Kyl;e Rittenhouse will be a billionaire by the time his lawyers are done.

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant. Peterson's inaction likely resulted in more kids being shot.

Really?

Hey, let's compare the cops involved in the response to Columbine.

NARRATIVE TIME LINE

www.cnn.com

The shooting started at 11:19

The first police arrived at 11:23.

They exchanged some shots with the two shooters, but didn't try to breach the buidling until 12:06.

The shooters killed themselves at 12:08

The school itself wasn't entered by the Swat Teams until 12:39

They didn't enter the library until 15:22.

Petersen doesn't sound that bad now.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Actually, I carried an M16 for years and handled hundreds of them.

Then why do you not know that the AR-15 is not "military grade"?

Yes, this IS a weapon you should be terrified of when it gets into the hands of a Joker Holmes, an Adam Lanza or a Nicholas Cruz.

ANY weapon is dangerous in the hands of someone willing to use it to murder.

These are weapons that were SPECIFICALLY designed to be used on a battlefield.

Actually, no, quite the opposite. The AR-15 was specifically designed to be a civilian variant of the M-16.

When you spent pages defending Darren Wilson shooting an unarmed, barefoot, wounded kid six time when he had his hands up.

Your over-the-top, appeal-to-emotion fallacy notwithstanding, my argument has nothing to do with Brown being black.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Really?

Hey, let's compare the cops involved in the response to Columbine.

NARRATIVE TIME LINE

www.cnn.com

The shooting started at 11:19

The first police arrived at 11:23.

They exchanged some shots with the two shooters, but didn't try to breach the buidling until 12:06.

The shooters killed themselves at 12:08

The school itself wasn't entered by the Swat Teams until 12:39

They didn't enter the library until 15:22.

Petersen doesn't sound that bad now.

Peterson not breaching the building is not necessarily the issue; the issue is that he did nothing at all.

 

[JoeB131]

Then why do you not know that the AR-15 is not "military grade"?

The only difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 doesn't fire full auto. The range, firepower, accuracy all remain the same.

The AR-15 was designed as a battlefield weapon that can do a lot of damage with a small bore round.

Your over-the-top, appeal-to-emotion fallacy notwithstanding, my argument has nothing to do with Brown being black.

I know, man, that's the new trend with racists, pretend that acts of racism had nothing to do with race.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The only difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 doesn't fire full auto. The range, firepower, accuracy all remain the same.

Irrelevant. The full auto feature is what makes the M-16 military grade.

The AR-15 was designed as a battlefield weapon that can do a lot of damage with a small bore round.

No, it was not. The AR is the civilian variant of the M-16. And the M-16 was designed not so much to "do a lot of damage" but to incapacitate an enemy soldier so his comrades come to his rescue and then you shoot them.

Having been in the military you were probably taught this in basic training. Hell, I learned it in JROTC in high school in Panama.

I know, man, that's the new trend with racists, pretend that acts of racism had nothing to do with race.

I didn't say the shooting had nothing to do with race (although I don't think it did), I said my argument has nothing to do with Brown being black.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it was not. The AR is the civilian variant of the M-16. And the M-16 was designed not so much to "do a lot of damage" but to incapacitate an enemy soldier so his comrades come to his rescue and then you shoot them.

No, what makes it military grade is it's range, effectiveness of ammo, portability, easy maintenance...

Having been in the military you were probably taught this in basic training. Hell, I learned it in JROTC in high school in Panama.

That's nice. If you had been in the military, you'd have been told you shoot to kill, not to wound.

Irrelevant. The full auto feature is what makes the M-16 military grade.

See above. The military had it speced out to meet al the stuff I listed, in the buildup towards Vietnam and why the longer, heavier, M-14 was impractical.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, what makes it military grade is it's range, effectiveness of ammo, portability, easy maintenance...

It may or may not be due in part to all these things but full automatic fire is what makes the M-16 military and the AR-15 not.

You can keep trying to change the definition of military assault weapon as much as you want but the AR is simply not military grade. On top of all that, semi-automatic rifles in mid to large calibers have been available to civilians for decades. It wasn't until AR style weapons came out that people like you started freaking out.

That's nice. If you had been in the military, you'd have been told you shoot to kill, not to wound.

Bullshit. As a matter of fact, I talked to my niece's husband this evening (an Army veteran himself and the police officer I've mentioned before) about what I was told about the M-16 in JROTC and asked him about it and he said they were taught basically the same thing: The M-16 was designed more to maim than kill. That's the reason for the small caliber with the large casing.

See above. The military had it speced out to meet al the stuff I listed, in the buildup towards Vietnam and why the longer, heavier, M-14 was impractical.

All those things are just icing on the cake that make it easier to carry and maintain. But that's not what makes it military grade. What makes it a military weapon is full auto fire. That's the defining factor.

While I had my niece's husband's ear I asked him what the law enforcement community, as a whole, thought about Peterson's actions in Parkland. With no hesitation or caveats, he said the guy should have gone into that building to look for and neutralize the threat if possible. That is precisely what an officer is required to do in that type of situation.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Really?

Hey, let's compare the cops involved in the response to Columbine.

NARRATIVE TIME LINE

www.cnn.com

The shooting started at 11:19

The first police arrived at 11:23.

They exchanged some shots with the two shooters, but didn't try to breach the buidling until 12:06.

The shooters killed themselves at 12:08

The school itself wasn't entered by the Swat Teams until 12:39

They didn't enter the library until 15:22.

Petersen doesn't sound that bad now.

Except that most jurisdictions changed their active shooter protocols after Columbine.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The main reason why the UK has less crime is they don't let average people own guns, they treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one, they have extensive poverty relief programs, and so on.

Proud Boys

Subscribe to the Sounds Like Hate podcast to learn more about hate groups like the Proud Boys. Established in the midst of the 2016 presidential election by VICE Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys are self-described “Western chauvinists” who adamantly deny any connection to the...

www.splcenter.org

The Proud Boys’ actions belie their disavowals of bigotry: Rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Proud Boys have appeared alongside other hate groups at extremist gatherings such as the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Former Proud Boys member Jason Kessler helped organize that event, which brought together a broad coalition of extremists including Neo-Nazis, antisemites and militias. Kessler was expelled from the group after the violence and near-universal condemnation of Charlottesville rallygoers.




Except the gun industry makes it easy for the "thugs" to get guns, that's the thing.

The UK does not have less crime---hell you can't even travel around LOndon anymore..its like Detroit on steriods.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, what makes it military grade is it's range, effectiveness of ammo, portability, easy maintenance...



That's nice. If you had been in the military, you'd have been told you shoot to kill, not to wound.



See above. The military had it speced out to meet al the stuff I listed, in the buildup towards Vietnam and why the longer, heavier, M-14 was impractical.

The .223/5.56mm round isn't very powerful. In fact I believe it's not legal for anything as large as a deer anywhere in the USA. It's not particularly long ranged, the 7.62 NATO/.308 is both more powerful and longer ranged and various military rifles in that caliber like the FN/FAL and the M1A are perfectly legal. The only difference between a M-14 and a M1A is that the receiver isn't tapped for the very rare selector switch that could convert the M-14 from an individual rifle to a squad automatic rifle.
No one is trained to shoot to kill. Troops are trained to shoot at center of mass because it's theasiest place to hit.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't until AR style weapons came out that people like you started freaking out.

Yeah, by freaking out, you mean finding that crazy people were taking them into preschools, shopping malls, theaters, concerts, and killing lots and lots of people... I couldn't imagine a calm way to respond to that.

Bullshit. As a matter of fact, I talked to my niece's husband this evening (an Army veteran himself and the police officer I've mentioned before) about what I was told about the M-16 in JROTC and asked him about it and he said they were taught basically the same thing: The M-16 was designed more to maim than kill. That's the reason for the small caliber with the large casing.

Ooooh, JROTC? You who instructs JROTC? The losers who can't transition to civilian life.

Point stands... we weren't trained to wound them, we were trained to shoot center mass and KILL.

The UK does not have less crime---hell you can't even travel around LOndon anymore..its like Detroit on steriods.

The UK is more than London. The US is more than Detroit. I'll take their 600 homicides (43 with guns) to our 20,000 homicides (14500 with guns) any day of the week.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yeah, by freaking out, you mean finding that crazy people were taking them into preschools, shopping malls, theaters, concerts, and killing lots and lots of people... I couldn't imagine a calm way to respond to that.

Klebold and Harris used a shotgun and a Tec-9. The Virginia Tech shooter (32 killed) used semi-automatic pistols, as did the Luby's shooter (23 killed) and the Virginia Beach shooter (12 killed).

Out of 142 mass shootings in the U.S. (ten or more deaths), 88 were committed with handguns, 35 with semi-automatic rifles and 19 with shotguns.

While six out of ten of the worst mass shootings were done with ARs or AR style weapons, this still means that handguns were used in almost half of the deadliest mass shootings. Also, the deadliest (Las Vegas) used an AR with an illegal bump stock. And let's not forget that the deadliest mass killing in the world (Nice, France) was done with a panel truck.

Ooooh, JROTC? You who instructs JROTC?

I didn't say I instructed JROTC, I said I was in JROTC. Dumbass.

The losers who can't transition to civilian life.

I notice when you don't have an intelligent or informed response you simply insult people. You're like a child on a playground.

Having said that, my JROTC instructors were active Army NCOs. Furthermore, the instruction and training they imparted to us was, by necessity, that of the U.S. military. In other words, what they taught us was instilled in them by other active NCOs during their own training. It was not mere subjective opinion.

Point stands... we weren't trained to wound them, we were trained to shoot center mass and KILL.

Right. YOU were trained to shoot center mass but the RIFLE was designed to maim. The small caliber and powerful charge resulted in a greater chance of the "tumbling effect".

It only makes sense to consistently train soldiers to shoot center mass because to do otherwise would only serve to confuse things.

I couldn't help but notice you had no response to an actual police officer's take on Peterson's actions. Namely, that he should have searched for the shooter and neutralized him, not stand outside and wait for backup. This of course directly contradicts what you've said up to this point.

Another problem with your argument is the fact that, even when backup arrived, Peterson never entered the building. Ever. Eventually he ended up waiting outside the building for forty five minutes, long after Cruz left and long after backup arrived and entered the building themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

While six out of ten of the worst mass shootings were done with ARs or AR style weapons, t

That's the point. Six out of ten of the worst. Because a nut could get a military grade weapon. Now, yeah, we probably also need to get ALL weapons out of the hands of crazy people, but let's start somewhere, 'kay?

Having said that, my JROTC instructors were active Army NCOs. Furthermore, the instruction and training they imparted to us was, by necessity, that of the U.S. military. In other words, what they taught us was instilled in them by other active NCOs during their own training. It was not mere subjective opinion.

You realize the officers and NCO's who get sent there are career dead-enders, right... Heck, even College ROTC officers were kind of the losers.

Frankly, the best thing the Army could do is get rid of ROTC.

I couldn't help but notice you had no response to an actual police officer's

Because I could care less about what any Monday Morning Quarterback has to say, that's why I ignored it.. Just like I'm ignoring most of your word salads these days.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's the point. Six out of ten of the worst.

Which is only slightly more than half.

Because a nut could get a military grade weapon. Now, yeah, we probably also need to get ALL weapons out of the hands of crazy people, but let's start somewhere, 'kay?

I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, I just don't agree that outlawing guns or even ARs is the solution.

You realize the officers and NCO's who get sent there are career dead-enders, right... Heck, even College ROTC officers were kind of the losers.

There you go again; when you don't have an intelligent or informed response, insult somebody.

As for their being dead enders, it's irrelevant even if they are. They still have to teach and train the same way they were taught and trained.

Frankly, the best thing the Army could do is get rid of ROTC.

I really don't care.

Because I could care less about what any Monday Morning Quarterback has to say,

Are you saying my niece's husband - an officer of the law - is a Monday Morning Quarterback as a cop?

that's why I ignored it.. Just like I'm ignoring most of your word salads these days.

You don't ignore, you avoid.

You were right there toe to toe and post for post the whole time and then when I share an actual police officer's opinion on the matter that happens to contradict what you've been saying, you suddenly have nothing to say. Then when I point this out, you revert back to your old pat debate tactic: call somebody a loser.

You're a coward.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, I just don't agree that outlawing guns or even ARs is the solution.

The problem is the kind of people who want AR's are crazy to start with.

You don't ignore, you avoid.

Nope, I ignore.. because most of your word salads aren't worth my time. I pick one or two things out, but I'm not even reading your whole posts anymore... life's too short.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The problem is the kind of people who want AR's are crazy to start with.

Except 99.999 percent of AR owners don't go on killing sprees or shoot anyone with them.

Nope, I ignore.. because most of your word salads aren't worth my time. I pick one or two things out, but I'm not even reading your whole posts anymore... life's too short.

Then why did you bother to respond to this one?

 

[JoeB131]

Except 99.999 percent of AR owners

99.999% of planes don't get hijacked, but we do our damned best to make sure that doesn't happen.

Then why did you bother to respond to this one?

Good point. I'll only bother if you have new material.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

99.999% of planes don't get hijacked, but we do our damned best to make sure that doesn't happen.

By outlawing planes? By declaring all people who pilot planes to be crazy?

If we're going to make accurate comparisons then you're gonna have to come up with a more apt example.

Good point. I'll only bother if you have new material.

Ditto.

 

[JoeB131]

If we're going to make accurate comparisons then you're gonna have to come up with a more apt example.

Actually, it's a very apt example... you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get on an airplane these days.

You should also have just as many to get a gun, or at least a military style weapon.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Actually, it's a very apt example... you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get on an airplane these days.

You should also have just as many to get a gun, or at least a military style weapon.

For the comparison to be apt it would have be a situation where the plane (weapon) is outlawed or proposed to be outlawed just as you are suggesting we do with guns.

As for keeping guns out of the hands of "crazies", do more about diagnosing and treating mental illnesses. This country never did deal with mental illness very well. A stigma was always attached to it and was a source of embarrassment for many of those who had a mentally ill loved one. Society always viewed it as some kind of flaw or failure.

Beyond that, the only thing required is for a potential buyer to not have a criminal record. And as for most firearms used in crimes having been purchased illegally or stolen, well, there's already laws against that. For that matter, there's already laws against murder. Sooo...