If your claims about yourself are only remotely true,
I like how you try to imply I'm a liar about my military service, despite the fact that I've proven it here multiple times. You may not have seen it, but just because you haven't seen the proof doesn't mean it's not there. A few years ago I even posted a copy of my DD-214 (with personally identifying information blacked out obviously).
you must have shot something like a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and an assault rifle in your life.
Nope, I shot just about every man-portable and crew-served weapon available to the United States Army, with the exception of designated marksman or sniper weapons (wasn't a good enough shot to get to use those).
And still you claim they have comparable rate of fire in semi-automatic mode?
Yeah, because the rate of fire of any semi-automatic firearm is really only limited by how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger.
a military-grade semi-automatic pistol.
See there you go trying to make things sound scary again. There is no such thing as a "military-grade" pistol. Handguns are probably one of the few cases where models sold to civilians are the exact same as the models supplied to the military and police.
If you had a three-round burst setting on a 9mm pistol, your third shot would certainly be going up into the sky, far away from any target.
Which is why handguns typically don't have burst or full-auto without modifications. Not sure why you bring this up though since we are talking about semi-automatic fire.
Two hundred and fifty years of the right to possess the tools of effective lethal force, irrespective of youth, fitness, wealth, and enormous life investment in the training and practice of violence... are neither a hobby nor a loophole.
Don't bother Farm Boy. These guys are all dead set on banning guns and they don't care about legal precedent when it goes against something they want. Thankfully, people like Lexicus, Tim, and Sommer have been trying to ban guns for the better part of the last hundred years and our government continues to just ignore them. And that's the way it should be.
especially hobbies that are resulting in psychos getting guns and slaughtering schoolchildren.
Appeal to emotion. That's a logical fallacy that has no place in any debate. Come on man, I learned that in a freshman level critical thinking course. Which interestingly is a big reason the gun control crowd gets ignored so often. All of your arguments are emotional ones. That can only take you so far in convincing people. At the end of the day, you need facts and logic, which you don't have. That's why you always have to wait for the next mass shooting to get anyone to listen to you at all on this issue.
Seems most of these attacks on schools are perpetrated by kids, banning gun ownership till 21 would cut down on the death toll.
Not really. They'll just use their parents' guns. Which is what most school shooters do anyway, this case was one of the rare instances in which the shooter purchased the weapon he used on his own. And the argument of "well parents need to lock up their guns" doesn't really fly either. They do lock up their guns. Problem is kids are sneaky, thieving little you-know-whats. They'll find a way to access their parents' guns if they really, really want to. That's why I take the bolt out of mine and take it to work with me. Can't fire the rifle without the bolt.
you don't need it to chase off (or kill) the odd prowler/or pickpocket
Actually, I think an AR-15 would do a wonderful job of scaring away a would-be criminal without having to resort to deadly force. As stated earlier, these weapons can be made to look very scary, especially to someone without experience with such weapons. So someone breaks into my house and sees me there with an AR-15 with a tactical light, holographic sight, and one of those very tactical-looking forward grips, that might be enough to make them think they bit off more than they can chew and just run away. And I would have done it without having to wound or kill them, and I wouldn't have to waste taxpayer dollars by calling the police since the thief is gone and likely won't return.
The theory behind it being the same theory behind riot control. Basically you want to make yourself look as intimidating as possible to make the other person feel like they can't "win" and encourage them to leave. And an AR-15 looks much more intimidating than a shotgun or handgun.
, but I don't think people deprived of AR-15s, resorting to running over their neighbors with cars is enough to conclude that white Christian people are specifically and uniquely incapable of playing nice with others.
