Democrats wanna address gun control, address Chicago

It's pretty significant when it's your kid getting slaughtered in his school. I'd enjoy any politician taking your viewpoint that these deaths are insignificant.

 

Yes, numbers isn't my strong point.

Well said, comrade.

 

I'm watching '95 Game 1. Say what you want, but I used to like your posts. Not so much anymore.

 

We would need to redefine them because the firearm of choice of mass murderers is a weapon that technically isn't an assault rifle.

God didn't write this classification system of firearms. We can change it

This is important in this discussion. Maybe the high-caliber rifles you are comparing to the AR-15 aren't typical.

From the video you posted, the AR-15 does significant damage to ballistic gel, are you sure that isn't considered when it is selected? Does it really matter that it isn't as great as the not so random rifles you selected?

The AR-15's relative ease of use is why I asked why are they the weapon of choice if there are other rifles that could cause more bodily harm.

That's important, but...

You sound as if you believe that the damage an AR-15 does to a human body is negligible because it's not as great as the damage done by the high-caliber rifles that might be great for hunting deer, but not all that typical, eh? When in fact the AR-15 destroys human tissue, as simulated in your video and written about by an ER doctor in an article somewhere in one of these threads, even if it doesn't destroy it as much as some hunting rifles.

But we go back to why the AR-15 is the weapon of choice if any rifle could leave a person just as dead as an AR-15. You keep trying to compare guns to the AR-15 as if it isn't special, as if the same amount of people would have died had the killer used a high-caliber rifle or .22 LR. When the truth is that most other guns would have led to a decrease in deaths and very few could have matched or increased it.

So even though it isn't radically different it is still the most popular?

I. Ain't. Rolling.

You admit that it's easier to use than a typical deer rifle. It holds more bullets and it's quicker to reload, right?

You would have to concede based on your own video and the article written by the ER doctor that the damage an AR-15 could do is massive and cannot be ignored just because the damage is not as great as some high-caliber rifles.

Which guns match the AR-15 in capacity, ease of use, and damage capabilities?

I imagine many hold more bullets, many are easier to use, and many do more damage, but do any match what the AR-15 offers overall? If so, what makes them different to potential mass murderers? Popularity? Price? Availability?

I think that it's ease of use and damage it causes to a person make it the ideal weapon of choice for mass murderers. Those two factors mean they could miss a lot and increase the probability that a hit ultimately ends up killing a person.

Based on your knowledge of guns, nothing in this post is news to you.

It is sad because it means that you, like so many opponents of any form of gun control, would rather win an argument instead of honestly discussing such a serious topic.

Link to article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

 

Stupie has left a trail of willfully ignorant arguments all over this board. I'd assume he's a lawyer.

 

Why would that require a redefinition of the term assault rifle. Do mass murders need to be using assault rifles in your worldview for some reason? Why not leave the terms alone and just stop saying that they are using an assault rifle. Hell, just call it an AR-15, you don't even need to use a more generalized term.

Sure, we can change the definition of any word. Why do it though. The definitions are already perfectly adequate.

The Remington 700 is, I believe, the most commonly used weapon for deer hunting. I was allowing for @Deckard to clarify what he meant by typical deer rifle, since he was inviting us to look it up, but used a good place holder in the meantime.

It matters insofar as determining the accuracy of the statement I was responding to, yes. I never denied that it does significant damage. It is a rifle using ammunition that was designed for the military. Of course it can do lethal levels of damage. In fact, I already pointed out that it can do lethal levels of damage, as can almost every firearm.

It is easy to use in comparison to bolt action rifles. There are a huge number of semi-automatic rifles, carbines, pistol caliber carbines, and shotguns that are equally easy to use.

If that was the impression you got, I think it is less an issue of what I wrote and more an issue of your bias or reading comprehension. My specific quote was, "Any centerfire firearm can kill a person quickly and easily." I don't know how you go from that to negligible damage to the human body.

I addressed the typical argument above, but yes, back to the original point, the .223 fired from an AR-15 doesn't do significantly more damage to the human body.

Again, it is a firearm meant to kill, of course it destroys tissue.

There are any number of weapons that can be used in the same situations like Parkland that would be just as effective in causing the same number of deaths. How about just all the other semi-automatic rifles that fire the same caliber bullet like the IWI Tavor, the SCAR pattern rifles, the AK variants chambered in .223/5.56, the M249S (the civilian version of the M249 SAW), the Ruger Mini-14, the Steyr AUG A3, the HK43, the KelTec SU-16, etc.? Then you have semi-automatic rifles and carbines in other calibers that would expand that list further. Then you have the pistol caliber carbines that would be perfectly adequate to kill unarmored targets at close range, even easier to use, allow for more ammunition to be carried, etc.

Why is the AR-15 seemingly the weapon of choice then? Probably some combination of media representation, price, and availability. An M249S costs eight thousand dollars. An AR-15 can be had for five hundred. No one uses a KelTec SU-16 in movies or video games. Your average gun store probably doesn't have an HK-43.

Honestly discussing the topic is exactly what I am trying to do. It is the dishonesty or ignorance of the anti-gun people that I am trying to oppose.

 

The original intent of the 2nd amendment has long been over...we need an updated one. We have local enforcement, we don't hunt to survive, we have a standing army, and we have expanded from coast to coast; we don't need militias and all the context around the original intent is gone. I can't imagine the Founders would like what the 2nd amendment has turned into.

 

You proponents should stop playing games about semantics. There will be another major mass shooting, and if its at a school, then your 2nd amendment won't stop you from the power of parents.

Get your sh*t together and propose something viable or you will be forced into something when inevitable another mass shooting happens. The GOP won't hold to the majority forever or maybe even much longer so you're time is running out.

 

How many millions for it?

With each mass shooting, you gun proponents get another nail in the coffin for your ideals.

 

Sadly, I agree that emotional overreactions will likely triumph over considered logic and reason. It will be a shame, just like it has been in every other erosion of our freedom.

There is nothing I want to propose. I will continue existing as I have, and shake my head when we take the next step down the road to authoritarianism, fondly thinking of what the Constitution used to be, and what could have been.

 

Politicians should just fix poverty.
No pressure.
can you believe the price of milk is up from what it was in the 90s but people are still getting paid minimum wage money like they were working in the 90s. I never understood 1% versus 2% milk. Skim milk is just GROSS.

 

I totally disagree with your opinion. However, I truly respect that you actually acknowledge what the 2nd Amendment is about, Which means if you want it changed get an Amendment. Some poor people do hunt for food because it is the cheapest meat they can get.

I am willing to accept making it harder to get an AR15 type rifle. I do not believe they should be banned. I think the solution, which most pro gun people will hate, is for AR15 type rifles to go on the NFA list like suppressors, short barrel rifles, and machine guns. Do some research on the number of crimes involving guns under the NFA. It is almost zero. For instance, since machine guns were placed on the NFA in 1934 their have been THREE murders committed with them and their are a few hundred thousand out there. Plus, one of the murders was a police officer killing a police informant. NFA weapons require an extensive background check, finger prints, passport photo, 200 dollar tax, and takes months to get your tax stamp back before you get the weapon. You must also carry a copy of the stamp with you if you take the gun anywhere. I expect that to be the result eventually. I do not see a gun confiscation happening in this country. It would make the violence from these school shootings look like a family picnic. To legally take the guns would require a buy back. Somehow I don't see anti-gun people wanting to hand billions of their tax dollars in cash over to gun owners.

Relying on law enforcement is a joke and a fake Hollywood ending. The average mass shooting lasts 5 minutes. The average police response is 11 minutes and then they will probably just stand outside. Dylan Roof, the church shooter in Charleston, should not have been legally able to pass a background check. He was flagged and the FBI did nothing because they called the local prosecutors to find out about his issue and never got a call back. The church shooter in Texas should not have passed a background check. but the Air Force never put his military criminal history into the NICS system. The Parkland shooter had an insane amount of visits from the police, the FBI received warnings and failed to follow protocol, and the psycho made direct online threats to students that should have resulted in charges preventing him from being able to purchase a weapon. Maybe actually enforcing the laws we currently have would be a good start.

I carry a gun for the same reason I wear I seat belt. I hope I never need my seat belt, but when/if it happens I want my seat belt on.

 

I now understand why you are comfortable admitting you voted for Donald Trump.

 

Or because it tastes good. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to go to the grocery store.

You wear a football helmet too? And no, I have not seen your baseball.

 

I was replying to a comment that people don't hunt for food. In TX it might be more expensive but in states with more public hunting land it is way cheaper to hunt. For example, there is 20 times the amount of public land available for hunting in Montana compared to Texas. It's 70 bucks for a resident in Montana to get the sportsman permit (without bear) for deer, elk, fishing, and upland birds. A veteran can get the same thing for 10 bucks. One elk can yield 80-250 pounds of meat. Go price that at HEB.

Funny. A gun saved me from being a victim of a violent crime. I hope you never have that happen.. but maybe if it does happen you can do what all the democrats chastise the republicans for doing after a mass shooting..... just pray.

 

I get the public hunting point you made, and you are correct. Good call, I was just thinking Texas because, well, that's what I think about. And I'm spoiled, it's a shame there's so little public land around this state. I do have a 1/4 of an elk in my freezer. I need to cook those ribs soon.

I have no idea what your "funny..." paragraph means, but I'm glad you survived.

 

I jacked up the quotes. The funny part was referring to your "do you wear a football helmet too?"