Gun Raffle Insensitive?

[Ariana_]

Oh lookie the little indoctrinated puppets do their dance!

Close Gen. But they aren't 'unfair'; they are fucking racists, just too ignorant to realize it.

Yeaaah. Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people. The sociological definition of racism (and discrimination in general) requires that one group have systemic power over another. That's the position that white people hold in American society over people of color, and in every other Western society on this planet. You can be prejudiced, sure, but not racist. Hurt feelings =/= racism. Name a single governmental policy that targets, or has targeted, white people specifically for being white (and don't you dare bring up Irish, Italian etc. immigrants, because that was xenophobia not racism). That's what we've done to literally every other racial group, though! So chill with the persecution complex, you and I are shamefully perfectly safe at the top, champ. And uh, also, I'm white too so I literally do not see what you're heated about lmao?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Yeaaah. Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people.

That is a racist lie. The end result of it has been to trick ignorant fuckers into running around free to be smug little racists, all operating under the delusion they aren't racists.

That's what we've done to literally every other racial group, though!

What is this 'we' shit? Speak for your damned self. I am not part of your group, and I want no part of your wretched groupthink.

So chill with the persecution complex, you and I are shamefully perfectly safe at the top, champ.

There ain't no "you and I". Don't know how that idea got in your head, but if you ever decide to deprogram, that needs to be one of the first things to go toots. If calling a spade a spade is 'persecution complex', you go ahead and tack me to the cross bb.

And uh, also, I'm white too so I literally do not see what you're heated about lmao?

Well lmao, it is because you are spouting ignorance. And lmao, I'm not heated; I'm just telling you how full of shit you are. Lmao.

I promise you I have seen the shit from all sides. I don't know how many sensitivity training meetings I have been to over the years, most of which I have not had a problem with, but it has become clear there is a toxic mindset that has been cultivated; not only counterproductive, but also a bald-faced LIE, it is best summed up in this statement: "Yeaaah. Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people." The fuck you can't. That is some racist shit right there. To the core...

Aside from distracting from real issues, this SJW garbage is serving only one other function that I can see; it is provoking a right wing reaction.

But it's just dangerous to ignore the fact that the VAST majority of the perpetrators of violent crime are straight, white males. Why should we leave that "can of worms" alone when there is significant, statistical evidence of my point?

Where does this CLAIM originate? SAUCE that crap?????

 

[Gen]

Why should we leave that "can of worms" alone when there is significant, statistical evidence of my point?

Can you share it? I’m Canadian, so not well-versed in American gun stats, but always assumed from the news that it’s a predominantly male issue, not just white males. What I meant about the can of worms was that I assumed (from past threads on similar topics) that your statement would take the thread down a rabbit hole of people pointing to gang violence and Chicago to counter it, which seemed like it might get sticky or at least racially-charged. But since you have stats then no need to worry about opening the can.

 

[JickyJuly]

Yeaaah. Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people. The sociological definition of racism (and discrimination in general) requires that one group have systemic power over another. That's the position that white people hold in American society over people of color, and in every other Western society on this planet. You can be prejudiced, sure, but not racist. Hurt feelings =/= racism. Name a single governmental policy that targets, or has targeted, white people specifically for being white (and don't you dare bring up Irish, Italian etc. immigrants, because that was xenophobia not racism). That's what we've done to literally every other racial group, though! So chill with the persecution complex, you and I are shamefully perfectly safe at the top, champ. And uh, also, I'm white too so I literally do not see what you're heated about lmao?

Where are you getting your understanding of humans? Sure, there's not institutional racism against white people. There, is, however, plenty of racial violence perpetuated against people of all races for strictly racial reasons. Being white doesn't save you from that gun or not. Also, plenty of black folks are just as pro-gun as white folks. They're just not afforded the same right to stupidly parade around yelling about it. I'm not sure how you are making a racial issue out of the second amendment here?

 

[AudriTwo]

heads up. i was a victim of a hate crime when i was 16. i was jumped and other things because i was a white chick that looked easy to fuck up. so i'm holding back a lot of fuck you fucking cunts.


you can be racist against white people. your skin color/religion/orientation/gender cannot excuse you from being discriminative towards other people.

hate is hate.

 

[AudriTwo]

i am so fucking angry. i'm gonna go do the cha cha and shoot bitches in PUBG.

 

[AmberCutie]

heads up. i was a victim of a hate crime when i was 16. i was jumped and other things because i was a white chick that looked easy to fuck up. so i'm holding back a lot of fuck you fucking cunts.


you can be racist against white people. your skin color/religion/orientation/gender cannot excuse you from being discriminative towards other people.

hate is hate.

I also was ganged up on in middle school purely because I was a white chick dating a hispanic boy.

Stating that racism only works one direction is dismissive of experiences that many of us have had.

I imagine the biggest problem in making the blanket statement about "you can't be racist against white people" is that many are referring to private/personal interactions. Not the government.
So

Name a single governmental policy that targets, or has targeted, white people specifically for being white

Sure, there's not institutional racism against white people. There, is, however, plenty of racial violence perpetuated against people of all races for strictly racial reasons.

While you can feel fine being right about what you said because you're applying it to a federal/governmental level, others are also right when they state that yes, racism works both directions.

I was compelled to reply because I commiserated with @AudriTwo's post, though this is getting highly tangential to the original topic. If more discussion of racism is included in this thread might I suggest you wind it back around to what it has to do with the OP topic.

 

[AudriTwo]

http://www.newsweek.com/zimbabwe-land-robert-mugabe-white-farmers-653524

 

[Bocefish]

The Texas shooter had mental health issues most of his life and should never have been able to buy firearms legally.

AGAIN... the writing was on the proverbial wall with this guy, yet he somehow slipped through the cracks.

The mental-health/2A issue is such a slippery slope, it's no wonder politician's would rather blame guns.

FFS, they can't even get the no-fly list correct not to mention the TSA failure rate!

In regards to the most recently published (2015) hate crime statistics...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015-hate-crime-statistics-released

According to the 2015 FBI hate crime statistics, the latest available, there were 613 anti-white-related crimes out of 5,850 total cases. That's around 10.5 percent of all reported hate crimes, and within the yearly average, federal numbers show.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-whites-hate-crimes-20170106-story.html

• There were 5,818 single-bias incidents involving 7,121 victims. Of those victims, 59.2 percent were targeted because of a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias; 19.7 percent because of a religious bias; 17.7 percent because of a sexual orientation bias; 1.7 percent because of a gender identity bias; 1.2 percent because of a disability bias; and 0.4 percent because of a gender bias.
• 
  
• There were an additional 32 multiple-bias incidents that involved another 52 victims.
• 
  
• Of the 4,482 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons, intimidation
• accounted for 41.3 percent of those offenses, while 37.8 percent involved simple assault and 19.7 percent involved aggravated assault.
• 
  
• There were 2,338 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property, and the majority of those (72.6 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism.
• During 2015, most reported hate crime incidents (31.5 percent) happened in or near residences or homes.
• 
  
• Of the 5,493 known offenders, 48.4 percent were white, 24.3 percent were black or African-American, and race was unknown for 16.2 percent of the offenders. The rest were of various other races.

New to the 2015 Hate Crime Statistics report is the inclusion of seven additional religious anti-bias categories (anti-Buddhist, anti-Eastern Orthodox, anti-Hindu, anti-Jehovah’s Witness, anti-Mormon, anti-other Christian, and anti-Sikh), as well as an anti-Arab bias motivation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[dilligaf0]

The Texas shooter's grounds for his discharge from the Air Force should have prevented him from purchasing firearms.
The Air Force screwed up and didn't submit that information to the Federal database that is checked prior to a firearms purchase.
That said, what I think needs to be done is:
1) Make it illegal for the public to own bump stocks.
2) Require an extremely thorough background check for a person to own large capacity ammo clips.
3) Enforce the laws and regulations already in place to make sure ALL relevant information is entered into the databases that it should be on.

Maybe that would be a start.

 

[Bocefish]

I also was ganged up on in middle school purely because I was a white chick dating a hispanic boy.

Ya right, they were just jealous of your big boobs and fine ass.

 

[Bocefish]

what I think needs to be done is:
1) Make it illegal for the general public to own bump stocks.
2) Require an extremely thorough background check for a person to own large capacity ammo clips.
3) Enforce the laws and regulations already in place to make sure ALL relevant information is entered into the databases that it should be on.

Bipartisan agreement on all that, but the dems supposedly tried to slip in some other vague bans which brings it back to the negotiating table.

It's all a dog and pony show for votes afaic.

You can't legislate moral behavior and political correctness only helps to organize hatred.

 

[dilligaf0]

You can't legislate moral behavior and political correctness only helps to organize hatred.

You can't legislate anything if you don't enforce those laws once they're passed.

 

[Val Vega]

Would an OHMIBOD/Lovense raffle be insensitive, Bocefish? I was thinking of holding one, but I was worried about its moral impact here.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

To be fair, I don't think @Ariana_ is really the one making the issue racial. Media/academia is a more likely culprit.

Spoiler: Eyesaver

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ght_and_wrong_about_killers_demographics.html
According to this, the white male connection to mass shootings is a myth; the author makes the argument that these terribly evil creatures are statistically underrepresented (something that should make any equality minded individual furious).

This is the article he claims started the "white people" angle.

Spoiler: Michael Kimmel and Cliff Leek?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/the-unbearable-whiteness-_2_b_2350931.html
They felt compelled to broaden the conversation by specifically pointing at mental illness that has a race and gender (white male). So it looks like these two have pretty much built their careers around race and gender studies. Wonder what their toxic-white-males-cured/nazis-inadvertently-created ratio looks like.

Spoiler: Cole Sprouse?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-mass-shootings_us_59d27a4be4b048a443242dbc
I agree with a lot in his tweets here early on; unfortunately, when he wanders off into his "we need to address whiteness" garbage, he immediately lowers himself to the level of that contemptible slug Sean Hannity imo.

Spoiler: Sady Doyle?

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-...ephen-paddock-las-vegas-mass-shooter-profile/
She certainly seems to think toxic white male entitlement is where the problem needs to be attacked. I guess when she isn't being accused of shilling for the corrupt establishment DNC, she still needs ideological nails to pound. Identity politics hack, or true believer? Don't know.

Spoiler: E.A. Crunden?

https://thinkprogress.org/shootings-white-men-las-vegas-e378cfad534b/
She presents the problem as a language/Trump/"white male entitlement problem". That's the real root of the issue...

Spoiler: John Haltiwanger?

http://www.newsweek.com/white-men-have-committed-more-mass-shootings-any-other-group-675602
Good Lord, what a shittily-thrown-together steaming pile this is. Reading it, I get the impression that John got told to do a quick write-up for an eyecatching headline (and he half assed it).

I mean come the f*ck on...he mentions James Holmes as a possible example of "white man shooting out of sense of entitlement", when it is pretty damn obvious Holmes is severely nuts? That don't pass the smell test.

Spoiler: Naaz Modan?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/mass-shootings-white-male-rage-modan-opinion/index.html
44 white men over a period of 30 years are all it takes for this race-baiter to point a finger at an entire group of millions. With some minor edits, she could just as easily write for Breitbart.

Spoiler: Hugo Schwyzer???

https://jezebel.com/5928584/why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men
(cough cough) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schwyzer

Spoiler: Josiah Hesse?

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ss-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623
"Racism, misogyny, and entitlement"...you know the privelege drill.

Spoiler: Charlotte and Harriet Childress?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...63623d80a60_story.html?utm_term=.16c1f8098288
At least these two manage to focus on the gun control issue more than any of the others. Viewed through the prism of "white maleness" of course. Spreading perverse modern-day cultural eugenics.

So, considering the onslaught of divisive propaganda that has been injected, I would say it is damn near a fashion requirement to make it racist at this point.

 

[dilligaf0]

Would an OHMIBOD/Lovense raffle be insensitive, Bocefish? I was thinking of holding one, but I was worried about its moral impact here.

Only if 58 people had been beaten to death with one.

 

[Val Vega]

Only if 58 people had been beaten to death with one.

According to Bocefish, it is more likely than you think.

 

[Bocefish]

According to Bocefish, it is more likely than you think.

If one of those pink alien penises went psycho and killed ALL the other pink alien penises and rat tails... I wouldn't mind one little bit.

 

[Bocefish]

Good guy with a gun buried on page 10...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/06/man-who-put-end-carnage-texas/838700001/

The Texas shooter also supposedly escaped from a mental hospital in 2012 and wanted to kill his superior officers, but was busted trying to smuggle guns onto the base.

How this guy was able to legally purchase the weapons he used has to be remedied ASAP!

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people. The sociological definition of racism (and discrimination in general) requires that one group have systemic power over another.

Racism is racism. I don't give one fuck about bullshit "sociological definitions" because it can easily go down a slippery slope of what's acceptable and not and turn into a shitshow much like people claim happens with racism and bigotry instead of legal definitions.

That's the position that white people hold in American society over people of color, and in every other Western society on this planet. You can be prejudiced, sure, but not racist. Hurt feelings =/= racism. Name a single governmental policy that targets, or has targeted, white people specifically for being white (and don't you dare bring up Irish, Italian etc. immigrants, because that was xenophobia not racism). That's what we've done to literally every other racial group, though! So chill with the persecution complex, you and I are shamefully perfectly safe at the top, champ. And uh, also, I'm white too so I literally do not see what you're heated about lmao?

Per US Federal EEOE laws, racism can occur when it involves people of the same colored skin:

Race/Color Discrimination
Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.

Race/color discrimination also can involve treating someone unfavorably because the person is married to (or associated with) a person of a certain race or color.

Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are the same race or color.

So, you're statement of "(and don't you dare bring up Irish, Italian etc. immigrants, because that was xenophobia not racism)." if pure fucking bullshit.

Oh, and let's address this little fallacy you seem to strongly hold onto:

Name a single governmental policy that targets, or has targeted, white people specifically for being white

Ever hear of Affirmative Action law and preference points when it comes to hiring? They give preference points for being non-white, especially in the public sector (bit of irony, isn't it?):
Quick google search on it.

I can tell you from first hand experience this is very real, and happens across the country in regards to civil service jobs as well as private companies of certain sizes needing to have a set percentage of minority and women employees.

In one of my fields of employment, there is such a push to hire minorities at the gov't level that they will overlook qualified candidates just to meet minority requirements per the Affirmative Action laws.

For the record, I do not believe in preference points based upon any demographic. Even those for veterans, and I am prior service. It should be based solely on skillset, personality and work history along with education when required (person schooled for specific job vs raw candidate with no skills/training/education related to job). But, this isn't the case.

Anyone remember the Police shooting in Minneapolis of the woman from Australia?

The officer who shot her was a minority, and was one of the diversity hires that Minneapolis is searching for. Not just as a black officer. But, also a Somali with Muslim religious beliefs. However, questions have been raised regarding the motives of his shooting her. As well as being sued by another woman. Also, according to this article he has had three complaints in his two years on the police department. I would also highly recommend reading this article describing him with more indepth from a neighbor.

The only reason why I'm bringing this up is to show that Affirmative Action does not allow for the best candidates to be hired in many cases. Why should a hiring decision be made on a person's demographic such as skin color, gender or whatever? Why should a candidate get a preference point simply for the color of their skin?

Now, let's bring this bak to the discussion of race and firearms. I believe there were some comments made regarding guns and race. Earlier, I had posted a link to this article: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

(Edit: apologies for the linked text, something happened with editing and can't fix it)

. I'm thinking no one really read it, nor bothered to look at it. This is an extremely well detailed, and as neutral of a study as I've been able to find.

In that report, they break it down that more white men do own firearms, as compared to others such as minorities and women of all races. But, it also talke about how blacks are more prone to gun violence, and especially from other blacks, as compared to people from other demographics.

It is a long read. But, I think it is very good. The one part that I am curious about, when it comes to actual numbers is about ownership. Legal gun owners are more than likely to openly discuss being firearm owners, and related topics. Whereas those whom own then illegally, will be more prone to deny ownership. The other aspect is the fascination of young men, regardless of colour, whom are interested in certain things such as gangs, drugs, certain types of music also have a heavy emphasis on firearms. Why? Most likely because it equates to power in certain circles.


As I mentioned previously, I am pro 2A and I think anyone who has the legal ability own a firearm should be able to make the decision to own one or not and act upon that decision.. That being said, there are things such as what we're seeing where people on the radar of documented mental issues, history of domestic violence, as well as criminal history should not be granted the ability to legally purchase firearms. I don't think there is any reason for a private person to own a fully automatic firearm. But, semi-auto is fine so long as it is not modified to go full-auto, or simulate as such like what a bump-stock or other things might do.


However, much like my comment regarding drunk drivers with revoked licenses continually driving post revocation, etc. Criminals will continue to disregard the laws, and said laws will only impact those whom follow them.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Would an OHMIBOD/Lovense raffle be insensitive, Bocefish? I was thinking of holding one, but I was worried about its moral impact here.

Technically, over 480,000 sexual assaults, or unwanted sexual contacts, occur every year in America. That's around 37 times the number of people murdered by firearms. Suggesting a raffle of an inanimate object with only one purpose for its existence is kind of insensitive. Approximately 37 times as insensitive for that of a firearm.

Rifle, vibrator...same difference in this context.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Technically, over 480,000 sexual assaults, or unwanted sexual contacts, occur every year in America. That's around 37 times the number of people murdered by firearms. Suggesting a raffle of an inanimate object with only one purpose for its existence is kind of insensitive. Approximately 37 times as insensitive for that of a firearm.

Rifle, vibrator...same difference in this context.

CDC estimates that each year, 48 million people get sick from food poisoning. Of that, 128,000 people are hospitalized, and roughly 3,000 people die. There's also an estimated $15.5 billion dollar hit to the economy due to the illness due to lost wages, medical expenses, etc.


Those damn meat raffles... So insensitive!

 

[fandango]

I will never understand the American attitude to guns. No one needs a gun. How many more people need to die before the public will decide enough is enough? People shifting the focus to vans, knives or mental illness is just silly. Sure anything can be turned into a weapon but a makeshift weapon will never be as effective as an actual weapon which sole design is to kill as effectively and efficiently as possible. When the London Bridge terror attack happened this summer there were 3 attackers who used a van and knives and they managed to kill 8 people. Imagine how much worse it would have been if they had the kind of guns so easily available in America. They could have each killed hundreds of people.

Not having guns is clearly the only way to stop gun violence. If the Las Vegas guy or the Texas guy had no guns they might still have gone crazy and tried to kill some people with a Van or a Knife but they would never have managed to kill as many as they did.

Nice try, but you can't be racist against white people.

Any person or group can be racist to any other person or group.

SJWs are some of the most hateful and divisive people I've ever seen, some of their ideology makes me sick. Their hate is only equalled by actual Nazis. You don't end one injustice just by creating another one.

 

[dilligaf0]

People do have a use for guns if they hunt. Hunting is fine if they actually use the meat from what they kill. It can help offset feeding a family that may not have enough income to purchase enough food.
That being said, there should be limits to the type of firearms available to the public without thorough regulation and background checks (like you see for federal firearms licenses).
If you need an AR-15 type assault rifle to hunt, become a vegetarian.

 

[Bocefish]

I will never understand the American attitude to guns. No one needs a gun. How many more people need to die before the public will decide enough is enough? People shifting the focus to vans, knives or mental illness is just silly. Sure anything can be turned into a weapon but a makeshift weapon will never be as effective as an actual weapon which sole design is to kill as effectively and efficiently as possible. When the London Bridge terror attack happened this summer there were 3 attackers who used a van and knives and they managed to kill 8 people. Imagine how much worse it would have been if they had the kind of guns so easily available in America. They could have each killed hundreds of people.

Not having guns is clearly the only way to stop gun violence. If the Las Vegas guy or the Texas guy had no guns they might still have gone crazy and tried to kill some people with a Van or a Knife but they would never have managed to kill as many as they did.

Nothing I say will help you understand because you are already somewhat brainwashed that people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves with firearms, if need be, or understand our constitutional rights.

We are not perfect by any means... and very much a work in progress... but I'm extremely thankful we still have rights to bear arms.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I will never understand the American attitude to guns. No one needs a gun. How many more people need to die before the public will decide enough is enough? People shifting the focus to vans, knives or mental illness is just silly. Sure anything can be turned into a weapon but a makeshift weapon will never be as effective as an actual weapon which sole design is to kill as effectively and efficiently as possible. When the London Bridge terror attack happened this summer there were 3 attackers who used a van and knives and they managed to kill 8 people. Imagine how much worse it would have been if they had the kind of guns so easily available in America. They could have each killed hundreds of people.

Not having guns is clearly the only way to stop gun violence. If the Las Vegas guy or the Texas guy had no guns they might still have gone crazy and tried to kill some people with a Van or a Knife but they would never have managed to kill as many as they did..

First off, there is no way that each person could have "killed hundreds" in the London Bridge attack unless they had that many rounds, a lot of time and people were packed on the bridge like sardines. Ignorant comment you made.

Seond off, let me ask you this:

No one in your family, or even city has a firearm. Now, you have terrorists whom have come in from another country and brought illegal firearms with them. What do you do?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

If you need an AR-15 type assault rifle to hunt, become a vegetarian.

You do understand that even the modern hunting rifles we have today are derivatives of military weapons of old, correct? Lever action rifles go back to 1800's era military actions and conflicts.

The semi-automatic AR platform is no different. It is classified as a modern sporting rifle, and is legal to hunt with in nearly every state. My .30-06 bolt-action rifle is significantly more powerful than a 5.56 chambered AR. But, it's okay that it's a bolt-action?

Your comment makes about as much sense as saying a car of today is too much. Therefore we should all ride bicycles to go places.

 

[Bocefish]

If you need an AR-15 type assault rifle to hunt, become a vegetarian.

Another ignorant statement/viewpoint.

They are quite dependable, very accurate, extremely durable and come in different calibers not to mention the entire weapon fit is customizable.

I'll agree there's no need for rapid fire or fully automatic... or the100 round magazine nonsense for civilians.

You might be surprised how many hunters use them for hunting birds or squirrels all the way up to caribou or even elk & moose with the .308.

Oh ya, I heard that Joy Bitchtard from "The View" ask why a semi-automatic weapon is needed for hunting. Perhaps she would prefer an animal suffer more if a second follow up shot was needed by a smoke pole rifle.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

This should start at the right time, around 5 minutes in. It pretty much sums up my opinion of anyone from outside of the US even bothering to comment on gun related issues. I wasn't going to say anything before, because I didn't care enough to even type it out. But since this was handy...it sums it up nicely.

Ironically it's the same reason most models here on the forum think members advice of any sort on camming is useless since members haven't been on cam.


To anyone from the UK, Europe, Australia....

 

[dilligaf0]

My .30-06 bolt-action rifle is significantly more powerful than a 5.56 chambered AR. But, it's okay that it's a bolt-action?

Yes, it is okay because you can't fire several hundred rounds per minute with it.

You do understand that even the modern hunting rifles we have today are derivatives of military weapons of old, correct? Lever action rifles go back to 1800's era military actions and conflicts.

The semi-automatic AR platform is no different. It is classified as a modern sporting rifle, and is legal to hunt with in nearly every state. My .30-06 bolt-action rifle is significantly more powerful than a 5.56 chambered AR. But, it's okay that it's a bolt-action?

Your comment makes about as much sense as saying a car of today is too much. Therefore we should all ride bicycles to go places.

There are many people that would be saved if the true morons were restricted to bicycles. (They can't drive worth a shit.)

Another ignorant statement/viewpoint.

They are quite dependable, very accurate, extremely durable and come in different calibers not to mention the entire weapon fit is customizable.

I'll agree there's no need for rapid fire or fully automatic... or the100 round magazine nonsense for civilians.

You might be surprised how many hunters use them for hunting birds or squirrels all the way up to caribou or even elk & moose with the .308.

Oh ya, I heard that Joy Bitchtard from "The View" ask why a semi-automatic weapon is needed for hunting. Perhaps she would prefer an animal suffer more if a second follow up shot was needed by a smoke pole rifle.