For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[Wilbur Right]

Apparently you didn't read the rest of my reply. Had you, you wouldn't have responded as you just did above. That you did respond as you did just above shows precisely why "no" alone was insufficient.

Woes to the man that enters into the realm of the gun nutters. Where common sense is extremely uncommon and absurd claims (2.5 million DGUs per year) are accepted as gospel.

Good luck and good hunting and have fun with the 2nd A poster. He is ate up about guns and should be here momentarily. I believe he has alerts set up to notify him anytime someone seriously questions the DGU survey you mentioned.


Other than that, I am surprised you entered into the gun fray.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Jesus you're delirious.

Well of course.

Soldiers will happily napalm mommy just to support your war to end the Constitution..

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Your use of the term "commies" reinforces my point, thanks.

You demand we refer to you as "Bolsheviks" instead?

 

[Fenton Lum]

[
Jesus you're delirious.

Well of course.

Soldiers will happily napalm mommy just to support your war to end the Constitution..

Great in depth point, thanks.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

What's "my party" you idiot?

Well it ain't the GOP, now is it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
For the life of me I just cannot buy into your inane "left" versus "right" bullshit hon.

You prefer "party versus infidels?"

 

[Fenton Lum]

[

Your use of the term "commies" reinforces my point, thanks.

You demand we refer to you as "Bolsheviks" instead?

I doub't you know the difference at all. You've just been indoctrinated to use the terms as epithets.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Great in depth point, thanks.

Your fellow leftist posted a meme that F-16's would be used on those who dissent party views. What do you expect, serious analysis?

Honestly, you of the left are delusional hacks. You may be sincere in your dedication to end civil rights, but you have no grasp on reality or reasoned argument.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[
Great in depth point, thanks.

Your fellow leftist posted a meme that F-16's would be used on those who dissent party views. What do you expect, serious analysis?

Honestly, you of the left are delusional hacks. You may be sincere in your dedication to end civil rights, but you have no grasp on reality or reasoned argument.

I have no idea what you're talking about but that's what happens when you try to categorized all of humanity into your various boxes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I doub't you know the difference at all. You've just been indoctrinated to use the terms as epithets.

Indoctrinated by whom?

Further, why would you consider this and epithet? The democratic party was started by Andrew Jackson, but has far less to do with that old scumbag than with Josef Stalin, the iconic figure of the Bolsheviks.

 

[320 Years of History]

Apparently you didn't read the rest of my reply. Had you, you wouldn't have responded as you just did above. That you did respond as you did just above shows precisely why "no" alone was insufficient.

Woes to the man that enters into the realm of the gun nutters. Where common sense is extremely uncommon and absurd claims (2.5 million DGUs per year) are accepted as gospel.

Good luck and good hunting and have fun with the 2nd A poster. He is ate up about guns and should be here momentarily. I believe he has alerts set up to notify him anytime someone seriously questions the DGU survey you mentioned.


Other than that, I am surprised you entered into the gun fray.

Red:
LOL...That makes two of us.

Truly, however, my fist two posts in this thread made no effort to discuss guns themselves, but rather the ineptitude and rampant material inaccuracies in the OP.

1. For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.
2. For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

I don't frankly want to engage in 2nd Amendment and gun control discussions, and most especially not the one that surely is going on in this thread which was begun with at least three factual falsehoods and one gross misrepresentation of context.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I doub't you know the difference at all. You've just been indoctrinated to use the terms as epithets.

Indoctrinated by whom?

Further, why would you consider this and epithet? The democratic party was started by Andrew Jackson, but has far less to do with that old scumbag than with Josef Stalin, the iconic figure of the Bolsheviks.

Andrew Jackson was just as big a scumbag as Stalin, Stalin just came later and as such had better killing technology.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I have no idea what you're talking about

Then I can only suggest you drink less, or take a reading comprehension course.

but that's what happens when you try to categorized all of humanity into your various boxes.

You may not have noticed, but you are on a message board. IRL you may be a swell gal, but here you are what you post.

And what you post are the ramblings of a far left whackadoodle.

 

[Fenton Lum]

[
I have no idea what you're talking about

Then I can only suggest you drink less, or take a reading comprehension course.

but that's what happens when you try to categorized all of humanity into your various boxes.

You may not have noticed, but you are on a message board. IRL you may be a swell gal, but here you are what you post.

And what you post are the ramblings of a far left whackadoodle.

Agan, you make my point for me, thanks.

 

[Siete]

I doub't you know the difference at all. You've just been indoctrinated to use the terms as epithets.

Indoctrinated by whom?

Further, why would you consider this and epithet? The democratic party was started by Andrew Jackson, but has far less to do with that old scumbag than with Josef Stalin, the iconic figure of the Bolsheviks.

Bolsheviks .... yeppers, that certainly addresses the the issue of automaitc weapon rate of fire .........

Joe Stain .... LAO

 

[Chuz Life]

Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.

All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.

Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?

No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.

If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.

Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.

Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name." -- is precisely that?

Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:

Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;​

The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.

The answer "no" will suffice.

They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .

The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.

If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.

The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.

In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.

If you have to "militarize" an AR-15 to make it function LIKE the MK-16. . . then they are not the same same fucking gun. Are they.

Gawd you leftardz are dense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Andrew Jackson was just as big a scumbag as Stalin, Stalin just came later and as such had better killing technology.

Perhaps then, the democratic - socialist party of Hillary Clinton is "fruit of the poisonous tree?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bolsheviks .... yeppers, that certainly addresses the the issue of automaitc weapon rate of fire .........

Joe Stain .... LAO

Derp derp derpity derp indeed.

 

[Siete]

Bolsheviks .... yeppers, that certainly addresses the the issue of automaitc weapon rate of fire .........

Joe Stain .... LAO

Derp derp derpity derp indeed.

very profound, even for you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.

So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.

Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.

Thanks, Chuz, but the anti-gun Left doesn't give a shit about facts. We're already seen that a few times on this thread alone.

You want facts:

2,000 – 5,200: Estimated number of gun shows that take place in the U.S. each year.

19.5/1: Ratio of people killed by firearms in the U.S. compared to other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, according to a 2011 UCLA School of Public Health study. For 15-to-24-year-olds, firearm homicide rates are 42.7 times higher in the U.S. than in other OECD countries.

132.1: Rise in stock market value of gun-maker Smith & Wesson throughout 2015. The shares of gun-makers Strum Ruger and Vista also performed extraordinarily well last year, rising 72.1 and 29.9 percent, respectively.

2.97: Gun homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. in 2012, compared to 38.97 in Venezuela, 0.51 in Canada, 0.19 in Germany, 0.14 in Australia, 0.07 in England and Wales and 0.06 in France, according to data compiled by The Guardian.

310 million: Number of civilian firearms in the U.S. as of 2009, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report. The Washington Post found that if the number were to be updated with data from 2013, there would be more guns than people in the U.S.

1892: Year in which the city of Kennesaw, Ga., passed legislation that requires all of its residents to carry guns. The law is still in effect, though there are a number of loopholes that residents can use to opt out.

60: Percentage of people killed by guns who die by suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans between ages 15 and 34. Across all age groups, it ranks as the 10th most common cause of death.

372: Number of mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, according to data from Mass Shooting Tracker, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded. Last year, 475 people were killed and 1,870 were wounded.

80: Percentage of people who carry out mass shootings who are using legally obtained firearms.

27: Number of Americans killed in shooting incidents on Christmas day last year, equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Bermuda, Estonia, Iceland and Hong Kong, combined.

16.4: Average number of “active shooting incidents” — individuals killing or trying to kill people in a populated area — per year between 2007 and 2013, up from 6.4 between 2000 and 2007.

47: Percentage of Americans who say they are in favor of stricter gun laws, according to Gallup. This percentage is much lower than the 58 percent of people recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

85: Percentage of Americans who said they favor expanding background checks for gun buyers, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July 2015. Both Democrats (88 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) supported the idea.

$17 million: Amount of money the NRA spent on the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

31: Percentage of American households that reported having a firearm in 2014, the lowest level of reported gun ownership in the last 40 years.

22.4: Percentage of adults in the U.S. who owned a gun as of 2014, up a bit from a record low of 20.6 percent in 2010.

23 million: Number of background checks the FBI conducted in 2015, nearly three times the 8.5 million completed in 2000.

11 million: Number of guns made in the U.S. in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook massacre. That’s more than twice as many as the 5.4 million firearms produced in 2010.

48: Percentage of Americans who cite protection as the main reason to own a gun, while 32 percent said hunting. In 1999, 49 percent of Americans said hunting was the main reason to own a gun, while just 26 percent said protection.

15: Number of minutes that passed in 2016 before the first shooting of the year occurred — at 12:15 am on Jan. 1, 2016.

39: Percentage by which gun-related homicides dropped between 1993 and 2011.

Views of the National Rifle Association have become more politically and ideologically polarized over the course of a decade and a half. Among conservative Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, a slim share (13%) said the NRA has too much influence over gun control policy in 2015, compared with 32% who said the same in 2000. In July 2015, nearly six-in-ten (59%) said the NRA has the right amount of influence, and 23% said it has too little.

What are the stats on the number of times that a firearm has been used in an act of self defense? How many lives were saved, Etc?

I don't know the answer to either question. I know that one pair of writers attempted to address your questions. According to them, some 2.5 million is the answer. The problem, however, is that their study/conclusions have been roundly discredited as follows:

• Even if one accepts the 2.5 million statistic was correct at the time it was computed, it must be obsolete today, for the same reason that the victimization survey data is obsolete. The 1995 study that generated the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses relied upon data collected when crime rates were vastly higher than they are today. Some of the data was collected in 1981, near the very peak of the post-Vietnam War crime wave. It's just incredible on its face that defensive gun use would remain fixed at one level even as criminal attempts tumbled by one-third to one-half.
  
• When we hear the phrase "defensive gun use," we're inclined to imagine a gun owner producing a weapon to defend himself or herself against bodily threat. Not so fast. The authors of the 1995 study aggregated 13 prior polls of gun users, most of which did not define what was meant by "use." As the authors of the 1995 aggregation study themselves ruefully acknowledged: "The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually 'used' in any meaningful way. Instead, (respondents) might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection 'just in case' or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing." In other words, even if the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses had been correct at some point back in the early 1990s or early 1980s, the vast majority of those "uses" may be householders picking up a shotgun before checking out the noises in the garage made by raccoons rooting through the trash.
  
• The figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is supposed to represent the number of such uses per year. Yet none of the studies aggregated in the 1995 paper measured annual use. Most asked some version of the question, "Have you ever?" Two asked instead, "Have you within the past five years?" The authors of the 1995 study took those latter two surveys, multiplied the rate in the survey by the number of U.S. households, then divided by five to produce an annual figure.
  
  But people's memories of fixed periods of time are highly unreliable. It's not very likely that many respondents thought, "Today it's August 1990. I do remember scaring off a prowler in June 1984. But that was more than five years ago, so the answer to the question is 'No.' Not within the past five years."
  More likely they thought, "I'll never forget the night I warned off a prowler with my shotgun. That was scary. Man, I'm glad I had my gun ready. When was that anyway? Three years ago? Four? I don't remember exactly, but the answer to the question is 'Yes.' "
• Meanwhile, over in the world of hard numbers, the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010. If the figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses were any way close to accurate, it would imply that brandishing a gun in self-defense led to a fatality only 0.00852% of the time. That seems almost miraculously low.
  
• Underneath all these statistical problems is a larger conceptual problem. When we hear "defensive gun use," we're invited to think of a law-abiding citizen confronting a criminal aggressor. Yet crime does not always present itself so neatly. The vast majority of homicides take place between intimates, not strangers. Assaults, too, are often an acquaintance crime. When guns are produced by two parties to a confrontation, one party may deter the other. Yet it may be seriously misleading to designate one of these persons as a "criminal" and the other as a "law-abiding citizen." Perhaps when we hear "defensive gun use," we should not imagine a householder confronting a prowler. Perhaps we should think of two acquaintances, both with some criminal history, getting into a drunken fight, both producing guns, one ending up dead or wounded, the other ending up as a "DGU" statistic -- but both of them entangled in a scenario that would have produced only injuries if neither had carried a gun.

It only takes one to prove the point. Though there are countless millions of instances where guns have been used for self defense and to save lives.

It's very telling that you didn't even consider that fact when you posted your "stats" on the subject.