Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Blue]

Oh yea.....fight for your life, "I'd rather not be armed!!!"

Said nobody ever.

If your odds were better without a gun we wouldn't send our troops, cops and anti-gun celebrities/politicians out into the world protected with guns.

If someone is trying to kill you your odds of survival go up significantly if you're armed and the fastest way to safety when under attack is to neutralize said threat and a gun is the most practical way of achieving this.

But when neither of you are armed your odds of survival are much greater than even if both of you were. That's why Europe has a much much smaller murder rate in the USA. Troops overseas is a different story, but it's demonstrably true that a society with less guns and more difficult proliferation of them are safer than those with the inverse.

Basically it comes down to whether you would rather be in a knife fight than a gun fight.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

lmao. Have you been watching Fox? In what way is David Hogg a "liar" now?

They have never said they don't support the 2nd Amendment. Clearly you have you head up Laura Ingraham's ass. They've gone out of their way to try and assure 2nd Amendment rights. David Hogg's dad is an FBI agent and he grew up with guns in the house. So did Cameron Kasky, who's dad is a cop. They've said many times they don't want to stop people owning handguns.

They've included a ban on "assault weapons" as part of their aims. That doesn't mean banning all guns.

And they blame Congress and the NRA for preventing gun control legislation from moving forwards, obviously

Do you? It's the Parkland student that the MSM is parading around saying they want to ban AR15s. That is the exact message that the LIAR David Hogg has been preaching. It is the exact message Emma Gonzolez has been preaching. That's what the March for Lives has been preaching. That's pretty fucking clear. If you can't see that you need to get your head out of Hillary's ass and wipe the shit out of your eyes.

They do NOT support the second amendment. And it DOES have to do with the legal, law abiding gun owners as WE are the ones who pay the price. Blaming Congress and the NRA? What did THEY have to do with the Parkland shooting?

 

[BotanyBoy]

They've said many times they don't want to stop people owning handguns.

By FAR the most dangerous and commonly used class of weapon in gun violence.

They've included a ban on "assault weapons" as part of their aims. That doesn't mean banning all guns.

Doesn't mean banning any guns LOL

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well tell that to My I so he can stop crying.

Doesn't mean banning any guns LOL

 

[BotanyBoy]

But when neither of you are armed your odds of survival are much greater than even if both of you were.

And that's dumb, because I don't care about their odds of survival.

I want to effectively end their attack on me as fast as fuckin' possible and guns are exceedingly good at doing that, in fact they are the BEST tool for that job.

Basically it comes down to whether you would rather be in a knife fight than a gun fight.

No....it comes down to whether you think you have the right to secure yourself or if you think that is something only the state and/or state approved services should do.

Because guns are an equalizer.

Melee weapons? Not so much, especially considering bad guys might have guns!!

That's why all the anti-gun celebrities and politicians surround themselves with guns.

If you don't want to secure your own shit, that's fine...don't buy a gun or learn how to use it, not a problem.

But here in the USA you don't get to tell others they can't exercise their civil rights just because you don't want to. Withe the exception of a very limited number of HIGHLY unlikely circumstances that is not going to change any time soon either.

SO....the only real, relevant and adult conversation on the topic is regulation and enforcement.

We has a society have to manage it...there ARE things we can do that don't include prohibitions that violate 2A that large volumes of circumstantial evidence suggest would be worthy of our efforts. Like shall issue licensing, education/training, law enforcement....

Can you imagine if we quit spending 120 BILLION dollars and millions of man hours a year fucking with people for smoking weed and reallocated those man hours and monies to getting guns off the street/out of the hands of bad guys?? You can't tell me that wouldn't put a dent in our gun violence issues just on it's own.

But those conversations are too hard for most people and it inevitably reverts back to 'fuck you baby killer~!!' and 'natural inalienable rights!!'....canned talking points for the lazy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well tell that to My I so he can stop crying.

See....totally ignores the handgun facts, that discussion is HARD!

And I didn't see him crying.

Just calling bullshit what it is...bullshit.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Alright, then, here's an experiment. Let's just pretend for the hell of it you were someone who wanted extreme gun control. You know a lot about guns--enlighten us.

What exact part(s) of a semi-automatic would need to be banned in a way that would be effective and you couldn't just get around it?

Don't bother foaming at the mouth about how it "can't be done" and please don't show any pictures. Just explain. just PRETEND it could be done.

2. For all of us idjits who know nothing about guns (and proud of it), when "we" say assault weapons we mean:

--velocity of the bullets
--being able to kill a lot of people in minutes
--the kind of guns that pulverize internal organs "like smashed fruit"

Nurse from the Parkland shooting:

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

That is what we're talking about--the kinds of guns which produce those kinds of injuries. How would you go about banning these guns--suspending belief for the sake of it.

We don't mean:

--big parts of the gun that just make it look like the kind the military uses.

By FAR the most dangerous and commonly used class of weapon in gun violence.



Doesn't mean banning any guns LOL

 

[My I]

Both me and Kim explained how that chart doesn't say what you think it says pages ago...Go read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf

It's not an open question that the USA has a highly disproportionate homicide rate. You're just objectively wrong to claim otherwise.

Don't cop out. That's childish and rude. Explain it.

I have seen just about every chart you can come up with at one time or another NONE of them show a statistic for Armed attacker vs Armed Defender. None. Not with ANY weapon. So if you have a chart that shows that I want to see it.

 

[My I]

Alright, then, here's an experiment. Let's just pretend for the hell of it you were someone who wanted extreme gun control. You know a lot about guns--enlighten us.

What exact part(s) of a semi-automatic would need to be banned in a way that would be effective and you couldn't just get around it?

Don't bother foaming at the mouth about how it "can't be done" and please don't show any pictures. Just explain. just PRETEND it could be done.

2. For all of us idjits who know nothing about guns (and proud of it), when "we" say assault weapons we mean:

--velocity of the bullets
--being able to kill a lot of people in minutes
--the kind of guns that pulverize internal organs "like smashed fruit"

Nurse from the Parkland shooting:



That is what we're talking about--the kinds of guns which produce those kinds of injuries. How would you go about banning these guns--suspending belief for the sake of it.

We don't mean:

--big parts of the gun that just make it look like the kind the military uses.

And for the 1000th time, stop blaming inanimate objects and innocent people for the crimes of others. You are going to get those wounds from a criminal NOT the law abiding gun owner. PUNISH THE CRIMINAL.

See if you can find THIS chart. Find the chart that shows how many mass shooters were NRA members. You can't find it. Know why? Because NONE of them were.

There are over 6 million AR15s in America. Legally owned. There have been 5 (?) mass shootings using AR15s in the last 10 yrs. Seems to me if the AR15 was the cause there would be one HELL of a lot more mass shootings. But 80% of mass shootings are committed with handguns.

Stop ignoring the real problem and deal with it instead of all these bullshit attempts use your paranoia as an excuse to ban something you don't like.

 

[phrodeau]

Alright, then, here's an experiment. Let's just pretend for the hell of it you were someone who wanted extreme gun control. You know a lot about guns--enlighten us.

What exact part(s) of a semi-automatic would need to be banned in a way that would be effective and you couldn't just get around it?

Don't bother foaming at the mouth about how it "can't be done" and please don't show any pictures. Just explain. just PRETEND it could be done.

2. For all of us idjits who know nothing about guns (and proud of it), when "we" say assault weapons we mean:

--velocity of the bullets
--being able to kill a lot of people in minutes
--the kind of guns that pulverize internal organs "like smashed fruit"

Nurse from the Parkland shooting:



That is what we're talking about--the kinds of guns which produce those kinds of injuries. How would you go about banning these guns--suspending belief for the sake of it.

We don't mean:

--big parts of the gun that just make it look like the kind the military uses.

Not likely from him. He’d rather laugh at people’s ignorance, and he won’t propose solutions to something he thinks doesn’t exist.

Maybe he’s afraid of ridicule from his friends, who showed their ignorance and disdain for knowledge when fire extinguishers were brought up.

 

[My I]

But when neither of you are armed your odds of survival are much greater than even if both of you were. That's why Europe has a much much smaller murder rate in the USA. Troops overseas is a different story, but it's demonstrably true that a society with less guns and more difficult proliferation of them are safer than those with the inverse.

Basically it comes down to whether you would rather be in a knife fight than a gun fight.

That's why the gunmen who shot up a concert in France got to go on a 5 day shooting spree.

If no one had weapons you'd be safer? Yeah, that's why more people here are beaten to death with hands and feet than with ANY type of rifle. But let's assume for a moment you're right. Let's say you meet someone like Danny Trejo on the street and He attacks you with his bare hands. What do you think your odds are?

Let's say your wife is going to her car in a parking garage and a man twice her size decides he wants a piece of her ass. Is she an expert fighter? Or is the bad guy gonna get a piece of ass?

 

[coachdb18]

I think anyone with half a brain knows you don’t bring a fire extinguisher to a gunfight. Can you imagine an old western movie, and the bad guy and the good guy face off for a shootout, and the bad guy pulls a pistol whjle the good guy pulls a fire extinguisher from his holster? I don’t think they ever even did that in a Three Stooges movie.

And for those with a mental capacity to handle it, the Boy Scout analogy of ‘Be Prepared’ simply asked, if you’re not expecting anyone to burn down your house, why own a fire extinguisher? So you see, you’re also not expecting that you’re going to be a crime victim either, but shit happens, and because it does you take precautions and prepare yourself. It’s common sense.

 

[My I]

I think anyone with half a brain knows you don’t bring a fire extinguisher to a gunfight. Can you imagine an old western movie, and the bad guy and the good guy face off for a shootout, and the bad guy pulls a pistol whjle the good guy pulls a fire extinguisher from his holster? I don’t think they ever even did that in a Three Stooges movie.

And for those with a mental capacity to handle it, the Boy Scout analogy of ‘Be Prepared’ simply asked, if you’re not expecting anyone to burn down your house, why own a fire extinguisher? So you see, you’re also not expecting that you’re going to be a crime victim either, but shit happens, and because it does you take precautions and prepare yourself. It’s common sense.

Truth is, those who DO expect to be the target of a crime, are less likely to be. Because they stay alert and are looking for it. When a criminal sees someone who is alert and watching what is going on around them, they avoid that person. The criminal doesn't want you to see him coming. That is HIS unfair advantage.

The Liberals walk around with their nose buried in their "smart" phone completely oblivious to what is going on around them because they believe they will never be the target. Then, when they get to their car, out in the mall parking lot and out of nowhere someone puts a knife to their back and says, "Gimme the keys and your phone and your wallet and your watch and you wedding ring... " And then when he drives off with all their stuff they demand to know who is to BLAME?

Well, YOU are, Sweetcheeks. If you had been paying attention you would have SEEN that suspicious guy hanging around at the entrance with his hoodie pulled around his face. And would have SEEN that as you walked by he straightened up and started walking behind you. And you would have immediately said, "Dammit. Forgot my Latte!" and walked quickly back inside to report him to Mall security.

The ONLY other person to blame is the bad guy who robbed you. Well you certainly aren't going to punish yourself. You're a HERO now. You 'survived' a violent criminal attack by doing SWEET FUCK NOTHING. You complied and gave him all your stuff because HE has a right to live too. And then you went back inside to tell security they SUCK and you were robbed. Then you ask if you can borrow his cell phone to call Mommy.

Since you liberals like asking the emotionally charged questions, let me ask you one.

What would you rather be telling a Police officer? The description of the man who just rapped you, sodomized you, stabbed you and left you for dead? Or why that man man is lying in a pool of blood in the parking lot?

 

[dan_c00000]

Truth is, those who DO expect to be the target of a crime, are less likely to be.

Yeah, for like pickpocketing not for sitting in school wondering if you'll get shot in the face. I'm sure you always pay attention constantly to everything and no one could ever get the drop on you Inspector Clouseau.

That's the same rationale your hero, Bush II, used to get us started in a never-ending war on terror.

 

[coachdb18]

When I see a bunch of acne faced whiney high school kids being loud and obnoxious for their ‘gun control’ handlers, I’m reminded of the National Geographic video of the little full of energy and spunk bear cub wandering up to the big sleeping Adult male bear, and pestering the living shit out of him, which upon about the third such occurrence, the resting giant takes one giant paw to the little fucker, knocking him about 3/4 of the way across the Sarenghetti. At which point the little guy somberly staggers back to a safe distance and puts his soft little rattled head down for a nap!

 

[Hypoxia]

If nobody is trying to set your house on fire, why do you need a fire extinguisher?

To defend against armed intruders.

It's also pretty effective at driving away stray dogs, cicada swarms, and religious solicitors, and to provide interesting effects whilst painting. Makes a good doorstop, too.

Pistols and small fire extinguishers, kitchen- or RV-size, can both be used as hammers, paperweights, bug-squashers, windowstops, campfire pokers, and various other applications. But the pistol probably fits easier in your pocket.

Is that a fire extinguisher in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

 

[My I]

The real reason the Libs hate the NRA.

Libs don't like facing the truth.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Alright, then, here's an experiment. Let's just pretend for the hell of it you were someone who wanted extreme gun control. You know a lot about guns--enlighten us.

What exact part(s) of a semi-automatic would need to be banned in a way that would be effective and you couldn't just get around it?

As I, and many others from Law Enforcement to other small arms experts and even a retired Justice has already been telling you.

You would have to ban semi automatics for there to be any real effect via prohibition.

2. For all of us idjits who know nothing about guns (and proud of it), when "we" say assault weapons we mean:

--velocity of the bullets
--being able to kill a lot of people in minutes
--the kind of guns that pulverize internal organs "like smashed fruit"

velocity = rifles at large.

Being able to kill a lot of people in minutes = semi automatic and even a lot of single actions, pretty much any gun not a muzzle loading musket.

And most guns with more power than a handgun shooting target rounds or wad cutters tend to pulverize internal organs "like smashed fruit" ....that's what they do.

We don't mean:

--big parts of the gun that just make it look like the kind the military uses.

That's exactly what you're saying when you say "assault weapon" though.

 

[coachdb18]

To be clear, liberals tried Prohibition once (with alcohol), and it was a dismal failure. They’ve tried for years to ban cigarettes, but that too has been far from successful. They seem bent on occupying themselves with everything ATF. If only they spent as much time and effort banning illegal aliens!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3CD537C2CCFBF04FB38D3CD537C&FORM=VIRE&PC=APPL

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not likely from him. He’d rather laugh at people’s ignorance, and he won’t propose solutions to something he thinks doesn’t exist.

Maybe he’s afraid of ridicule from his friends, who showed their ignorance and disdain for knowledge when fire extinguishers were brought up.

I've proposed numerous ideas to curb and control gun violence that don't involve prohibition.

Just because you want to ignore it to keep up with the "assault weapons" myth doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[coachdb18]

Are the Red fire extinguishers the’assault fire extinguishers ‘, because they do seem scarier, and it does make them easier to identify, and if we ever get enough people in the streets, to ban them entirely

 

[Hypoxia]

The real reason the Libs hate the NRA.

Oh goody, another bullshit uTube video to ignore! You could learn to quote text, hey?

 

[phrodeau]

To be clear, liberals tried Prohibition once (with alcohol), and it was a dismal failure. They’ve tried for years to ban cigarettes, but that too has been far from successful. They seem bent on occupying themselves with everything ATF. If only they spent as much time and effort banning illegal aliens!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3CD537C2CCFBF04FB38D3CD537C&FORM=VIRE&PC=APPL

To be more clear, Prohibition was the product of god-bothering Protestants.

But then, everybody is a potential enemy to you, aren't they? Keep that gun handy.

 

[dan_c00000]

Are the Red fire extinguishers

I'm pretty sure fire extinguishers don't go out an actively murder children. Unless you've got a different type of extinguisher over there in racist, homophobic, pro-child killing land.

 

[coachdb18]

I'm pretty sure fire extinguishers don't go out an actively murder children. Unless you've got a different type of extinguisher over there in racist, homophobic, pro-child killing land.

Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure abortion clinics DO have fire extinguishers