Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[jc456]

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?

Are we more prone?

Our murder rate has has been dropping and we have more guns.

No our murder rate has never been as low as some other countries and most likely will never be because we don't really care about 70% of all murders because those murders are usually young urban criminals shooting other young urban criminals so people like you focus on 1% of all murders because it makes good press and you actually think that focusing on that 1% will lower the murder rate of the country.

It won't.

So if you really care about the murder rate ( you don't but for the sake of argument let's say you do) then you would be concentrating on why 5% of all the counties in the US account for almost 70% of all murders wouldn't you?

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

most likely Chicago.

 

[francoHFW]

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

 

[jc456]

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

when there are that many in your mind, it must mean that it is you that is the mental one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Are we more prone?

Our murder rate has has been dropping and we have more guns.

No our murder rate has never been as low as some other countries and most likely will never be because we don't really care about 70% of all murders because those murders are usually young urban criminals shooting other young urban criminals so people like you focus on 1% of all murders because it makes good press and you actually think that focusing on that 1% will lower the murder rate of the country.

It won't.

So if you really care about the murder rate ( you don't but for the sake of argument let's say you do) then you would be concentrating on why 5% of all the counties in the US account for almost 70% of all murders wouldn't you?

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

a link from LAST year and it was the first increase in over a decade

Big Fucking Deal

 

[Skull Pilot]

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.

Here, stupid.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i

PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.

What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?

any rifle you use to hunt

DUH

Some people like to hunt with bazookas and 155s...

Then they are hunting bazookas

see how that works?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

yes it's the plastic that makes people kill

rifles with wood stocks don't make people kill like those black plastic ones do you know

 

[francoHFW]

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

when there are that many in your mind, it must mean that it is you that is the mental one.

Or I am well informed, Fox Dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

yes it's the plastic that makes people kill

rifles with wood stocks don't make people kill like those black plastic ones do you know

When the plastic ones look like 22nd century military weapons...

 

[francoHFW]

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

27%
Why More Americans Suffer From Mental Disorders Than Anyone Else

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Culture has a lot to do with it. Diversity as well. The disparity being compared between nation is pointless - there are FAR to many variables to make such a simple comparison meaningful. Culture, population density, diversity, government, borders and a billion other things are not even remotely similar between nations.

The real comparison is to be done before and after gun legislation is passed in the same location as that controls for the myriad of other factors involved. We find that gun legislation before and after has no bearing on actual homicide rates all over the place both here and abroad. It seems that such rates are not affected with further gun control measures or even rolling them back as has been the case with several areas passing shall issue laws.

This makes perfect sense as well - the idea that an individual will be dissuaded from KILLING another because of a gun law is asinine. If you are willing commit the crime of murder than the simple crime of possessing or purchasing a weapon is irrelevant.

 

[Flash]

Have you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?

There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho styling

Then what difference does it make?

Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...

it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOL

I think it's pretty obvious the psycho styling of of these weapons is very dangerous when a quarter of the country is mentally unhealthy.

The mentally unhealthy are the idiots that voted for an affirmative action asshole that was a disaster for this country and then went around in pink pussy hats howling at the sky when Crooked Hillary didn't win.

They are the ones we have to worry about.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here Trigger...

Those Asians are pretty effective in everything they do.

Yea they are...

One Pennsylvania gunmaker's vision: An AR-15 for every American

 

[Ame®icano]

You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.

On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?

By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?

We are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.

No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.

The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.

The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.

Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.

It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.

But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?

They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.

My 2c.

We do have militias. they are called the National Guard

if the founders wanted the right to keep and bear arms to belong to the militia then they wouldn't have specifically stated "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would they?

Nobody wants to ban guns. Do semi-automatic guns these days shoot faster than they used to? If so that should be limited, as well as the styling this OP is about. And of course bump stocks, conversion kits, and background check loopholes.

You lefties like to give Australian "assault weapon ban" as example that gun control works. The data shows that beside initial drop, now twenty years later, crime rate and murder rate is about the same as it was before the ban.

Nobody want's to ban guns? Not true. Take the same Australia as example. Just few days ago, Australia reclassified and banned Riverman bolt action rifles and ordered its owners to turn them in within 30 days. Reason... they look too "assaulty".

 

[Ame®icano]

Here Trigger...

Those Asians are pretty effective in everything they do.

Yea they are...

One Pennsylvania gunmaker's vision: An AR-15 for every American

Great idea. And since guns are constitutional right, government should provide one to every able bodied adult citizen.

 

[Camp]

Here Trigger...

Those Asians are pretty effective in everything they do.

Yea they are...

One Pennsylvania gunmaker's vision: An AR-15 for every American

Great idea. And since guns are constitutional right, government should provide one to every able bodied adult citizen.

Why do they have to be "able bodied"? What does able bodied even mean? Who defines what it means?

 

[Ame®icano]

Here Trigger...

Those Asians are pretty effective in everything they do.

Yea they are...

One Pennsylvania gunmaker's vision: An AR-15 for every American

Great idea. And since guns are constitutional right, government should provide one to every able bodied adult citizen.

Why do they have to be "able bodied"? What does able bodied even mean? Who defines what it means?

From where I stand on guns, you probably have an idea what I meant.

 

[Markle]

You lefties like to give Australian "assault weapon ban" as example that gun control works. The data shows that beside initial drop, now twenty years later, crime rate and murder rate is about the same as it was before the ban.

Nobody want's to ban guns? Not true. Take the same Australia as example. Just few days ago, Australia reclassified and banned Riverman bolt action rifles and ordered its owners to turn them in within 30 days. Reason... they look too "assaulty".

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True, there is no need for an AR 15.

There’s also no need to ban AR 15s.

 

[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.

True, there is no need for an AR 15.

There’s also no need to ban AR 15s.

Lol
Who are you to say one way or another you spineless motherfucker?
Firearm ownership is a personal thing, it’s none of your fucking business none of my business and certainly no no the federal government business. So shove your political correctness up your fucking ass…

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

We’re an inherently violent culture; in America violence is sanctioned as a legitimate means of conflict resolution – from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and in foreign affairs our propensity to resort to the use of military force.

There’s really nothing we can do about sanctioned violence in American culture, at least in the short-term; we can do better with regard to affording all Americans access to affordable healthcare – including mental health intervention and treatment, but the political will is not there.

Likewise, there’s no political will to restrict access to AR 15s, where doing so would be on shaky Constitutional grounds, given the fact that less than 2 percent of gun crime and violence are committed with long guns, the majority of such crimes being committed with handguns, and that school shootings have been on the decrease in recent years.

In order for government to restrict a fundamental right, it must have objective, documented evidence in support of doing so – and that evidence simply doesn’t exist to justify banning AR 15s.

As with other problems and issues we face, more government and more government regulation is not the answer – it’s not the answer with regard to drug and alcohol abuse, it’s not the answer with regard to unwanted pregnancies, and it’s not the answer to gun crime and violence.