In light of the attacks in Paris...shall we discuss gun control?

[paulitician]

It's not just those seeking revenge who Americans will be dealing with in the future. They'll be dealing with their own Government as a theat as well. After the next large-scale terrorist event, Americans will be put on lockdown. And i truly believe some in our Government can't wait for that next attack. Big Brother is salivating at the thought.

So you're not just preparing and arming yourself against terrorists, you're also arming yourself to protect yourself from your own Government. Very dark days are coming. It's inevitable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14, I thought I made my point quite clearly. Is YOUR emotion making it difficult for you to hear me? And yes, according to an article I read shortly after Sandy Hook, grenade launchers and flame throwers are legal to own. Fortunately, grenades aren't....

You're arguing against 'assault weapons'.
There's no sound argument against the ownership and use of these weapons by the law abiding.
There -are- arguments from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, but none of them are sound.

"Rosa Parks did not need to sit in front of the bus.
Betting you do not understand the point."

You're right. I don't think I do.

Your right to do something does not hinge on you meeting someone's requirement that you show a need to do that something.

 

[OldLady]

M14, I thought I made my point quite clearly. Is YOUR emotion making it difficult for you to hear me? And yes, according to an article I read shortly after Sandy Hook, grenade launchers and flame throwers are legal to own. Fortunately, grenades aren't....

You're arguing against 'assault weapons'.
There's no sound argument against the ownership and use of these weapons by the law abiding.
There -are- arguments from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, but none of them are sound.

"Rosa Parks did not need to sit in front of the bus.
Betting you do not understand the point."

You're right. I don't think I do.

Your right to do something does not hinge on you meeting someone's requirement that you show a need to do that something.[/QUOTE

M-14, you said, "You're arguing against 'assault weapons'.
There's no sound argument against the ownership and use of these weapons by the law abiding.
There -are- arguments from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, but none of them are sound."

"Law abiding" is the critical term--we are talking about apples and oranges here. I'm not worried about law abiding citizens!!! But just like in second grade, one jerk always spoils it for everybody else. Life wasn't fair then, and it's not now. The violent rampages people are going on with big, fast, super lethal guns have unfortunately spoiled it for the people who use guns responsibly. Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, but I don't believe there is any realistically effective way to screen out the gun buyer who is going to go off the deep end with his collection of AR-15's. If these guns--which do a good job of killing lots of people really fast--are available to safe, responsible people, they are also available to folks who will kill innocent people with them. Some people want to minimize the damage by carrying around a hand gun and shooting the bad/crazy guys. Okay; that's their choice. My idea is to get these "assault weapons" out of circulation as much as possible, thereby limiting the damage that can be committed with them. It's unfortunate that infringes on some people's right to own the biggest, baddest, fastest gun in town, but blame it on the bad guys, not people like me. I'd just like not to be shot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Law abiding" is the critical term--we are talking about apples and oranges here. I'm not worried about law abiding citizens!!! But just like in second grade, one jerk always spoils it for everybody else. Life wasn't fair then, and it's not now......The violent rampages people are going on with big, fast, super lethal guns have unfortunately spoiled it for the people who use guns responsibly My idea is to get these "assault weapons" out of circulation as much as possible, thereby limiting the damage that can be committed with them.

This is hyperbole, an argument from emotion and an argument from ignorance .

2005-2014, a 10 year period, 3594 people were murdered with rifles of all kinds
2005-2014, the same 10-year period. 19093 people were murder with bladed weapons - 5.31x the number of murders with rifles
2005-2014, the same 10-year period. 5357 people were murdered with blunt weapons - 1.5x the number of murders with rifles
2005-2014, the same 10-year period. 8610 people were murdered with person weapons -- hands, feet, etc - 2.39x the number of murders with rifles.

There's no sound argument for the necessity - or constitutionality - of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[OldLady]

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…..they are not a problem.

Hey, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the advisability of citizens owning military-style weapons. Because the police use them doesn't make it necessary for my next door neighbor who works at WalMart to have one. The folks who believe we need to be armed to defend against an attack by the US government can procure their weapons illegally, like every other revolutionary force in the world.

Trying to get facts without getting sucked into a biased website twisting all the same figures is really hard, isn't it? I did look up AR-15's in the Brittanica Encyclopedia, and it evolved from the M-16. My son says they're great for shooting ducks, too. I appreciate you not calling me an asshole, though. trying to at least hear min

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…

You seem reasonable…I save swearing at people for the ones who have attacked me or who lie…..

Look at any genocide ever committed…..they all have one thing in common, the people murdered were all unarmed…and getting illegal guns in a police state is almost impossible, since they will use torture to get information out of people and they actually lock up people they fear…..we tend to let gun criminals go with light sentences….

if the police and military have a weapon, then the people who are their employers get that weapon first…..we are not the subjects of the police and military…they are our employees….

As an exercise, try finding a genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing that ever happened to a well armed people…..

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…..they are not a problem.

Hey, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the advisability of citizens owning military-style weapons. Because the police use them doesn't make it necessary for my next door neighbor who works at WalMart to have one. The folks who believe we need to be armed to defend against an attack by the US government can procure their weapons illegally, like every other revolutionary force in the world.

Trying to get facts without getting sucked into a biased website twisting all the same figures is really hard, isn't it? I did look up AR-15's in the Brittanica Encyclopedia, and it evolved from the M-16. My son says they're great for shooting ducks, too. I appreciate you not calling me an asshole, though. trying to at least hear min

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…

You seem reasonable…I save swearing at people for the ones who have attacked me or who lie…..

Look at any genocide ever committed…..they all have one thing in common, the people murdered were all unarmed…and getting illegal guns in a police state is almost impossible, since they will use torture to get information out of people and they actually lock up people they fear…..we tend to let gun criminals go with light sentences….

if the police and military have a weapon, then the people who are their employers get that weapon first…..we are not the subjects of the police and military…they are our employees….

As an exercise, try finding a genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing that ever happened to a well armed people…..

2aguy, the police and military are carefully trained and vetted before they're let loose with weapons and those weapons are kept strictly controlled. For us 'citizens,' all it takes to acquire a military-type weapon is the $600 bucks and a broom closet to tuck it into. For weapons like the ones I'm referring to, that is not enough to make me feel easy.

 

[2aguy]

2aGuy, thank you for the list of 12. Enlightening.

I am alarmed by what a lot of violent nut jobs we are creating in America, and I would very much like to see that stop, as probably everyone on this message board would. Gun control or even gun abolishment won't be the whole answer. If it is the only solution we try, it is not going to work. But some of us believe that weapons ownership in this country has gotten a bit out of hand.

You better check those with another source. Most of that list aren't really stopping mass shootings.

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.[/QUOTE]


No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?[/QUOTE]

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


If he didn't see the armed guy…..then what kept him from reloading and continuing shooting……

Giffords….magazine limited would have done no such thing…..the only thing that stopped him was bad tactics, he allowed himself to get too close to someone he thought he had already killed…he reloaded without a problem up to that point….

Magazine limits are a pointless distraction and do nothing to address any problem and simply disarm law abiding people who may face more than one attacker….say 8 heavily armed terrorists…..

 

[2aguy]

And yes, there were suicide bombers too.

Praise Allah and let me take non-believers with me.

Can you pass laws to stop that?

I don't think there are specific laws against concealed carry of a suicide vest, which is probably why the terrorists chose to use them in Paris. I am sure once someone passes that law terrorists will cease using that tactic.

Excellent point….you would have thought someone would have already passed that law….silly over site…..I am sure they will remedy that…..

 

[Brain357]

You better check those with another source. Most of that list aren't really stopping mass shootings.

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.

No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?[/QUOTE]

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


If he didn't see the armed guy…..then what kept him from reloading and continuing shooting……

Giffords….magazine limited would have done no such thing…..the only thing that stopped him was bad tactics, he allowed himself to get too close to someone he thought he had already killed…he reloaded without a problem up to that point….

Magazine limits are a pointless distraction and do nothing to address any problem and simply disarm law abiding people who may face more than one attacker….say 8 heavily armed terrorists…..[/QUOTE]

Dropping magazines happens. Bad tactics are reality. Mag limits would save lives.

 

[2aguy]

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…..they are not a problem.

Hey, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the advisability of citizens owning military-style weapons. Because the police use them doesn't make it necessary for my next door neighbor who works at WalMart to have one. The folks who believe we need to be armed to defend against an attack by the US government can procure their weapons illegally, like every other revolutionary force in the world.

Trying to get facts without getting sucked into a biased website twisting all the same figures is really hard, isn't it? I did look up AR-15's in the Brittanica Encyclopedia, and it evolved from the M-16. My son says they're great for shooting ducks, too. I appreciate you not calling me an asshole, though. trying to at least hear min

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…

You seem reasonable…I save swearing at people for the ones who have attacked me or who lie…..

Look at any genocide ever committed…..they all have one thing in common, the people murdered were all unarmed…and getting illegal guns in a police state is almost impossible, since they will use torture to get information out of people and they actually lock up people they fear…..we tend to let gun criminals go with light sentences….

if the police and military have a weapon, then the people who are their employers get that weapon first…..we are not the subjects of the police and military…they are our employees….

As an exercise, try finding a genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing that ever happened to a well armed people…..

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…..they are not a problem.

Hey, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the advisability of citizens owning military-style weapons. Because the police use them doesn't make it necessary for my next door neighbor who works at WalMart to have one. The folks who believe we need to be armed to defend against an attack by the US government can procure their weapons illegally, like every other revolutionary force in the world.

Trying to get facts without getting sucked into a biased website twisting all the same figures is really hard, isn't it? I did look up AR-15's in the Brittanica Encyclopedia, and it evolved from the M-16. My son says they're great for shooting ducks, too. I appreciate you not calling me an asshole, though. trying to at least hear min

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Do you realize that knives, blunt objects and empty hands have killed far more people in this country than AR-15s have…..I can get the number from FBI table 8 but so can you…..

Those type of guns are used by our employees..the police and military….we employ them, we equip them….and as history has shown, only unarmed populations are victims of genocide and mass murder…so any rifle the police or military uses is exactly the weapon the civilians get to have as well….it keeps genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing as nothing more than a bad idea….

And do you realize that in Sandy Hook and Aurora, they could have killed just as many people with shotguns and pistols….they were drawn to those weapons because of video games and press coverage….

AR-15s are not military weapons….military weapons have select fire capability….and other rifles could easily be substituted for the AR…..as well…..

The biggest thing about Sandy Hook and Aurora….they were both gun free zones……no one besides the killer was allowed to have a gun in the zone….and that is why there were so many people killed….we saw that in France as well…..

Sandy Hook…the killer also attended the middle school and the high school….but only the elementary school did not have an armed resource officer…

Aurora…the killer had intended on going and shooting up an airport…but decided against it because of the armed security…..so he chose a gun free movie theater instead….

Gun free zones are the problem, not AR-15s…

There are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands….less than a handful are ever used in any crime in any year…

You seem reasonable…I save swearing at people for the ones who have attacked me or who lie…..

Look at any genocide ever committed…..they all have one thing in common, the people murdered were all unarmed…and getting illegal guns in a police state is almost impossible, since they will use torture to get information out of people and they actually lock up people they fear…..we tend to let gun criminals go with light sentences….

if the police and military have a weapon, then the people who are their employers get that weapon first…..we are not the subjects of the police and military…they are our employees….

As an exercise, try finding a genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing that ever happened to a well armed people…..

2aguy, the police and military are carefully trained and vetted before they're let loose with weapons and those weapons are kept strictly controlled. For us 'citizens,' all it takes to acquire a military-type weapon is the $600 bucks and a broom closet to tuck it into. For weapons like the ones I'm referring to, that is not enough to make me feel easy.

Normal people do not misuse AR-15s any more than they misuse other rifles and pistols and criminals don't choose to use them because they prefer concealable weapons…and the few mass shooters….could inflict just as many casualties with pistols as they do with an AR……and again….when only governments have those weapons their people end up suffering…..

There is no legitimate reason to disarm normal citizens by banning ownership of AR-15s..they are not used in crime, they are rarely used by mass shooters…and can easily be substituted with pistols….so there is no reason to deny normal people and our descendants the means to protect themselves…

Also…AR-15s are excellent self defense weapons. They allow 3 points of contact for accurate shooting which means you are less likely to miss and hit an innocent bystander, the round they fire breaks up in dry wall so they do not shoot through walls and hit other people in a home defense situation….they allow a normal gun owner to put a light and laser on their rifle making it more accurate for the good guy to shoot and they are easy to shoot for all sizes of people…..unlike many types of rifle and handgun….a woman can shoot an AR-15 comfortably…..which means she is more likely not to miss the bad guy and hit someone else….

So many reason for normal people to own them, no good reason for them to be banned…..

 

[2aguy]

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.

No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


If he didn't see the armed guy…..then what kept him from reloading and continuing shooting……

Giffords….magazine limited would have done no such thing…..the only thing that stopped him was bad tactics, he allowed himself to get too close to someone he thought he had already killed…he reloaded without a problem up to that point….

Magazine limits are a pointless distraction and do nothing to address any problem and simply disarm law abiding people who may face more than one attacker….say 8 heavily armed terrorists…..[/QUOTE]

Dropping magazines happens. Bad tactics are reality. Mag limits would save lives.[/QUOTE]


No situation has shown that magazine limits would save lives…that is a fantasy that you have in your head. And it may very well cost the life of a good gun owner some day….and who are you to tell a law abiding citizen they can't have the standard magazine for their weapon…..

And on top of that…..banning magazines is a back door gun ban…since limiting magazines means many models of pistol can no longer be legally owned…which is the real reason for magazine limits.

Gun banning by other means….screw that.

 

[2aguy]

2aGuy, thank you for the list of 12. Enlightening.

I am alarmed by what a lot of violent nut jobs we are creating in America, and I would very much like to see that stop, as probably everyone on this message board would. Gun control or even gun abolishment won't be the whole answer. If it is the only solution we try, it is not going to work. But some of us believe that weapons ownership in this country has gotten a bit out of hand.

You better check those with another source. Most of that list aren't really stopping mass shootings.

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.[/QUOTE]


No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?[/QUOTE]

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


And the source is pretty clear that magazine limits had no bearing on this shooting at all….he dropped his magazines and ran off…..he could have killed 17 people with 10 round magazines just as easily…..

Clackamas Town Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1]

So….he dropped

 

[Brain357]

You better check those with another source. Most of that list aren't really stopping mass shootings.

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.

No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?[/QUOTE]

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


And the source is pretty clear that magazine limits had no bearing on this shooting at all….he dropped his magazines and ran off…..he could have killed 17 people with 10 round magazines just as easily…..

Clackamas Town Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1]

So….he dropped[/QUOTE]

He was incompetent at reloading and carrying magazines. Forcing him to do more of both would have saved lives.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to? Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office (or French concert hall or café or soccer stadium), would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these leftist fanatics keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Gun Control".

It's not about guns.

It's about control.

 

[2aguy]

This example it sounds more like he dropped all his magazines and couldn't load his ar and then committed suicide to me. Great example for mag limits.

At this point, hundreds of people fled the mall after hearing the gunshots, but many remained inside and dashed to cover. Roberts headed further toward the food court, firing at 16-year-old employee Alina Pavlenko, who was over 100 feet away, but missed. He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1] He then turned back and headed toward a JCPenney store. He attempted to reload the AR-15 at that point, but was unable to do so, the weapon having apparently jammed. During that time, Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his Glock 22, claimed to have taken aim at Roberts, but did not fire since there was a bystander behind Roberts. Meli claims that Roberts saw him and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide.[7]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.

No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.[/QUOTE]


And the source is pretty clear that magazine limits had no bearing on this shooting at all….he dropped his magazines and ran off…..he could have killed 17 people with 10 round magazines just as easily…..

Clackamas Town Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1]

So….he dropped[/QUOTE]

He was incompetent at reloading and carrying magazines. Forcing him to do more of both would have saved lives.[/QUOTE]


No..you are wrong....he dropped the magazines after shooting 17 rounds...He killed 2 people..something he could have done with a pistol.....

magazine limits are gun bans in disguise...they don't stop or prevent any crime or mass shootings, and they serve no purpose...except to ban guns that hold more than 10 rounds...and the killers in France had no problem getting the weapons they wanted...or the magazines they wanted...in a country that bans all magazines for civilians...so again...magazine limits are pointless...

 

[Rustic]

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Dumba$$, ar15's are not military grade and ak-47's are horribly inaccurate they are where the "pray and spray" phrase came from.
Tell us the difference between military grade rifle and over the counter sporting rifle??

Gun control people... Please educate yourselves

 

[thanatos144]

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Dumba$$, ar15's are not military grade and ak-47's are horribly inaccurate they are where the "pray and spray" phrase came from.
Tell us the difference between military grade rifle and over the counter sporting rifle??

Gun control people... Please educate yourselves

AK 47 is not where pray and spray came from and it is a very accurate gun on semi auto like most guns if you put more then three shots through it in very quick session it will move .... pray and spray came fromnthe Thomson machine gun because the fuckers moved like a damn gazelle up words

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Brain357]

A link to the article you are using would be nice….


No, not a great example for mag limits…considering he didn't know how to operate the weapon under pressure but still managed to get it working to commit suicide after Meli pointed the gun at him….

Notice the thing you try to ignore…..he stopped shooting at other people once Meli was seen……he was then under the pressure of someone targeting him and he stopped shooting and killed himself….

Hmmmm…France doesn't allow anyone to have any magazines…..at all…….how did that work out for the concert goers….?

Yes couldn't operate under pressure. Better he shots ten times before he can't reload than 30. Mag limits would save lives.

And the fact that magazines are completely banned in France…..how many lives did that save? And as video after video shows, it takes no time at all to reload……and they could do all they wanted with pistols and just discard the pistol and use another one…….you are a twit.

Having to reload stopped this guy.

No….having an armed citizen confronting this guy stopped him…..no armed citizen and he goes on shooting….why is that such a hard concept for you…….? Take away the armed citizen…and he starts shooting again, instead, he goes and shoots himself…….facts, reality and the truth…you just don't like them do you….?

The story is pretty clear that he probably didn't even see the citizen. You claim victory where it doesn't exist. Clearly mag limits would save lives. Same thing with Giffords shooting. And while there are many examples where lives would be saved, there are none where limits would cost lives.

And the source is pretty clear that magazine limits had no bearing on this shooting at all….he dropped his magazines and ran off…..he could have killed 17 people with 10 round magazines just as easily…..

Clackamas Town Center shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also dropped three other magazines in his possession.[1]

So….he dropped[/QUOTE]

He was incompetent at reloading and carrying magazines. Forcing him to do more of both would have saved lives.[/QUOTE]


No..you are wrong....he dropped the magazines after shooting 17 rounds...He killed 2 people..something he could have done with a pistol.....

magazine limits are gun bans in disguise...they don't stop or prevent any crime or mass shootings, and they serve no purpose...except to ban guns that hold more than 10 rounds...and the killers in France had no problem getting the weapons they wanted...or the magazines they wanted...in a country that bans all magazines for civilians...so again...magazine limits are pointless...[/QUOTE]

He couldn't have with a ten round limit. He was incompetent at reloading. Fact is there are many examples where mag limits would save lives, none where they would cost lives. It's a no brainer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How can you politicise this tragedy before the bodies are even cold?!

Just taking a page out of the democrat playbook

 

[Rustic]

No citizen needs AR-15's and AK-47's that hold dozens of bullets without reloading. Nor do we need flame throwers and grenade launchers. They were developed for the military to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time, and they are legal in much of the US. AR-15's were used in the Newtown slaughter and the Aurora shooting, legally procured. They did what they were designed to do--kill lots of people in a very short time. AK-47's are in such high demand, we've started producing them in the US since the Russian model was banned. That was bin-Laden's favorite.
Someone will no doubt start spouting a bunch of numbers at me, but as much as I want to understand both sides of this issue, these type of guns seem to be just plain 'overkill.' (pardon the pun).

Dumba$$, ar15's are not military grade and ak-47's are horribly inaccurate they are where the "pray and spray" phrase came from.
Tell us the difference between military grade rifle and over the counter sporting rifle??

Gun control people... Please educate yourselves

AK 47 is not where pray and spray came from and it is a very accurate gun on semi auto like most guns if you put more then three shots through it in very quick session it will move .... pray and spray came fromnthe Thomson machine gun because the fuckers moved like a damn gazelle up words

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Compared to an ar the ak is not accurate at all...