The reason the general public doesn't need an assault rifle is the same reason why the general public doesn't need a rocket launcher.
I don't give two shits about how gun enthusiasts want to misinterpret the constitution. People will keep dying needlessly and we'll eventually have much stronger gun controls then even the liberals are asking for now. All this because of the rights obsession with making themselves feel like their penises are bigger by having assault weapons.
Interestingly enough, many of my liberal friends are hunters and own some of these so called "assault rifles" as well. Again, good luck persuading any gun owners to give even a little with rhetoric like this. I do not give one shit about your misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. And my penis is adequately sized regardless of my choice of rifles, thank you very much, lol
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Coming from someone that is quite familiar with using a pistol grip...I can confidently say that it probably made no difference what so ever. A pistol grip does not give some kind of magical tactical advantage like some uneducated people like to imagine. I'm guessing that your odds of hitting someone in a crowded room at close proximity are probably pretty high no matter what you are using or whether you are aiming or not.
I just think it's time for them to completely rewrite the 2nd amendment.
What's the point? The actual wording of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. No matter how you rewrite it, gun advocates will continue to demand absolute deregulation of firearms. America has had a longstanding obsession with firearms. No amount of legislation or regulation can change that. Changing the Constitution wouldn't do anything. Just take solace in knowing that this obsession with guns isn't nearly as predominant in Canada.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
Some fellow coworkers and I are getting a good laugh about it
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
Some fellow coworkers and I are getting a good laugh about it
Well it must be welcome relief from the typical day where all your co-workers laugh at your tooth.
This has not come down to a pistol grip, Unsung. This has come down to some guy telling everyone they don't know what defines an assault rifle. I told him some of the distinguishing characteristics that typically define an assault rifle.
What doesn't keep coming up is the responses one might expect from some of the prudent points made that Cletus wishes to dodge because he either doesn't understand what has been presented to him or he simply has no answer for.
Here's a lower level thinking stumper: how many bullets did Lanza fire that infamous day with his (hyuk hyuk) assault rifle?
Stumper number two which requires slightly above average thinking ability: would it have been possible for Lanza to fire that many shots with a shotgun or hunting rifle and a smaller magazine.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
Not near as humorous as you being challenged to present data to back up your silly claim earlier to which you had none.
Let a couple pages go by and fire up again, huh? We haven't forgotten there, Champ.
Wow, someone is now in a tiz. I am far from being your backwoods redneck that you are implying (that's a little further easy Texas, ha), but when all of your other arguments fail...demonize demonize demonize. I am done responding to you and your insults. Real mature of you. I may have missed something, but I'm pretty sure I've responded to all of your bullshit, although it may not have been the response you desired. Carry on being a jackass to someone else. "Ye haw, hyuk hyuk hyuk"-as stated by YOU!
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
It's par for the course.
Person says that mental is a huge problem with gun crimes, I disagree and I'm told to provide proof. Since I refuse to do the research for them they try to belittle my case. 500 people killed in Chicago annually, a high majority are gang related, yet I need to provide proof. Yeah, ok.
Person says that mental is a huge problem with gun crimes, I disagree and I'm told to provide proof. Since I refuse to do the research for them they try to belittle my case. 500 people killed in Chicago annually, a high majority are gang related, yet I need to provide proof. Yeah, ok.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Poor and under educated?
You are on the right track.
Yeay!!!
We have challenges and I will admit that human behavior change will do more than restricting guns.
Now getting funding to address the problem will now be our rub Mr Unsung. So what do we do. We can't just shoot our way out of the problem and don't want to live in society with everyone having six shooter strapped to their waist.
Store owner and robbers got into gun battle in my fair city today and mom pushing stroller was hit.
This has not come down to a pistol grip, Unsung. This has come down to some guy telling everyone they don't know what defines an assault rifle. I told him some of the distinguishing characteristics that typically define an assault rifle.
What doesn't keep coming up is the responses one might expect from some of the prudent points made that Cletus wishes to dodge because he either doesn't understand what has been presented to him or he simply has no answer for.
Here's a lower level thinking stumper: how many bullets did Lanza fire that infamous day with his (hyuk hyuk) assault rifle?
Stumper number two which requires slightly above average thinking ability: would it have been possible for Lanza to fire that many shots with a shotgun or hunting rifle and a smaller magazine.
Answer #1: I don't know, nearly all evidence has been suppressed. Video surveillance hasn't been released, not even a still to prove Lanza did it. Early reports stated multiple shooters, now we are told to believe this 115lb weakling did this.
Answer #2: Probably. However this line of thinking is that 20 deaths instead of 26 is somehow preferred.
Question back at you. If the teachers were trained and armed how many people would this alleged shooter(s) have killed? 26? More? Less?
Every American has the right to shoot first and ask questions later.
I think that should do it. ................
nicely done, blue&white. you'll be taken seriously from here on out. thank you for your time & wonderful & clear thoughtout bull manure
No problem. In a forum where vitriolic jabs and nastiness are the norm, I'm not particularly concerned whether I've earned your seal of approval or not. From an outsider's perspective, America's gun issue is absolutely absurd and it certainly doesn't seem like many people are really willing to entertain an open dialogue, even on these forums.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
Yee Haw.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
Come on your bud. You know Military Style Assault Weapon is much more effective (speed accuracy) than typical long gun and even a pistol.
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Actually a pistol would be ideal for speed and close quarters accuracy.
(Temp bad guy role) If I had to plan an attack like this I would use a pistol, however I'm not a bad guy and of course I'm not going to do anything bad.
So I'm not entirely convinced that the report is entirely accurate.
Comments
And my penis is adequately sized regardless of my choice of rifles, thank you very much, lol
Porch killer sentenced to 17-32 years
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Home owner protects herself.
What's your point?
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
More guns. Woo hoo. Shoot em up.
Do you think Lanza took aim at every one of those kids or do you think he sprayed a few shots pulling the trigger as fast as he could assisted by his pistol grip?
My friend.
You are on the right track.
Really?
Your argument has come down to a pistol grip?
This thread has become humorous.
I'll bite.
What should it say?
I think that should do it.
This has not come down to a pistol grip, Unsung. This has come down to some guy telling everyone they don't know what defines an assault rifle. I told him some of the distinguishing characteristics that typically define an assault rifle.
What doesn't keep coming up is the responses one might expect from some of the prudent points made that Cletus wishes to dodge because he either doesn't understand what has been presented to him or he simply has no answer for.
Here's a lower level thinking stumper: how many bullets did Lanza fire that infamous day with his (hyuk hyuk) assault rifle?
Stumper number two which requires slightly above average thinking ability: would it have been possible for Lanza to fire that many shots with a shotgun or hunting rifle and a smaller magazine.
Let a couple pages go by and fire up again, huh? We haven't forgotten there, Champ.
I think that should do it.
................
nicely done, blue&white. you'll be taken seriously from here on out. thank you for your time & wonderful & clear thoughtout bull manure
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Ye haw, hyuk hyuk hyuk"-as stated by YOU!
Person says that mental is a huge problem with gun crimes, I disagree and I'm told to provide proof. Since I refuse to do the research for them they try to belittle my case. 500 people killed in Chicago annually, a high majority are gang related, yet I need to provide proof. Yeah, ok.
We have challenges and I will admit that human behavior change will do more than restricting guns.
Now getting funding to address the problem will now be our rub Mr Unsung. So what do we do. We can't just shoot our way out of the problem and don't want to live in society with everyone having six shooter strapped to their waist.
Store owner and robbers got into gun battle in my fair city today and mom pushing stroller was hit.
Answer #1: I don't know, nearly all evidence has been suppressed. Video surveillance hasn't been released, not even a still to prove Lanza did it. Early reports stated multiple shooters, now we are told to believe this 115lb weakling did this.
Answer #2: Probably. However this line of thinking is that 20 deaths instead of 26 is somehow preferred.
Question back at you. If the teachers were trained and armed how many people would this alleged shooter(s) have killed? 26? More? Less?
(Temp bad guy role) If I had to plan an attack like this I would use a pistol, however I'm not a bad guy and of course I'm not going to do anything bad.
So I'm not entirely convinced that the report is entirely accurate.