Democrats wanna address gun control, address Chicago

Generally 'beneath you' means that someone is too good for the thing that is beneath them. What don't you understand about that?

In essence one lowers themself to a level they generally don't frequent. Many people would say that Trump's insults are 'beneath' the office of the President.

 

You're doing exactly what I said you were doing. Nothing. Rinse and repeat.

At least the game is on. I won't be wasting my time like I am here.

 

What an insane, pointless thread.

Why are you guys still in here arguing in circles? OP is now having to respond 5 times a page to try to justify this awfulness.

@Deckard I thought old people would know better

 

I had to try. It's a complete waste of time.

 

No, you haven't accomplished that goal.

 

Uhm... your entire premise is ridiculous. Democrats don't believe in telling others how to run their lives. It is only natural that people should take responsibility for their actions. No political party should have to talk about that. Personal responsibility (by the fact that it's called that) shouldn't be the responsibility of any political party to lecture communities about that.

What the Democrats have done is put action to their belief in personal responsibility. They've been at the grassroots of community organizing, providing opportunities for self-improvement through education etc.

But you being upset that a political party isn't lecturing about personal responsibility is laughable. What political parties should talk about about is the government helping to provide equal opportunity, fake pgabs.

 

You have to be willfully blind or a troll to think that gun control doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work if you just do it at a city level where guns can still flow in from nearby Indiana. But it works as a national policy.

 

I don't doubt that a total disarmament would reduce gun violence. Except that isn't happening in this country. The limits on gun control are pretty much set. Assault weapon ban and 10 round mags is pretty much as far as you can go, and even that might not be held up with the current Supreme Court. California is trying to ban possession of high capacity mags but it lost the last round in court because people bought them legally and California can't take property without fair compensation. If that stands you won't see mass confiscations of anything.

That limited "gun control" is not stopping the violence. The Parkland shooter used 10 round mags and assault weapons account for 1-2% of gun deaths a year.

Not to mention look at the violence that occurred in part because of the last assault rifle ban. Three nut jobs used the ban as part of their reason to buy some fertilizer and take out a gov't building killing 168 and wounding 680 people. You think the guys at the Bundy ranch that stood down Federal Agents are going to just hand their guns in?

 

What? First, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are select fire weapons like the M-16 or AK-74. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or carbine). Second, I don't know what you consider a typical deer rifle, but a .308 Remington 700 has a muzzle velocity that is 80% of that you are getting out of an AR-15, and with a heavier bullet.
Ballistic Gel tests of .223 and 30-06 and .308


As you can see, the .223 doesn't do more damage to the human body than a typical deer rifle (assuming you consider a .308 or 30-06 a typical deer rifle). Of course, deer rifles could encompass a wide range of firearms, including those chambered in .223.

 

What did you do to deserve my money?

 

Do you think it should be reclassified as an assault rifle considering all the damage it could do and how easy it is to modify it into a full automatic?

Why do you think mass murderers choose the AR-15 instead of a typical deer rifle if a shot from a typical deer rifle can do more damage than one from an AR-15? What advantages does the AR-15 hold over typical deer rifles when the aim is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time?

Also, what was the point of your response? Did it prove Deckard's point that an AR-15 does a massive amount of damage to a human body wrong? He doesn't think people should be able to own guns that can kill people quick and easy like an AR-15 can. Do you dispute his point that an AR-15 can kill people quickly and easily?

 

No. We already have perfectly accurate terms to describe various weapons. Why would we need to redefine them? Just so when the terms are misused by the anti-gun people they won't be talking bullshit?

It depends again on what is meant by typical deer rifle. Outdoor Life, for example, has an AR platform rifle (the Ambush in .300 blackout) in their list of the top 10 deer rifles, which presumably would qualify it as typical. If we are limiting it to a bolt action rifle, I would say ease of use and quick follow up shots probably makes it the weapon of choice, not the damage caused by each bullet.

To point out inaccuracies in the argument in favor of an "assault weapons ban".

That was not the point he made. His thesis was that the AR-15 does MORE damage to a human body than a typical deer rifle. Did my post prove that point wrong? Yes, in more than one way.

Any centerfire firearm can kill a person quickly and easily. A .22 lr is more iffy on the quickly and easily, but can still kill a person.

No. I dispute his point that it differs radically from a handgun, shotgun, pistol caliber carbine, bolt action rifle, lever action rifle, or other semi-automatic rifle that is not an AR-15 (like an AK, an AR-10, an M1A, a Ruger Mini-14, an SKS, a FN-FAL, a G3, etc.).

 

Hell, amigo, I'm the only guy on this bbs that believes you are who you say you are.

Oh ****, stop it.

He's not right but you ain't right either.

 

The statistics are very clear about this issue. Violent crime is as low as it's been in 40 years.




However, the number of victims in mass shootings has skyrocketed over the same time period.





The evidence is clear. Now go muddy it all up to mean something other than what it clearly shows.