America's Gun Violence

unsung

callen said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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 don't know what an assault rifle is. The word assault is a verb, an action. It is not a noun.

If you happen to be speaking of a sporting firearm like an AR-15 then I would just call them what the general government calls them when they purchase them, which is personal defense weapons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/

Personal defense weapons doesn't describe Ar15 type weapon. Give us another approved term that better describes. Please Help us liberals.

It's the term your government uses when they purchase them, so it is good enough for me.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER said:

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!

If you are far from a backwoods redneck... you didn't come across so with your condescending posts that offered nothing more than the unsubstantiated opinion you nauseatingly flaunted.

Like most other challenging questions posed to you, I see you never bothered to answer the 'stumpers'. I'll help you out.

Stumper number 1 required an answer of 156 spent casings (in less than 12 minutes of killing kids in the school).

As for stumper number 2... this could be debated, but I'd say a bolt action 30-06 with a 10 round magazine wouldn't meet the killing capacity the AR-15 had that day.

I mean... look at the AR-15's potential:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY

callen

unsung said:

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.

Can see that at close range.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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. In fact, many places will not let you use a .223 to hunt deer because it is considered too small of a 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". If you want the gun owners to "find a middle ground" at least take the extra effort to prove to us that you know what you are talking about, because there are people in the media that think rubber ear plugs are bullets.

You claim to have exclusive knowledge over liberals but you are proving yourself wrong. I will start by saying that .223's are considered MORE deadly than some larger calibers due to the potential to bounce around inside ribcages causing massive damage. I have done surgery on twenty-two wounds where we couldn't even track the bullet path, and I have seen forty-fives that smashed ribs and flattened out with much less damagE...I wouldn't want to be shot by anything, but given a choice I'd take a 9mm over .223 any day. As far as the pistol grip is concerned, pardon my French but you are full of shit. Aside from providing a stable grip for firing down the sights, if you want to claim that firing from the hip does not add a tactical advantage in a multiple target scenario where you are not under return fire, you need your fookin head checked! As asked, if a pistol grip is not a tactical improvement, why is it equipped in military weapons? To look "scary" as you claim? You gunners dance and dance, and no amount of logic will break through your love affair with weaponry. My 22 long rifle with tube magazine is nowhere near the mass killing machine as my cousin's ar-15 blackout! This I know as a fact from shooting both of them.

dignin

blueandwhite said:

chadwick said:

blueandwhite said:

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.

It is absurd to say the least.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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?

If teachers were trained and armed, this shooter would not have been able to kill as many people as he did.

But I'm not going to suggest that you are on to something here. The answer to this problem cannot be more guns and more people with guns. Surely, you do not wish for schools to be fortresses with armed teachers.

Unsung... you are a smart person. But for the life of me... I cannot believe the perspective you have on some of these issues. Don't get me wrong- I don't think you are the type of person that would cause anyone harm in any way; however, your beliefs- despite the fact that they have some merit in off-tangent ways- are just fundamentally different than mine.

Specifically, I refer to your: distrust of authorities, position on gun control, and your insistence on conspiracies behind some major events among others.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

And 20 dead is much more preferable than 26.

unsung

I am not calling it a conspiracy yet, but I don't take the government report as gospel either. The truth is somewhere in between.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And 20 dead is much more preferable than 26.

I prefer zero. Train and arm the teachers.

Pingfah

You are dangerously paranoid, and the perfect example of the sort of person who should not be allowed anywhere near firearms.

Gern Blansten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRkvg_LuZvk

callen

Pingfah said:

You are dangerously paranoid, and the perfect example of the sort of person who should not be allowed anywhere near firearms.

I don't know about that, Unsung I believe understands the issues and I believe would be responsible gun owner. Hell he comes to liberal site to state his case and gets the other sides views which most irresponsible gun owners don't do. And we've all been passionate on our views and I believe enjoy debate so our actual views are probably less extreme than what's presented. And love to be his neighbor as I surely wouldn't need a gun as he has me covered.

fife

unsung said:

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.

how dare people suggest that you back up what you say with proof? what is this a discussion?

1st rule of a discussion is when you say something you should back it up.

PJPOWER

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRkvg_LuZvk

Hmmm, catchy. I am beyond done taking this forum seriously. Carry on, brotha, I've got dove to shoot and hunting reports to pay attention to! "Ye haw, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk"

PJPOWER

...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And 20 dead is much more preferable than 26.

I prefer zero. Train and arm the teachers.

I prefer zero too.

Take the guns out of the hands of lunatics.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And 20 dead is much more preferable than 26.

I prefer zero. Train and arm the teachers.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/09/03/professor-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-foot-while-teaching/

Seriously? What if this would have killed a student?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRkvg_LuZvk

Hmmm, catchy. I am beyond done taking this forum seriously. Carry on, brotha, I've got dove to shoot and hunting reports to pay attention to! "Ye haw, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk"

Gee. Really?

And here I thought you might have something to say about my counter to your 'deadbolt rifle is just as... no, in fact, it's more dangerous than the AR-15'.

And I also thought that you might have wanted to say something about rgambs' counter to your 'only Rambo shoots from the hip ya dumbass' quip (not to mention you might have had to address the youtube contribution showing the AR-15 kickin' a little ass on some pond being fired from the hip and, if we're being honest, proving it's effectiveness over the 'typical' hunting rifle).

But, as I've alluded to a couple of times now... the tougher items tend to get ignored by you.

If I could take a few steps backwards, I recognized an attempt at introducing levity with one of your responses (a poke at east Texas I think?)... so I recognize there's a decent guy I am corresponding too. This discussion would be a lot more beneficial if you wouldn't, as rgambs put it... "claim to have exclusive knowledge over liberals." It's disrespectful and this is why you might be facing some 'subtle' hostilities in the last page or two.

unsung

Pingfah said:

You are dangerously paranoid, and the perfect example of the sort of person who should not be allowed anywhere near firearms.

Welcome to the thread. Next time add something that continues the thread rather than posting a personal attack. Your contribution has been invaluable.

unsung

fife said:

unsung said:

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.

how dare people suggest that you back up what you say with proof? what is this a discussion?

1st rule of a discussion is when you say something you should back it up.

Please show me proof that mental illness is behind the 500 murders in Chicago each year and we can discuss this further.

See I believe it is gang violence, violence that would exist with or without firearms, and it is created by poverty, low education, poor family structure, and an overall hopeless environment.