Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[Flash]

The shooter in LV was able to do a lot of damage because of his elevated position shooting down into a crowd of tens of thousands. Sandy Hook and the church shooting in Texas were confined spaces where nobody could escape. Any weapon would have been effective in those situations.

I still think bump stocks should be illegal. I know there are other ways to get rapid fire, which I refuse to go into, but it's inevitable that copy cats would go for bump stocks.

A bump stock is a silly range toy. It is terrible as a weapon's platform. I have shot one several times and have been a range officer while other were shooting it. You are lucky to hit anything with it. I have seen shooters completely miss a 18 inch target at 50 yrds with a 30 rd mag dump using bump stock. Not one bullet on the target.

The LV shooter was able to do significant damage because of his elevated field of fire into a very large crowd.

As tragic as the shooting was he would have done more damage if he had used something other than a bump stock.

Bump stocks are notorious about jamming up a gun, which is what happen in his case.

The guy was wealthy and would have been far more effective if he had bought legal Class III weapons. He also could have bought black market full auto. A binary trigger would have been more reliable. Even a converted rifle would have been more effective than a bump stock.

I honestly think he could have inflicted more damage with semi auto fire than he could have done messing around with the bump stock.

As convoluted as it sounds given the fact that he was going to do the despicable deed it is probably better that he really didn't know much about guns and chose to use a bump stock.

I don't ever want to see the filthy ass government infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms by banning anything. The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the illegal act done with the arm.

 

[RealDave]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Although I do think gun nuts are impressed by the looks, they are deadlier than most other guns. To say they aren'tv is just stupid.

No to say that the AR 15 that shoots a 5.56 mm cartridge is more deadly than any other rifle that shoots the same cartridge is stupid

OK, so if the ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with a large capacity magazine is as good as a single shot that shoots the same caliper.

You people are sooooooooooooooo smart.

then what is your answer?

limit the mag to 10 rounds? make it a fixed mag that can't be swapped out?

great. they have speed loaders that will reload the fixed mag faster than swapping the mag to begin with.

and it's caliber unless you're working on your brakes. it's kinda a good idea to be correct when insulting peoples intelligence.

Ban the semi-automatic rifle that accepts large magazines. Like was done before but your party refused to renew it - killing all those children. NRA money is so wonderful.

Ban large magazibes

 

[RealDave]

Bathtubs aren’t designed to kill people.

The German Socialists turned showers into killing tools, twit. They used them to kill a large part of the 12 million innocent men, women and children they murdered....

And because they used them irresponsibly, we must outlaw all showers.

You people are just plain dumber than shit.

There can be no other reasoning.

I know not for you but most people use showers to clean themselves.

I guess you assholes clean yourselves with your AR-15?
Just like you cut bread with it and ride around town on it.

The NRA is packed full of morons.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Your assertion is wrong

The AR frame is not the most popular rifle in the country because of the way it looks

It is the most popular rife frame in the country because it is light, easy to handle, infinitely customizeable accurate and just plain fun to shoot.

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

Yes, actually, there were.....48 from 1963-1979..

If you guys knew less than you already know, you would know even less than nothing....

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[iceberg]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Although I do think gun nuts are impressed by the looks, they are deadlier than most other guns. To say they aren'tv is just stupid.

No to say that the AR 15 that shoots a 5.56 mm cartridge is more deadly than any other rifle that shoots the same cartridge is stupid

OK, so if the ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with a large capacity magazine is as good as a single shot that shoots the same caliper.

You people are sooooooooooooooo smart.

then what is your answer?

limit the mag to 10 rounds? make it a fixed mag that can't be swapped out?

great. they have speed loaders that will reload the fixed mag faster than swapping the mag to begin with.

and it's caliber unless you're working on your brakes. it's kinda a good idea to be correct when insulting peoples intelligence.

Ban the semi-automatic rifle that accepts large magazines. Like was done before but your party refused to renew it - killing all those children. NRA money is so wonderful.

Ban large magazibes

NRA is non profit.
the ruger 10/22 can accept large capacity mags. do we ban the .22 also out of ignorance?

and for your latest A HA solution...
MA Loader Unboxing and Demonstration

now what do we ban? reloaders?

why not deal with the problem vs. ban shit?

 

[2aguy]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Your assertion is wrong

The AR frame is not the most popular rifle in the country because of the way it looks

It is the most popular rife frame in the country because it is light, easy to handle, infinitely customizeable accurate and just plain fun to shoot.

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

No......the AR-15 is recent, most of the other school shootings were with pistols, shotguns, bolt action rifles....and World war 2 era rifles....

 

[jc456]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

So the kid at Virginia Tech used a hand gun; "killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks (another six people were injured escaping...)" two handguns; .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. Wasn't it a hand gun at the Orlando Pulse club as well? how many dead there? "killing at least 49 people and injuring dozens before being shot dead by police" one of two guns, Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Edited. one of my pastes was in the wrong place.

 

[xyz]

The shooter in LV was able to do a lot of damage because of his elevated position shooting down into a crowd of tens of thousands. Sandy Hook and the church shooting in Texas were confined spaces where nobody could escape. Any weapon would have been effective in those situations.

I still think bump stocks should be illegal. I know there are other ways to get rapid fire, which I refuse to go into, but it's inevitable that copy cats would go for bump stocks.

A bump stock is a silly range toy. It is terrible as a weapon's platform. I have shot one several times and have been a range officer while other were shooting it. You are lucky to hit anything with it. I have seen shooters completely miss a 18 inch target at 50 yrds with a 30 rd mag dump using bump stock. Not one bullet on the target.

The LV shooter was able to do significant damage because of his elevated field of fire into a very large crowd.

As tragic as the shooting was he would have done more damage if he had used something other than a bump stock.

Bump stocks are notorious about jamming up a gun, which is what happen in his case.

The guy was wealthy and would have been far more effective if he had bought legal Class III weapons. He also could have bought black market full auto. A binary trigger would have been more reliable. Even a converted rifle would have been more effective than a bump stock.

I honestly think he could have inflicted more damage with semi auto fire than he could have done messing around with the bump stock.

As convoluted as it sounds given the fact that he was going to do the despicable deed it is probably better that he really didn't know much about guns and chose to use a bump stock.

I don't ever want to see the filthy ass government infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms by banning anything. The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the illegal act done with the arm.

I know it's inaccurate, but they can be used against crowds.

Semi-automatic would have been more accurate, but it could also lead to fatigue if they want to shoot for a long time.

I don't think the bump stock has anything to do with the right to bear arms because it's not even a weapon by itself. I know it might be hard to collect the ones already out there, but there should be at least a ban on selling them.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Your assertion is wrong

The AR frame is not the most popular rifle in the country because of the way it looks

It is the most popular rife frame in the country because it is light, easy to handle, infinitely customizeable accurate and just plain fun to shoot.

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

There are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles, some say even more......and recently, 6 have been used...about that anyway...for mass shootings...while the other 8 million in private hands were not used to commit any crime....

 

[jc456]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

The notion that nothing should be done because nothing is 100% effective is short sighted. The notion that nothing should be done because doing anything could make nconvienence someone who absolutely needs to get a gun today, not later this week betrays an intransigent attitude.

Surely we know that no single effort can be a panacea. Surely we have passed other laws that have never completely prevented the crime they were written to punish. And surely there are solutions to what we all must recognize as our uniquely American obsession with guns NSA and gun violence.

Can the gun lovers pitch in and help divine some answers?

see the sad thing is you think banning guns solves the problem. It doesn't. so you are basically doing nothing. want to stop the shootings get rid of gun free zones.

 

[RealDave]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 182582

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

And that is why the 2nd Amendment protects weapons in common use...so simple minded fools such as yourself can't ban the most popular self defense rifle in the country......

8,000,000 of them were not used in mass shootings or crime.....

knives murder more people every single year than AR-15s have murdered in all the mass shootings since 1982........they are not a problem.

 

[RealDave]

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Your assertion is wrong

The AR frame is not the most popular rifle in the country because of the way it looks

It is the most popular rife frame in the country because it is light, easy to handle, infinitely customizeable accurate and just plain fun to shoot.

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

There are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles, some say even more......and recently, 6 have been used...about that anyway...for mass shootings...while the other 8 million in private hands were not used to commit any crime....

We all know that more crimes are committed that just the 6 mass shootings as you claim.

 

[2aguy]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Although I do think gun nuts are impressed by the looks, they are deadlier than most other guns. To say they aren'tv is just stupid.

No to say that the AR 15 that shoots a 5.56 mm cartridge is more deadly than any other rifle that shoots the same cartridge is stupid

OK, so if the ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with a large capacity magazine is as good as a single shot that shoots the same caliper.

You people are sooooooooooooooo smart.

then what is your answer?

limit the mag to 10 rounds? make it a fixed mag that can't be swapped out?

great. they have speed loaders that will reload the fixed mag faster than swapping the mag to begin with.

and it's caliber unless you're working on your brakes. it's kinda a good idea to be correct when insulting peoples intelligence.

Ban the semi-automatic rifle that accepts large magazines. Like was done before but your party refused to renew it - killing all those children. NRA money is so wonderful.

Ban large magazibes

And as actual research showed....that ban did nothing to stop crime or mass shootings.....


You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports the FIX NICS act....the democrats oppose it.

You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports armed security and armed staff in the schools, the democrats oppose it.

The NRA teaches fun safety to millions of children...the democrats fight teaching gun safety to kids.

The NRA supports keeping violent gun offenders in prison, the democrats let violent gun offenders out of jail and pass laws letting them out early.

The NRA doesn't support the PROMISE PROGRAM, of obama, which allowed the shooter to get the gun...the democrats created and support the Promise program...which allowed the shooter to get his gun...

Since those are the facts, the truth and the reality.....

Of the two groups...the democrats are the ones supporting violent murder, not the NRA...

 

[RealDave]

View attachment 182582

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

And that is why the 2nd Amendment protects weapons in common use...so simple minded fools such as yourself can't ban the most popular self defense rifle in the country......

8,000,000 of them were not used in mass shootings or crime.....

knives murder more people every single year than AR-15s have murdered in all the mass shootings since 1982........they are not a problem.

KNIVES HAVE OTHER USES i
Jesus Christ you people are so fucking stupid that it makes me sick that you people run around toting these weapons & are this fucking stupid. Maybe we need an UQ requirement for buying these guns.

 

[2aguy]

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

Your assertion is wrong

The AR frame is not the most popular rifle in the country because of the way it looks

It is the most popular rife frame in the country because it is light, easy to handle, infinitely customizeable accurate and just plain fun to shoot.

I entered first grade in the autumn of 1963. I graduated high school in 1975, got my degree in 1979. There were no school shootings during my matriculation.

Three questions:

When was the AR-15 introduced to the American consumer market?

When did the plague of current mass shootings begin?

Can any correlation be drawn between those two events?

There are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles, some say even more......and recently, 6 have been used...about that anyway...for mass shootings...while the other 8 million in private hands were not used to commit any crime....

We all know that more crimes are committed that just the 6 mass shootings as you claim.

Yes...with hand guns...the AR-15 is rarely used for crime...but this discussion was about mass public shootings....if you want to change the topic, that's great....

Knives still murder more people than AR-15s used in crime and mass shootings....every single year...

Do you want to be consistent and call for the banning of all knives?

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

Rifles....374

knives....1,604

blunt objects....472

bare hands....656

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 182582

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

And that is why the 2nd Amendment protects weapons in common use...so simple minded fools such as yourself can't ban the most popular self defense rifle in the country......

8,000,000 of them were not used in mass shootings or crime.....

knives murder more people every single year than AR-15s have murdered in all the mass shootings since 1982........they are not a problem.

KNIVES HAVE OTHER USES i
Jesus Christ you people are so fucking stupid that it makes me sick that you people run around toting these weapons & are this fucking stupid. Maybe we need an UQ requirement for buying these guns.

Rifles have other uses, in particular, self defense......

Knives are deadlier than AR-15 civilian rifles....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

Rifles....374

knives....1,604

blunt objects....472

bare hands....656

 

[2aguy]

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

no. people get your point.

it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.

tag. you're it.

So you are saying that we should not ban them because they just look nasty?

In otherwords you & you gun nuts are so fricken crazy that you are going ape shit because you can't own a gun that looks ugly when you can own the same think that looks more conventional?

No...we are saying that once you get the AR-15 civilian rifle, you will come back to get the other rifles too, because they operate the same way.......so no, you don't get to ban any of them......

 

[2aguy]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.

Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.

If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?

If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?

It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.

So the kid at Virginia Tech used a hand gun; "killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks (another six people were injured escaping...)" Wasn't it a hand gun at the Orlando Pulse club as well? two handguns; .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. how many dead there? "killing at least 49 people and injuring dozens before being shot dead by police" one of two guns, Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Luby's cafe...24 dead...2 pistols...

This is why they won't stop at AR-15 civilian rifles......they want them all...

 

[RealDave]

Although I do think gun nuts are impressed by the looks, they are deadlier than most other guns. To say they aren'tv is just stupid.

No to say that the AR 15 that shoots a 5.56 mm cartridge is more deadly than any other rifle that shoots the same cartridge is stupid

OK, so if the ability to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger with a large capacity magazine is as good as a single shot that shoots the same caliper.

You people are sooooooooooooooo smart.

then what is your answer?

limit the mag to 10 rounds? make it a fixed mag that can't be swapped out?

great. they have speed loaders that will reload the fixed mag faster than swapping the mag to begin with.

and it's caliber unless you're working on your brakes. it's kinda a good idea to be correct when insulting peoples intelligence.

Ban the semi-automatic rifle that accepts large magazines. Like was done before but your party refused to renew it - killing all those children. NRA money is so wonderful.

Ban large magazibes

And as actual research showed....that ban did nothing to stop crime or mass shootings.....


You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports the FIX NICS act....the democrats oppose it.

You keep attacking the NRA...the NRA supports armed security and armed staff in the schools, the democrats oppose it.

The NRA teaches fun safety to millions of children...the democrats fight teaching gun safety to kids.

The NRA supports keeping violent gun offenders in prison, the democrats let violent gun offenders out of jail and pass laws letting them out early.

The NRA doesn't support the PROMISE PROGRAM, of obama, which allowed the shooter to get the gun...the democrats created and support the Promise program...which allowed the shooter to get his gun...

Since those are the facts, the truth and the reality.....

Of the two groups...the democrats are the ones supporting violent murder, not the NRA...

Now you are back to being the lying POS we all know.

Democrats do not oppose fixing NICS. They oppose the watered down useless POS plan you & the NRA put out & doing nothing else.

Not only are you stupid but you can't tell the fricken truth.

The NRA is a bunch of fucking assholes who know that sending a 18 year old kid to prison will make him more apt to be a criminal & become another gun & ammo buyer.

You & the bloodthirsty NRA let that kid buty that gun. Quit making excuses.

 

[2aguy]

Oh boy . Here come the gun nerds with their spam .

Let’s cut to the chase . They are weapons of war specifically designed to kill lots of people quickly .

Lol
Na,They are just sporting rifles you watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types... so quit falling down the fucking well you little weasel

Yeah sure. If hunting people is your “sport”.

so get rid of the AR15 and that "sport" goes away. is that your premise?

how many people are killed a year with an AR15? now a .45 or 9mm?

I don’t know . The nra uses its power to stop any gov sponcered studies .

It does seem like a popular weapon in the weekly barricaded nut cop shootinbg .

The nra uses its power to stop any gov sponcered studies .


That is a lie....

No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.


Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.

Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.

And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.

In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.

It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.

Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.

The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.

Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.

-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.