America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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. 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.

PJ_Soul said:

I just think it's time for them to completely rewrite the 2nd amendment.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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. 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.

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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. 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.

PJPOWER said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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. 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

blueandwhite said:

unsung said:

callen said:

unsung said:

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.

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