America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html

The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.

Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.

"The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15."

A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.

Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html

The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.

Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.

"The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15."

A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.

Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.

ftfy

There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html

The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.

Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.

"The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15."

A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.

Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.

How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.

I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/28/oklahoma-home-invasion-shooting-suspected-getaway-driver-arrested.html

The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.

Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.

"The decision marks the fifth time that a federal appeals court has upheld a state assault weapons law, but it goes further than those previous decisions. It is the first to exclude AR-15s and other similar guns from Second Amendment protection on the grounds that they are virtually indistinguishable from weapons of war. The court found that such designation overrides considerations of the common usage or suitability for home self-defense of a gun like the AR-15."

A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.

Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.

How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.

I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.

Now you're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about water pistols. Which, incidentally require something like a bright orange tip to specifically distinguish them from real guns.

Let's say I make $50K per year. And I buy a $500 gun. That's 1% of my income.

Last year Bill Gates fortune went from $75 billion to $86 billion. 1% of that is $110 million dollars. Which is roughly the cost of a brand new F-35. Why shouldn't he be able to purchase one if he can afford it?