do stay away from firearms. You would be a danger to yourselves and others.

You are stating some facts, but then also voicing your opinion and interpretation of those facts. That the "good guy" used an AR-15 to shoot the deranged killer is a fact. But it is your opinion that if the "good guy" didn't have an assault rifle then his shooting of the deranged killer wouldn't have been effective. I argue that that opinion is incorrect. Many weapons could have effectively disabled the deranged shooter, including almost any gun. The exact likelihood of successfully incapacitating the deranged shooter with any of those other weapons is unknowable, but I would argue that the likelihood of the "good guy" stopping the deranged shooter with each and every other possible weapon is not 0% as you seem to suggest. I would also argue that if neither the "deranged shooter" nor the "good guy" was able to obtain a weapon of war then many fewer people would be dead today.

I'd be happy to stay away from firearms entirely, but some people are so paranoid and frightened of the scary scary world around them they cannot go out into it without carrying a gun with them. I've never in my life encountered a situation where my having a weapon would have made a difference, and I am not aware of anyone that I know that has. So it seems to me that whatever these people are afraid of is largely in their active imaginations, and to me it seems that walking around mortally afraid of imaginary dangers, is somewhat mentally unbalanced. So while I am afraid of mentally unbalanced people walking around with a firearm, I include people who feel they must always be armed in the category of "mentally unbalanced people walking around with a firearm" and fear them as well.

Several people here have asked and I don't think I have seen an answer: To those here who do carry a firearm with them when they go out into the world: What specifically are you so afraid of? Has there ever been an actual instance where having a loaded weapon with you made any actual difference?

I realize you might view it as being akin to fire insurance or smoke detectors which you buy and hope to never actually need. I personally know three people whose house was badly damaged or destroyed by fire so those certainly seem to be a reasonable expense for protection from a low-likelihood, high-consequence occurrence. But since I don't personally know of any person who has encountered a situation in their normal daily life where having a weapon would have made a difference, my assessment of the level of risk is roughly the same as the risk of being hit by a meteorite or being abducted by aliens.

I can imagine you hearing me say "I see no need to carry a gun around at all times in normal life" as being akin to someone saying "I refuse to buy fire insurance or install smoke detectors, its all a scam by "Big Insurance"" and thinking that I am unreasonably imprudent and naive. But I hear you say "I never go out without carrying a gun with me" and it seems akin to someone saying "I have the very best meteorite strike insurance" or "I've installed alien detectors around my property, so I'll know when they are coming to get me."

I stand corrected, it appears.

Sorry to have purveyed inaccurate information.

ole joyful

@bob_cville -

Several people here have asked and I don't think I have seen an answer: To those here who do carry a firearm with them when they go out into the world:

What specifically are you so afraid of? Nothing! lol I'm not "afraid" of anything.

Has there ever been an actual instance where having a loaded weapon with you made any actual difference? Me, no. My neighbor, who was attacked by two thugs with guns, yes. My neighbor has his CCW license and successfully defended himself against both dumbass punks. They're both dead, and our neighbor is alive and healthy.

Just because you, personally don't know anyone who's needed their firearm, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The story I related, above, is not the only instance of a friend having/needing/using their firearm in self-defense. It's just the most recent story.

@chisue:

FYI: I'm a fourth-generation Life Member of the NRA. The NRA has issued a statement, calling on the ATF to review the legality of bumpstocks, and believes they should be subject to additional regulation. https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

I see it is mandatory to formally declare that you are bringing up to three *non-legally-restricted* guns into Canada. The person must fill out paperwork to this end. Isn't his the same as registering a weapon? Doesn't it prohibit some types of weapons?

Is registration mandatory for people coming into the US -- and for anyone buying a gun in the US?

Thanks for that, Bob. It does sound like some here are equating the need to carry a loaded gun with the sometimes thought, "Where's a policeman when you need one?" Unfortunately, self-appointed 'solvers' of those situations are resulting in road rage gun deaths. The traffic cop is trained in anger management. Joe with a gun only has the anger part.

imstillchloecat -- Evidently it would be quite normal for you to 'be afraid' if you live where a neighbor has been accosted. I don't live in a high crime area. Thanks for the NRA statement. What I read is an attempt to kick the can down the road regarding any 'infringement' on Second Amendment 'rights' -- bump stocks being irritant of the moment.

Thank you for that answer imstillchloecat. I was starting to write a response to the thread about "did you ever break up a fight?" and I realized that I did know someone who was in a situation where having a weapon might have made a difference.

My boss and I and several others from our group were at a conference in Baltimore. He heard a woman's voice calling for help in the hall outside his hotel room on the 9th floor. He thought the woman might be experiencing a health emergency, so he opened the door to see what the problem was. The woman was being accosted by a knife-wielding thug. The thug pushed the woman and my boss back into his room where he had the woman tie up my boss with the phone cord, and then the thug tied the woman up, and then took the money from her purse, the money from my boss's wallet and his laptop, and then left them tied up in the room.

My boss did not have a gun with him, and from what I know of him he probably wouldn't ever have one or use one, but it is a situation where a gun might have made a difference. Although if he did have one, the different outcome conceivable could have been worse.

Wow, I don’t think I would break up a fight today by having a gun. I couldn’t do a citizens arrest. I have zero police training. I’d hate to have them take my gun and use it against me.

I've considered what might have happened if I had accosted the person who burgled our house. He (or she) grabbed jewelry and was probably out of the house in three minutes. *I* was in the noisy jet tub in the master bath. DH was walking the dog and had left a door unlocked. We didn't even notice the theft until a day later. (Very neat thief; he put everything not taken back in place.)

If I'd had a gun, would this person have taken it from me? Would one of us have been wounded or killed? While it made me ill to have had our home violated, I don't know when I would have gotten over the trauma if the thief or I had been shot over $20K in jewelry.

In your case a gun is irrelevant since you didn't know the thief was there.

Now, if he walked in on you and a handgun was next to you, what would you have done?

I would be reaching for that gun!

JeCrigler, while I appreciate the sentiment, I'd happily go plinking with you but I am not a qualified instructor and would never assume to be able to teach you what you need to know.

NOT talking about conceal carry.

But if someone wants to learn to use an assault rifle properly, is there a whole gun course that you follow?

Gun 101

Shotgun 102

Rifle 103

Assault rifle 104

Or do you just say teach me the assault rifle.

Would I be sitting in my house with a loaded gun in my hand? Very unlikely, even if I had a gun. Let's say I was. The point of my post was that I don't like the subsequent scenarios.

If I can identify the burglar, he needs to eliminate me. How hard could it be to take a gun away from an elderly woman? Losing my jewelry to a thief was less traumatic than the death of either of us.

I'm not talking about concealed carry, either. Your gun course list is a bit (unintentionally) funny to me. :) I can't really answer how you would go about "learning" guns, since I've been shooting since I was four years old. Most of my learning came from my dad, my granddaddy, my uncles, and close family friends. I've taken a concealed carry class (which is mostly about laws and regulations and VERY LITTLE about shooting) - and some of the people in my class had never even HELD a gun, much less fired one - yet they walked out of there legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon. The only "shooting" training is 30 bullets through the black part of a target (out of 40 shots, I believe) at 7 yards. Ridiculous. That's not NEARLY enough "training" to carry a gun!!!

Your local NRA chapter would be a good resource for you to find gun/shooting classes.

Well not necessarily for me. I really was just wondering how the average everyday civilian learns how to operate an assault weapon.

Example: drive a car, drive a motorcycle, drive a bus, limo or 18 wheeler. Can’t have one without the other. Or math: algebra, geometry, calculus, trigonometry. One builds off the other.

I was hoping everyone was properly trained on such a powerful weapon of destruction. I.E. a car can be a weapon of destruction, but we need a license to drive. Yes, I know there are drivers unlicensed.

I know I’m rambling. But from what you said about the lack of training just for a conceal carry license scares me enough.

It's a gun. Think of it ONLY as a gun. There are pistols/revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Those are the only real differences in the types of guns the average person will own/shoot. You don't have to learn to shoot a pistol before you learn to shoot a rifle. You don't need to learn to shoot a rifle before you learn to shoot a shotgun.

And I agree with you ONE MILLION PERCENT that there needs to be MORE TRAINING before turning someone loose with a CCW.

But just remember the fact that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns - with or without training. :/

P.S. An "assault rifle" is just a rifle. It's a name invented by the press for scary black guns with flash suppressors.

Yes, it's just bad press and fake news. There's nothing scary or dangerous about them at all.

Everyone should have one.

I didn't say it was fake news. And I never said they weren't dangerous. They're RIFLES. Guns. When used inappropriately, they're dangerous.