The 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean you have a right to own an AR-15

[DeluxAuto]

There was a study that just came out about CCW permit holders and the police in a shooting event.

Fewer people died when the CCW permit holder was on the scene when the shooting began. Fewer shots were fired and there was less property damage. There wasn't much difference between CCW holders taking out the bad guy and the police doing it, but there was a difference.

So it seems as if your belief that more guns equal more bloodshed doesn't hold up to actual reality. To me what it does say is that your belief was formed based on MMRPG and political narrative rather than actual facts.

The NRA making a "study" doesn't mean shit, Derpy.

 

[eric_erosfan]

I'm thinking we are being played by the OP. I think he knows both these rifles take the same round and have the same firing mechanism. He is trolling as an anti-gun activist that is ignorant about guns.

 

[HisArpy]

The NRA making a "study" doesn't mean shit, Derpy.

It wasn't done by the NRA.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm thinking we are being played by the OP. I think he knows both these rifles take the same round and have the same firing mechanism. He is trolling as an anti-gun activist that is ignorant about guns.

I don't think he knows or cares. I think he's just spewing his anti-gun nonsense because he believes it makes him look clued up to his anti-gun friends. Friends who don't know any better either.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It wasn't done by the NRA.

Oh, good. Then it should be even easier for you to link it up.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, good. Then it should be even easier for you to link it up.

<-- Is constantly wondering why you and the rest of Lit's trolls can't figure out how to do the googie...

Took all of .5 nano-seconds...


Direct Link to the Study

 

[DeluxAuto]

<-- Is constantly wondering why you and the rest of Lit's trolls can't figure out how to do the googie...

Took all of .5 nano-seconds...


Direct Link to the Study

No, the burden of proof is on you and your claim which you failed to provide from the jump.

You suck harder at this than lawyering.

 

[HisArpy]

No, the burden of proof is on you and your claim which you failed to provide from the jump.

You suck harder at this than lawyering.

Here's the deal. I don't come to Lit to get the latest information on current events. I come here to discuss current events that I've already read about.

You, OTOH, not so much.

Which is why you need to be constantly spoon fed information you have no intention of ever reading anyway because it conflicts with your spew and hate narrative.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Here's the deal. I don't come to Lit to get the latest information on current events. I come here to discuss current events that I've already read about.

You, OTOH, not so much.

Which is why you need to be constantly spoon fed information you have no intention of ever reading anyway because it conflicts with your spew and hate narrative.

It's hilarious that you say this when I have literally never been proven wrong by any of you MAGAts. Ever. Not once.

You on the other, I drive to school, educate you, and then make you stay for detention like the fucking dunce you are.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

My take is that we should use the NRA's own rules for safe firearm handling as the basis for laws regarding firearms.

Didn't verify the loaded/unloaded status of a firearm? Misdemeanour. Property damage? Felony vandalism. Person injured? Felony assault. Person died. Manslaughter.

Pointed weapon at someone/thing you didn't intend to shoot? Same punishments as above.

Lost control of your weapon? Same punishments.

Firearms require training and care. Too many people only know which end of them the 'bang!' comes out of.

The NRA actually supported and helped with gun safety in schools at one time. In the 50’s over half of pubic HS’s had active shooting programs, largely sponsored and or supported by the NRA. Students went through rigorous weeks of testing before one live round went down range.

Ask yourself. What has changed?

 

[RobDownSouth]

<-- Is constantly wondering why you and the rest of Lit's trolls can't figure out how to do the googie...

Took all of .5 nano-seconds...


Direct Link to the Study

Let's see here. a "study" by an outfit called the "Crime Prevention Research Center ".

Okay, never heard of them, let's look them up.

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!

It's John Feckin' Lott!

Heeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!

The "Crime Prevention Research Center" is a fig leaf to camouflage the authorship of the discredited ammosexual gun fanatic John Lott (aka "Mary Rosh". his infamous "sock puppet" account).

John Lott was so intellectually dishonest he was featured in his own chapter in the bestseller "Freakonomics" .
He disappeared in shame off the face of the Earth, having been de-platformed and blackballed by virtually all conservative media organizations).

WELL BAYBEEEE, HE'S BACK AND HE HAS A...WAIT FOR IT....LOTT TO SAY!

 

[DeluxAuto]

What has changed?

Mentally damaged losers have easy access to weapons of mass destruction.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Let's see here. a "study" by an outfit called the "Crime Prevention Research Center ".

Okay, never heard of them, let's look them up.

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!

It's John Feckin' Lott!

Heeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!

The "Crime Prevention Research Center" is a fig leaf to camouflage the authorship of the discredited ammosexual gun fanatic John Lott (aka "Mary Rosh". his infamous "sock puppet" account).

John Lott was so intellectually dishonest he was featured in his own chapter in the bestseller "Freakonomics" .
He disappeared in shame off the face of the Earth, having been de-platformed and blackballed by virtually all conservative media organizations).

WELL BAYBEEEE, HE'S BACK AND HE HAS A...WAIT FOR IT....LOTT TO SAY!

Thank you for slapping Derpy upside his ignorant MAGAT head.

 

[Politruk]

Come to think of it, has there been any actual court case ruling on whether regulating ownership of AR-15s is constitutional?

 

[HisArpy]

Let's see here. a "study" by an outfit called the "Crime Prevention Research Center ".

Okay, never heard of them, let's look them up.

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!

It's John Feckin' Lott!

Heeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!

The "Crime Prevention Research Center" is a fig leaf to camouflage the authorship of the discredited ammosexual gun fanatic John Lott (aka "Mary Rosh". his infamous "sock puppet" account).

John Lott was so intellectually dishonest he was featured in his own chapter in the bestseller "Freakonomics" .
He disappeared in shame off the face of the Earth, having been de-platformed and blackballed by virtually all conservative media organizations).

WELL BAYBEEEE, HE'S BACK AND HE HAS A...WAIT FOR IT....LOTT TO SAY!

John Lott is a firearms subject matter expert. The study compiles public information and then draws conclusions from that data.

YOU, on the other hand, aren't an expert on anything as far as I can tell. Hell, you can't even vilify someone on the internet without making yourself look stupid at the same time.

 

[Politruk]

John Lott is a firearms subject matter expert.

Only in the sense that Kent Hovind is an expert on evolution.

John Lott:

John Richard Lott Jr. (1958–) is an economist known mainly for his "research" claiming to prove that less restrictive gun laws reduce crime. He originally attracted public attention with a study he co-authored with fellow economist David Mustard that was published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1997 claiming to prove that "right-to-carry laws", which make it easier for people to obtain concealed weapons permits. Shortly before the study was published, Lott testified in front of Nebraska lawmakers claiming that the study proved that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.[1] Debunkings swiftly followed: the very same year, an article in the American Journal of Public Health pointed out that "Several serious flaws in the study render the authors' conclusions insupportable."[2] A reanalysis of the Lott and Mustard data published in 1998 by Black and Nagin found "no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime".[3]

Lott followed this study with a book entitled More Guns, Less Crime, first published in 1998, with new editions following in 2000 and 2010. Despite additional debunkings of the claims in this book, by everyone from Stanford and Yale researchers[4] to computer scientist Tim Lambert[5] Lott continues to insist that he is correct about more relaxed concealed carry laws increasing public safety. In 2003, he admitted to having invented the pseudonym "Mary Rosh" to argue with his critics online (including Lambert) over the previous three years, after being criticized for being unable to provide data from, or basic information about, a survey he claimed to have conducted.[6][3] Lott has claimed his son, under that pseudonym, wrote a raving review of his More Guns, Less Crime book.

In 2013, Lott founded a phony "think tank" called the "Crime Prevention Research Center", through which he has excreted numerous methodologically shoddy, non-peer-reviewed papers onto the Social Science Research Networkhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png on all manner of pro-conservative topics, ranging from police supposedly not being racist[7] to undocumented immigrants supposedly committing crime at super-high rates[8][9] to the 2020 U.S. presidential election supposedly being rife with fraud.[10]

And if you're still doubting his overall credibility, he's a climate change denier.[11] He wrote an op-ed on Fox News detailing the Climategate "scandal". He was fixated on the "to hide the decline" aspect, which he probably assumed was a temperature decline and not decline of tree ring density, but he also littered a bunch of quote-mined discussions from scientists, such as the "The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." quote from Kevin Trenberth.


That, sir, is the portrait of a crank.

 

[HisArpy]

Only in the sense that Kent Hovind is an expert on evolution.

John Lott:

John Richard Lott Jr. (1958–) is an economist known mainly for his "research" claiming to prove that less restrictive gun laws reduce crime. He originally attracted public attention with a study he co-authored with fellow economist David Mustard that was published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1997 claiming to prove that "right-to-carry laws", which make it easier for people to obtain concealed weapons permits. Shortly before the study was published, Lott testified in front of Nebraska lawmakers claiming that the study proved that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.[1] Debunkings swiftly followed: the very same year, an article in the American Journal of Public Health pointed out that "Several serious flaws in the study render the authors' conclusions insupportable."[2] A reanalysis of the Lott and Mustard data published in 1998 by Black and Nagin found "no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime".[3]

Lott followed this study with a book entitled More Guns, Less Crime, first published in 1998, with new editions following in 2000 and 2010. Despite additional debunkings of the claims in this book, by everyone from Stanford and Yale researchers[4] to computer scientist Tim Lambert[5] Lott continues to insist that he is correct about more relaxed concealed carry laws increasing public safety. In 2003, he admitted to having invented the pseudonym "Mary Rosh" to argue with his critics online (including Lambert) over the previous three years, after being criticized for being unable to provide data from, or basic information about, a survey he claimed to have conducted.[6][3] Lott has claimed his son, under that pseudonym, wrote a raving review of his More Guns, Less Crime book.

In 2013, Lott founded a phony "think tank" called the "Crime Prevention Research Center", through which he has excreted numerous methodologically shoddy, non-peer-reviewed papers onto the Social Science Research Networkhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png on all manner of pro-conservative topics, ranging from police supposedly not being racist[7] to undocumented immigrants supposedly committing crime at super-high rates[8][9] to the 2020 U.S. presidential election supposedly being rife with fraud.[10]

And if you're still doubting his overall credibility, he's a climate change denier.[11] He wrote an op-ed on Fox News detailing the Climategate "scandal". He was fixated on the "to hide the decline" aspect, which he probably assumed was a temperature decline and not decline of tree ring density, but he also littered a bunch of quote-mined discussions from scientists, such as the "The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." quote from Kevin Trenberth.


That, sir, is the portrait of a crank.

You are allowed to disagree with his findings but it doesn't change the truth that he's a subject matter expert. this is how it works, one side promotes an expert, the other side promotes their expert and the winning expert is the one whose conclusions are the most accurate when compared to the actual facts.

Since Lott drew his conclusion from actual facts, and you don't have any, I'm going to side with his study.

Oh, as for your climate change bullshit...

https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/04/21/how-the-ipcc-buried-the-medieval-warm-period-n3801984

Facts will always triumph over bullshit.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You are allowed to disagree with his findings but it doesn't change the truth that he's a subject matter expert. this is how it works, one side promotes an expert, the other side promotes their expert and the winning expert is the one whose conclusions are the most accurate when compared to the actual facts.

Then take you're own advice, I am a subject matter expert in the Field of Electricity, and yet here you are continuing your argument that a 12 volt car battery can electrocute a person. You are a half wit lawyer, who failed science and physics in high school.

Which of us is winning?

 

[Bray123]

Besides one being black, and therefore scary, there's no difference between the two rifles.

Both are semi-automatic and only fire one shot per trigger pull. Both have removable magazines. Both fire a .22 caliber round. Both can mount a scope. Both have attachable slings.

But one is black and the other isn't.

I wonder if anyone else can see the democrat hypocrisy about something being black and therefore "bad."

You think that black is scary.

Hmm.

 

[Politruk]

Come to think of it, has there been any actual court case ruling on whether regulating ownership of AR-15s is constitutional?

Anybody know?

 

[Politruk]

N.B.: When people start talking about banning assault rifles, and you start nitpicking the definition of "assault rifle," that makes you the asshole.

Never forget that.

 

[Politruk]

Oh, as for your climate change bullshit...

https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/04/21/how-the-ipcc-buried-the-medieval-warm-period-n3801984

Facts will always triumph over bullshit.

No one denies there was a medieval warm period -- but it was nothing like what is happening now. Even you know that.

 

[HisArpy]

Then take you're own advice, I am a subject matter expert in the Field of Electricity, and yet here you are continuing your argument that a 12 volt car battery can electrocute a person. You are a half wit lawyer, who failed science and physics in high school.

Which of us is winning?

My argument isn't about 12v normally not being enough to kill someone.

My argument is that there's enough amperage in a 12v car battery to kill IF there's a circuit AND that circuit can be created by almost anything on the skin.

YOUR argument is that you're stupid enough to post pics of you doing dumb shit with electricity on the internet and getting away with it (because you take precautions you don't mention at all) and thinking other people won't follow suit. YOU commit DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE workplace acts and think it's fine because you feel a need to "own someone" on the internet and don't care if anyone else gets hurt by it.

That actually speaks against you being an "expert" regardless of your profession because an "expert" wouldn't do the shit you've done in the pics you've posted here. Your ego has done you a major disservice.

Of the 2 of us, I'll follow my advice and NEVER EVER use a body part to bridge across 2 live electric poles. Which means, in the grander scheme of things, I'm ALWAYS going to be the one who wins in the end.

You, not so much.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My argument isn't about 12v normally not being enough to kill someone.

My argument is that there's enough amperage in a 12v car battery to kill IF there's a circuit AND that circuit can be created by almost anything on the skin.

AS I said, car batteries have been around for 100 years, go get one death from electrocution. Just one fucking death. It shouldn't be that hard...but it is. Why because it's not possible. You keep saying amperage....well dummy the heart stops with just 100, 120 milliamps. High amperage isn't the cause....low amperage is.

When you use ohms law, E=I/R with 12 volts DC, there is no way to send 100 to 120 milliamps across the human heart. None, zero,zilch, no matter if the source can send 1 million amps. No matter if the skin is wet, or cut, or.....It's calculated to be 42.4 Volts DC as the threshold to have the possibility of your heart being stopped.

So just shut the fuck up about something you know nothing on. I am the fucking expert here, like it or not. *chuckles*

 

[DeluxAuto]

John Lott is a firearms subject matter expert

Which doesn't qualify him for being an expert at research and data, you DerpyDumbFuck.