Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[Rustic]

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

 

[RealDave]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So the sport thing is BS . Let's be honest . The self defense is also BS. Way better options for that.

Nope.....each gun has a niche it fills....a small compact pistol or revolver for deep concealed carry......a small pistol or revolver for standard concealed carry.....home defense, an AR-15 or shot gun...the AR-15 has more advantages over the shotgun, especially if you are facing a long period of danger, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or a power outage...or a democrat riot where they are looting and burning a neighborhood....

More bulldhit from this moron. There is no need for an AR-15 type rifle other than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies.

 

[2aguy]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So the sport thing is BS . Let's be honest . The self defense is also BS. Way better options for that.

Nope.....each gun has a niche it fills....a small compact pistol or revolver for deep concealed carry......a small pistol or revolver for standard concealed carry.....home defense, an AR-15 or shot gun...the AR-15 has more advantages over the shotgun, especially if you are facing a long period of danger, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or a power outage...or a democrat riot where they are looting and burning a neighborhood....

More bulldhit from this moron. There is no need for an AR-15 type rifle other than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies.

Self defense....it is the most common civilian rifle in the United States.......it is a great weapon for defending the home, for protecting yourself when you are camping in national forests......and when democrats are looting and burning your town.....

 

[jc456]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So the sport thing is BS . Let's be honest . The self defense is also BS. Way better options for that.

Nope.....each gun has a niche it fills....a small compact pistol or revolver for deep concealed carry......a small pistol or revolver for standard concealed carry.....home defense, an AR-15 or shot gun...the AR-15 has more advantages over the shotgun, especially if you are facing a long period of danger, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or a power outage...or a democrat riot where they are looting and burning a neighborhood....

More bulldhit from this moron. There is no need for an AR-15 type rifle other than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies.

Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact

If you can't admit this as fact, then debating you is useless because you reject facts. It seems bathtubs are more critical to life than an AR-15 you want banned. LOL.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

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.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

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?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

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

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

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

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

 

[Rustic]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So the sport thing is BS . Let's be honest . The self defense is also BS. Way better options for that.

Nope.....each gun has a niche it fills....a small compact pistol or revolver for deep concealed carry......a small pistol or revolver for standard concealed carry.....home defense, an AR-15 or shot gun...the AR-15 has more advantages over the shotgun, especially if you are facing a long period of danger, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or a power outage...or a democrat riot where they are looting and burning a neighborhood....

More bulldhit from this moron. There is no need for an AR-15 type rifle other than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies.

A persons firearm ownership is none of your fucking business it’s none of my business and certainly none of the federal government business

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

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.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

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?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

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

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

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

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

Nonsense.

You either not reading the posts, or you're dunce.

Look has nothing to do with it. If so, most shooting would be done with ARs.

The truth is, as presented earlier, that shooters favorite guns are not ARs.

 

[Rustic]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

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.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

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?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

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

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

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

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Rustic]

For some reason progressive’s favorite boogie man to ban is ar15...
They are petrified with fear for no reason… We have much bigger fish to fry take your pick…
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Camp]

What “sport” are they used for ?

You gun nerds failed to answer .

Sport.....3 gun competitions.....in particular, I could care less about sport, they are a self defense rifle.....

So the sport thing is BS . Let's be honest . The self defense is also BS. Way better options for that.

Nope.....each gun has a niche it fills....a small compact pistol or revolver for deep concealed carry......a small pistol or revolver for standard concealed carry.....home defense, an AR-15 or shot gun...the AR-15 has more advantages over the shotgun, especially if you are facing a long period of danger, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or a power outage...or a democrat riot where they are looting and burning a neighborhood....

More bulldhit from this moron. There is no need for an AR-15 type rifle other than a bunch of idiots getting their jollies.

Self defense....it is the most common civilian rifle in the United States.......it is a great weapon for defending the home, for protecting yourself when you are camping in national forests......and when democrats are looting and burning your town.....

"Great" weapon" is a subjective opinion. Maybe not so great if you are not so well trained or experienced in breaking down your weapon and quickly dealing with a malfunction. Too many caveats to make this "great weapon" claim.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

Asking should they be styled this way utterly misses the entire problem and places the cart before the horse. The AR may APPEAL to those that want to perpetrate a mass shooting but its appeal factor is utterly irrelevant because it does not make executing that mass shooting more likely. If the only guns that were left were hot pink and covered in floral patterns that is not going to dissuade a mass murderer from going on a killing spree.

Yet again, you are asking a question to seek a specific outcome rather than actually asking that question with the intent of forming real debate or solutions.

Could you dismiss any and all potential effects from video games and movies? If the aesthetics of that media can be blamed, should it be that easy to dismiss a violent looking weapon?

The idea that video games or movies are the problem is garbage as well but even that is irrelevant to the point because there is a fundamental difference in the theory that seeing dead things ion a screen desensitizes people to death vs claiming that the look of a weapon increases mass shootings.

The two concepts are not even remotely related. Just because they are both visuals does not somehow make them similar or related.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.

Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.

 

[Camp]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

 

[Ame®icano]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".

The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.

Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.

Can you please then explain the disparity in the number and frequency of gun massacres in the United States and other industrialized western nations? What makes our nation more prone to gun violence? Our culture? Our preternatural tendency to be less mentally stable? Or our open and unfettered access to guns?

 

[2aguy]

For some reason progressive’s favorite boogie man to ban is ar15...
They are petrified with fear for no reason… We have much bigger fish to fry take your pick…
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

No....it isn't fear, it is a strategy. They know they have a shot at getting the AR-15 banned and confiscated...using the argument/lie that no civilian should have this type of weapon, calling it a weapon of war, an assault rifle and so on. Once they get the AR-15 banned, and a shooter uses another semi automatic rifle, they will come back and say see...all those other semi auto rifles are essentially AR-15s and have no place in civilian hands......

Then, once they get those semi auto rifles...and the next Virginia Tech happens where the shooter uses 2 pistols and murders 32 people...they will say that semi auto pistols are just little AR-15s, since they function the same way...

It isn't fear, it is strategy...

 

[Camp]

Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.

There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".



The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"

If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.

If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.

What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.

You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.

 

[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.

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?

And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.

Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.

Can you please then explain the disparity in the number and frequency of gun massacres in the United States and other industrialized western nations? What makes our nation more prone to gun violence? Our culture? Our preternatural tendency to be less mentally stable? Or our open and unfettered access to guns?

You have to take Europe as a whole rather than individual countries....as Dr. Lott Explains, matching population size to population size...and when you do that....you get number closer to our in mass shootings. The trick anti gunners do is take belgium...and compare it to us...and then Norway. and compare it to us....and so on, vs. comparing 320 million Europeans to 320 million Americans....and then the number start getting closer.....

Add to that....the fact that they had 2 World Wars where millions were killed and in the 1940s they marched 12 million innocent men, women and children into gas chambers...a number that dwarfs our gun violence ....there is no comparison....

As to our gun violence issue.....I keep telling people, 1st....it is European culture.....they look at authority differently than we do....they are more submissive to authority....2nd, their countries were destroyed in the 2nd World War...putting them behind us in cultural development.....our social welfare system was able to destroy our family structure faster than theirs did.....they are now catching up.....their social welfare state, held together by the rebuilding of their societies after the war, can no longer civilize their young males......they now have too many single teenage girls raising too many fatherless young males....and it is showing in their increasing violent crime rates and their increasing gun and knife crime rates....they are about where we were entering the 1960s....

Add to that, you now have them importing violent 3rd world males who do not share their European culture.....and so are increasing the violence and gun crime in Europe...Sweden...of all places, now has a gun and grenade problem........

Do you understand how this is happening now?

 

[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.

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?

And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.

Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.

Can you please then explain the disparity in the number and frequency of gun massacres in the United States and other industrialized western nations? What makes our nation more prone to gun violence? Our culture? Our preternatural tendency to be less mentally stable? Or our open and unfettered access to guns?

The criminals in Europe have easy access to guns...their criminals don't use pistols....they don't use AR-15 civilian rifles...they prefer to use fully automatic military rifles.....in countries where they are completely illegal, they have no gun shows, they have no gun stores...

 

[2aguy]

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, since your argument is based on false premise. You're afraid for no reason.

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.

What "styling of the gun" you're referring to? Different shootings were done with different guns. Get your facts straight first, since most shootings were done with semi auto handguns.

For example, Columbine shooting was done with Savage-Springfield pump action shotgun, Hi Point 995 carbine, Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, and TEC-9 SA handgun.
Fort Hood shooting was done with FN Five-Seven and Smith & Wesson revolver .357 magnum.
Virginia Tech was done with Walther P22 SA handgun, .22 caliber, and Glock 19 SA handgun, 9 mm.

But, but, but... AR-15!!!!!!! ReeeEEE....

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?

Other weapons are just as effective, as I sampled above.

Also, I'd like you to refer the shooting where military style weapons were used. I heard of only one, and it was the biggest massacre in US history. Waco, Texas, military style weapons were used by the US government.

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

I don't see a reason why video games should bear blame more than bad parenting, or more than indoctrination is government schools.

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

Nobody is protecting guns. What is see is protecting of constitutional rights.

Now, since I answered your questions, you answer mine.

If a police officer shoot an unarmed man, do you blame an officer or a gun?

Let us give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer and assume he was not mentally deranged at the time of the shooting. Further, let us assume the situation the policeman faced was chock full of high tension. And let us further assume that the officer used a gun issued by the department. So, given those assumptions, let us blame the cop.

No need to assume anything. Mentally deranged cannot be police officers. It doesn't matter who issued the gun. It could be personal gun in officer's hand.

OK, let's blame a cop.

Then, in Parkland shooting, or Sandy Hook shooting, why to blame AR-15 and not shooters?

Blame is not an all,or nothI got commodity. I speculated the look of the AR may be responsive ble because it may attract the unstable. The AR made it easy to rack up a high body count quickly. It made it possible to kill kids through doors and walls.

No.....the 5.56 isn't going to go through a door any better or worse than any other rifle round.....and it is just a semi auto rifle....a shot gun, pump or semi auto, against unarmed victims will rack up the same body count..

And Virginia Tech used 2 pistols and murdered 32....

And the muslim terrorist in Nice, France murdered 86 driving over them with a rental truck...