Grandfather of Oklahoma teen killed by homeowner in burglary says AR15 made for ‘unfair’ fight

[westwall]

Most criminals come from single-parent homes in lower income areas. How do lower income areas vote again?

Makin crap up again are we ?

You certainly do. If straw purchases were as big a problem as claimed, why do the authorities not arrest and prosecute the offenders?

They do as long as it's within the State Laws to enforce the strawman laws. But, you are right, it's so volitile that it's not very frequent. But those that do it are prosecuted. Usually, it's bagged before any mass shooting happens so it doesn't make it past the local news if even that.

Straw purchases violate FEDERAL laws. In other words, no matter which State, or Territory within the USA those laws apply. Period.

I believe that only one straw purchase was done for one mass shooting of late. Funny, didn't hear a thing about them going after the sister.

That's kinda the point we're making. The laws are already on the books and they aren't being enforced.

 

[bripat9643]

The entire discussion is not about what is best for home defense, but about home defense. I am one of those that will never question another about how they choose to defend their home. Don't want to defend your home? I don't care. Want to? Be my guest. You say the shotgun would be better? Better then what? What he had seemed to do the job just fine. Bottom line, it worked.

It worked only because he was in the basement. Poor choice of home defense weapon. And very dangerous for the community. I can see where this is another case of "You can't tell ME what to do" even when it's a danger to the community. The ONLY time the AR is the best choice is when it's the only choice. Otherwise, it's the worst choice unless the other choice is the semi auto 338 Winchester Magnum.

You remind me of a Christmas turkey.

If you buy an AR for home defense then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to own one. What are you defending against? Are you afraid that there is going to be a company of armed and dangerous Liberals attacking your home? Change the friggin channel and watch a situation comedy instead of what you keep watching.

I don't own an AR-15. If I wanted one for any reason whatsoever, I would buy one.

AR-15 is no match for today's military grade rifles. Neither are the handguns I own and carry.

Like I said....Christmas turkey....full of stuffing.

Go piss up a rope!

There is absolutely no difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 when both are fired single shot. And the M-16 is normally fired single shot in combat. You tell me the difference oh foul mouthed one.

if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference. See how stupid it sound when it's translated into plain English?

 

[bripat9643]

You still haven't told me the difference. So far, you are getting a failing grade.

You have unwittingly proved my point. If there is no difference, why can't we have new M-16s? Is it perhaps that they shoot full-auto or 3-round bursts? Is that the difference?

So, any rifle that has a military, full-auto counterpart should be deemed EXACTLY THE SAME because they can be use the same part of the time?

You're making the case for repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sorry bout that,

1. No Daryl Hunt, seems all we need is a AR-15 buddy, (locked and loaded) also you might want to instruct your stupid kids if you have any, too not to go kick in doors of innocent people, they might be waiting for you.
2. Just saying.....lol!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I am retired Military. At least we put up signs warning of dangerous blast areas. Do we need to pass a law that requires communities to put up parimenter signs warning that this area is designated "Moron with an AR" so we won't be hit by stray bullets.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You still haven't told me the difference. So far, you are getting a failing grade.

You have unwittingly proved my point. If there is no difference, why can't we have new M-16s? Is it perhaps that they shoot full-auto or 3-round bursts? Is that the difference?

So, any rifle that has a military, full-auto counterpart should be deemed EXACTLY THE SAME because they can be use the same part of the time?

You're making the case for repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it happens in Chicago daily.

Right . Because of gun nut states . They make straw purchases so easy . Where do you think all those guns on the streets of Chicago come from ?

Chicago? The same Chicago with one of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Where do all those guns come from?

Boston ,NYC, Seattle , very liberal cities wh tougher gun laws . Lot less gun crime that red state gun nut cities .

That has to do more with demographics than gun laws. For instance Seattle only has less than 8% blacks. Boston? About 23%. Same with New York city.

Most guns used in crime are stolen guns. Criminals use guns that can't be possibly traced back to them.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during the four-year period from 2012 to 2015, nearly half a billion dollars worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.2 million guns.3 Twenty-two thousand guns were stolen from gun stores during this same period.4 A gun is stolen in the U.S. every two minutes.5

Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress

The primary source for stolen guns is gun shops and pawn shops with poor security. As in, their guns are not secured properly.

Not according to the FBI. Hell, just in my suburb alone I can't tell you how many guns are stolen a year. Usually it's done during robberies of unoccupied homes. The priority list is cash, jewelry and guns in that order. At times, they get three, four or five guns. Other times it's morons that leave their gun in their car with the door unlocked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right . Because of gun nut states . They make straw purchases so easy . Where do you think all those guns on the streets of Chicago come from ?

Knowing this, Chicago stubbornly refuses to allow their law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Why is that the case?

Wrong, twinkle toes. Chicago Citizens can get a basic firearms license and carry guns. Plus, they don't need any type of license to have a hand gun, hunting rifle or shotgun in the homes. The 2nd amendment is alive and well in Chicago. Most just don't care to have firearms. What's the matter, you POd that you can't force them to?

20 states with the toughest gun laws

 

[bripat9643]

You still haven't told me the difference. So far, you are getting a failing grade.

You have unwittingly proved my point. If there is no difference, why can't we have new M-16s? Is it perhaps that they shoot full-auto or 3-round bursts? Is that the difference?

So, any rifle that has a military, full-auto counterpart should be deemed EXACTLY THE SAME because they can be use the same part of the time?

You're making the case for repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do we need to pass a law that requires communities to put up parimenter signs warning that this area is designated "Moron with an AR" so we won't be hit by stray bullets.

Sounds like you reinvented the lottery ticket. Are you aware of any story in this country where a person using any kind of gun accidentally killed somebody on the outside while defending themselves?

Your scenario sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Right . Because of gun nut states . They make straw purchases so easy . Where do you think all those guns on the streets of Chicago come from ?

Chicago? The same Chicago with one of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Where do all those guns come from?

Boston ,NYC, Seattle , very liberal cities wh tougher gun laws . Lot less gun crime that red state gun nut cities .

That has to do more with demographics than gun laws. For instance Seattle only has less than 8% blacks. Boston? About 23%. Same with New York city.

Most guns used in crime are stolen guns. Criminals use guns that can't be possibly traced back to them.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during the four-year period from 2012 to 2015, nearly half a billion dollars worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.2 million guns.3 Twenty-two thousand guns were stolen from gun stores during this same period.4 A gun is stolen in the U.S. every two minutes.5

Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress

The primary source for stolen guns is gun shops and pawn shops with poor security. As in, their guns are not secured properly.

Not according to the FBI. Hell, just in my suburb alone I can't tell you how many guns are stolen a year. Usually it's done during robberies of unoccupied homes. The priority list is cash, jewelry and guns in that order. At times, they get three, four or five guns. Other times it's morons that leave their gun in their car with the door unlocked.

Stop making crap up. According to the FBI, most private gun thefts are done from unattended vehicles. Stupid people provide criminals their guns. But the Southern States have the bulk of the Gun Thefts. It's from the Gun Dealers and Pawn Shops. The bad guys uses a stolen large pickup to crash the front of the building, pull it forward, back a van into the opening and load up the guns. They are in and out in a matter of a few minutes. Faster than the Cops can respond.

These are the ATF figures which is also used by the FBI. Don't you hate it when someone reads your BS and then fact checks it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You still haven't told me the difference. So far, you are getting a failing grade.

You have unwittingly proved my point. If there is no difference, why can't we have new M-16s? Is it perhaps that they shoot full-auto or 3-round bursts? Is that the difference?

So, any rifle that has a military, full-auto counterpart should be deemed EXACTLY THE SAME because they can be use the same part of the time?

You're making the case for repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

 

[Weatherman2020]

That teenager got exactly what he deserved. It's hard to comprehend the stupidity of someone who thinks that thugs breaking into a home are supposed to have an even chance in a confrontation with the home's owner. I gaurantee you all the gun grabbers in this forum agree with this numskull. In fact, in Canada they have a law that says the force used in defending yourself must be "proportional" to the force used by your attacker.

Grandfather of Oklahoma teen killed by homeowner in burglary says AR15 made for ‘unfair’ fight​

Three Oklahoma teenagers were killed last week when they broke into a house and were met by a homeowner with an AR15. Now the grandfather of one of the teenagers is speaking out about his grandson’s death.

According to KTUL-TV, Leroy Schumacher, grandfather of 17-year-old Jacob Redfearn, believes the death of Redfearn was unjustified because the homeowner’s AR15 gave him an unfair advantage over the three burglars.

Speaking to KTUL, Schumacher acknowledged that breaking into a house was “stupid,” but death was not the appropriate consequence.

“What these three boys did was stupid,” Schumacher said. “They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die.”​

11&12.

 

[bripat9643]

You have unwittingly proved my point. If there is no difference, why can't we have new M-16s? Is it perhaps that they shoot full-auto or 3-round bursts? Is that the difference?

So, any rifle that has a military, full-auto counterpart should be deemed EXACTLY THE SAME because they can be use the same part of the time?

You're making the case for repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

 

[Pop23]

Chicago? The same Chicago with one of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Where do all those guns come from?

Boston ,NYC, Seattle , very liberal cities wh tougher gun laws . Lot less gun crime that red state gun nut cities .

That has to do more with demographics than gun laws. For instance Seattle only has less than 8% blacks. Boston? About 23%. Same with New York city.

Most guns used in crime are stolen guns. Criminals use guns that can't be possibly traced back to them.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during the four-year period from 2012 to 2015, nearly half a billion dollars worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.2 million guns.3 Twenty-two thousand guns were stolen from gun stores during this same period.4 A gun is stolen in the U.S. every two minutes.5

Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress

The primary source for stolen guns is gun shops and pawn shops with poor security. As in, their guns are not secured properly.

Not according to the FBI. Hell, just in my suburb alone I can't tell you how many guns are stolen a year. Usually it's done during robberies of unoccupied homes. The priority list is cash, jewelry and guns in that order. At times, they get three, four or five guns. Other times it's morons that leave their gun in their car with the door unlocked.

Stop making crap up. According to the FBI, most private gun thefts are done from unattended vehicles. Stupid people provide criminals their guns. But the Southern States have the bulk of the Gun Thefts. It's from the Gun Dealers and Pawn Shops. The bad guys uses a stolen large pickup to crash the front of the building, pull it forward, back a van into the opening and load up the guns. They are in and out in a matter of a few minutes. Faster than the Cops can respond.

These are the ATF figures which is also used by the FBI. Don't you hate it when someone reads your BS and then fact checks it?

Yes, bad people are bad. So throw out your guns and the bad folks will go away.

Good to know.

 

[Pop23]

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

Yeah, I found that statement astonishing.

I don’t think the bullets could chamber that fast

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since both are used in single shot only, there IS no difference. A New M-16A-4 is going to cost you about 5 grand and it's going to only do single and 3 shot bursts. Now, if you want a full auto M-16A-1 get ready to shell out at least 15 grand for a used one "If you can find one". The A-1 is the full auto. The A-2 thru A-4 is the 3 shot burst. All versions of the M-16 will be required to meet or exceed the NFA licensing and storage laws.

There is a huge difference in the firing of a M-16-A-1 because it can be used in full auto. But as for the A2-4, they are normally used single shot in combat and a single shot AR-15 can do the exact same job for the Military. With the exception, the M-16-A-4 is a high end build. You would need to compare a high end AR-15 to it. Our Military does not use the full auto M-16 anymore and hasn't for a few decades. They would be just as happy with an AR-15 of military quality.

Now, what is the difference between the use of the M-16-A-4 and the AR-15? Put the BS aside and answer the question.

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

And you still won't outlaw the bump stock which allows the AR-15 to reach the 750 rounds per minute rate.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

And you still won't outlaw the bump stock which allows the AR-15 to reach the 750 rounds per minute rate.

It's already outlawed, moron. I doubt the AR-15 can reach 750 rounds a minute with a bump stock, but even if it could it would be so innacurate that it's almost useless.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Where do all those guns come from?

Boston ,NYC, Seattle , very liberal cities wh tougher gun laws . Lot less gun crime that red state gun nut cities .

That has to do more with demographics than gun laws. For instance Seattle only has less than 8% blacks. Boston? About 23%. Same with New York city.

Most guns used in crime are stolen guns. Criminals use guns that can't be possibly traced back to them.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during the four-year period from 2012 to 2015, nearly half a billion dollars worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.2 million guns.3 Twenty-two thousand guns were stolen from gun stores during this same period.4 A gun is stolen in the U.S. every two minutes.5

Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress

The primary source for stolen guns is gun shops and pawn shops with poor security. As in, their guns are not secured properly.

Not according to the FBI. Hell, just in my suburb alone I can't tell you how many guns are stolen a year. Usually it's done during robberies of unoccupied homes. The priority list is cash, jewelry and guns in that order. At times, they get three, four or five guns. Other times it's morons that leave their gun in their car with the door unlocked.

Stop making crap up. According to the FBI, most private gun thefts are done from unattended vehicles. Stupid people provide criminals their guns. But the Southern States have the bulk of the Gun Thefts. It's from the Gun Dealers and Pawn Shops. The bad guys uses a stolen large pickup to crash the front of the building, pull it forward, back a van into the opening and load up the guns. They are in and out in a matter of a few minutes. Faster than the Cops can respond.

These are the ATF figures which is also used by the FBI. Don't you hate it when someone reads your BS and then fact checks it?

Yes, bad people are bad. So throw out your guns and the bad folks will go away.

Good to know.

Or you can stop putting weapons where criminals can get at them to steal them like in Gun Shops and Pawn Shops displayed so openly unattended, in unattended vehicles, out in the open in unoccupied homes and such. This is where the criminals get their weapons from. I don't know of a single person that has ever had a weapon stolen that has kept it in a gun vault even a small one. Yah, I know, you don't keep your home defense 9mm in a gun vault but the wholesale thefts aren't done from those as you and your buddies claim. The Wholesale thefts are done where there is large numbers of guns like Gun Shops and Pawn Shops. If you have a large number of guns, you should have the bulk of them in in Gun Vault,not a wooden and glass gun cabinet.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

And you still won't outlaw the bump stock which allows the AR-15 to reach the 750 rounds per minute rate.

It's already outlawed, moron. I doubt the AR-15 can reach 750 rounds a minute with a bump stock, but even if it could it would be so innacurate that it's almost useless.

It's not outlawed here and it's not outlawed in most states. Bumpstocks are a hot issue right now. And you just came up with the reason the Full Auto on the M-16 was removed. Where do you get your news from again?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Again, all you've said is that if you ignore the difference, then there is no difference.

You're an idiot.

When something is killing you it's a bit hard to tell the difference when the only real difference is that one comes in Hot Pink.

Previously you weren't talking about the color of the gun. You were talking about the rate of fire. If you are killed, then nothing matters to you. However, before you are dead, the rate of fire matters. Otherwise, why would the Pentagon want the weopon to have that capacity? There is no feature on a combat weapon that hasn't been carefully considered and tested.

There is absolutely no difference between the fire rate of an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4. They are both about 750 rounds a minute no matter how they are fired. But I imagine if a country wanted to buy Pink M-16-A-4s then they could. Could you imagine if the LGBT community were to have their own country. Imagine an entire army attacking all using Pink AR-15s? Would they be any less deadly than any other army with OD or Flat Black M-16-A-4s? Imagine the initial confusion on that one.

But Sarge, they have Pink Guns and Chiffon Uniforms!!

No, an AR-15 can't fire 750 rounds a minute. it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, which means about 1 time per second, or 60 rounds a minute

You just proved that you're an ignoramus.

Yeah, I found that statement astonishing.

I don’t think the bullets could chamber that fast

It uses the same chambering mechanism that the M-16 uses. By that, I mean the old M-16-A-1 which could be easily clocked. Of course, it couldn't fire those 750 rounds with only a 30 round clip but when you broke it down into fractions, that is exactly how fast is was. With a Bump Stock, the AR-15 has the same capability.