Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[HappyJoy]

What I see in this thread is an absolute ratchet fear of even discussing the topic of gun control, and understanding that some guns are more dangerous than others

Stop.

A human with a desire to kill is more dangerous than any gun IN THE WORLD.

Stop for what, you? Nah.

Do me a favor, stop conflating guns and people as though it's and either/or situation, wingnut. Can you do that? We'll see, I don't have the best of hopes. Here's a hint, try to compare the effectiveness of a plumber without a wrench and you tell me how successful they are.

My concern is keeping those people with a 'desire to kill' from having the tools available to do so, especially those tools where the purpose is actually to kill.

What you are doing is arguing from a point of emotion rather than common sense. Maybe nothing can be done however you at least should recognize the methods of murder and establish which are more easy than others. I find the pro-gun (whatever that means) to be lacking and I haven't seen anything today to demonstrate differently.

Yeah, some wet dream world where Hitler and George Washington meet isn't reality. Please, please, save the energy.

I think it went over your head... Lol

No, I got the jist of it, it's just that outside of right wing circles it doesn't come of as particularly funny.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't...a .357 is a bigger round and you can get that in a 6 shot revolver...even in a stubby.....

That's awesome, name 5 mass shootings that involved nothing more than a single handgun that killed 30 people. Hell, that's too easy, name a mass shooting by a single hand gun that hit 80 or more people.

Can you name any mass shooting with an AR-15 that killed more than 30 people? Besides this one...asshole...try real hard.........

Thank you for proving my point. There were no mass shootings committed by people with hand guns over 30. What you are admitting to is that last nights shooting couldn't be committed by a single person with hand guns. Damn, I couldn't have said i any better myself.

Then, funny as all shit, you're post is practically begging me to prove your point for you. Double suck on your part.

He admitted no such thing. The fact that it hasn't occurred isn't proof that it couldn't occur. Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building. According to your "logic," it should have been impossible.

After 9/11 we enacted laws and forced airlines to barricade cockpit doors. Not to mention the creation of the DHS. So, good job Jr, way to fail that shit.

In the meantime we do know the effectiveness of assault style weapons in the hands of terrorists...or anyone really. Why can't you morons just deal with the fact that they are effective? Hell, they are sold as though they are the weapon of choice of warriors. Can't have it both ways.

Your theory is that since it hasn't happened, then it must be impossible. That's an idiot theory.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment covers semi-automatics like the AR-15.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

And speaking of nukes, let me nuke you with some facts, nat:

1. “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2.“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3.“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4.“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5.“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6.“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7.“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

 

[nat4900]

Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building

In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Italy, Cheney and Bush ordered anti aircraft guns on top of the building they were meetings, BECAUSE there were reports that planes COULD be used to destroy buildings....When its THEIR asses on the line, somehow they "knew"....

 

[nat4900]

Cute.....You can get a job writing those "insightful" (and dumb) sayings in Chinese fortune cookies.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's awesome, name 5 mass shootings that involved nothing more than a single handgun that killed 30 people. Hell, that's too easy, name a mass shooting by a single hand gun that hit 80 or more people.

Can you name any mass shooting with an AR-15 that killed more than 30 people? Besides this one...asshole...try real hard.........

Thank you for proving my point. There were no mass shootings committed by people with hand guns over 30. What you are admitting to is that last nights shooting couldn't be committed by a single person with hand guns. Damn, I couldn't have said i any better myself.

Then, funny as all shit, you're post is practically begging me to prove your point for you. Double suck on your part.

He admitted no such thing. The fact that it hasn't occurred isn't proof that it couldn't occur. Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building. According to your "logic," it should have been impossible.

After 9/11 we enacted laws and forced airlines to barricade cockpit doors. Not to mention the creation of the DHS. So, good job Jr, way to fail that shit.

In the meantime we do know the effectiveness of assault style weapons in the hands of terrorists...or anyone really. Why can't you morons just deal with the fact that they are effective? Hell, they are sold as though they are the weapon of choice of warriors. Can't have it both ways.

Your theory is that since it hasn't happened, then it must be impossible. That's an idiot theory.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment covers semi-automatics like the AR-15.

My theory is that weapons like the AR15 are more dangerous than the average handgun, you don't even want to wade into those waters, your ideology won't allow you to.

The 2nd amendment covers the AR15 up until a law were passed to ban it and others like it, then it's up to...oh-oh, the rights bane of American democracy...the judiciary.

I have to state again, I'm not necessarily for the ban of assault style weapons...and after listening to you fucks I'm having a difficult time not just wanting them banned outright. Can't get a straight answer from one of you. Believe what you want but at least have an understanding of their proven ability to mow people down.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cute.....You can get a job writing those "insightful" (and dumb) sayings in Chinese fortune cookies.

U mad bro?

 

[HappyJoy]

Cute.....You can get a job writing those "insightful" (and dumb) sayings in Chinese fortune cookies.

That's OK, just have them explain 'fly swatter'.

 

[nat4900]

ROFL! No wonder I didn't understand. I assumed it wasn't that moronic. How would banning Muslims increase their ability to get here? The reality is that Obama has to spend government money to get them here. They aren't able to get here using their own resources. All Trump has to do is end any government program that pays for them to come here. He doesn't have to "ban" anythin

So dumb on so MANY levels that your posts are becoming much needed jokes and laughter with some people I share them with.,,,,The above is another one....Thanks.

 

[nat4900]

U mad bro?

My mother taught me to never be mad at or ridicule morons....after all, morons ARE morons.

 

[ClosedCaption]

An AR-15 is a rifle. The only difference between an AR-15 and its .223 hunting rifle equivalent are cosmetics.

Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.

Either you continue to adamantly support the sale of assault weapons to maniacs....weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time...........OR

You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed so that you can "idealize' some stupid scenario that you must defend yourself from government troops......

If you have a conscience (and since most of you call yourselves "good Christians") you have a choice to make....Be tacitly complicit in mass murders....or change your attitude toward the sale of such lethal weapons,

By using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.

Booo! That didn't even address the point. In the age of Trump... Zingers reign supreme.

When you use the term "Assault rifle" to describe a semi-automatic weapon you are making a point of not knowing WTF your talking about. You are using a false term either knowingly or unknowingly to describe something in a way as to terrify others. In the case of the majority of the people who use the term it definitely falls on the side of ignorance.

Ok so either you want him to say it's a rifle rifle or you don't care what he calls it and just don't like the message. So lets see, change the term assault rifle unto whatever term you like and insert it into the OP. NOW, are you able to address it?

 

[Divine Wind]

They haven't been endangered of banning in over a decade and this guy just bought his. Other than that, I did nothing in the matter.

A lie. All intelligent, informed people know President Obama advocated the 2013 anti-gun bill which reinstituted the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.

Do I really need to post a link of that bill for you to believe or are you honest enough to admit you are wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building

In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Italy, Cheney and Bush ordered anti aircraft guns on top of the building they were meetings, BECAUSE there were reports that planes COULD be used to destroy buildings....When its THEIR asses on the line, somehow they "knew"....

Happjoy says that if it hasn't already happened, then it's impossible. Take it up with him.

 

[Divine Wind]

My mother taught me to never be mad at or ridicule morons....after all, morons ARE morons.

Your mother was wise, bro. No doubt a woman as wise as her also taught you to look into a mirror before judging others.

 

[nat4900]

A lie. All intelligent, informed people know President Obama advocated the 2013 anti-gun bill which reinstituted the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.

.......simple query...What HAPPENED to that anti-gun (read assault weapon) bill????

 

[bripat9643]

Can you name any mass shooting with an AR-15 that killed more than 30 people? Besides this one...asshole...try real hard.........

Thank you for proving my point. There were no mass shootings committed by people with hand guns over 30. What you are admitting to is that last nights shooting couldn't be committed by a single person with hand guns. Damn, I couldn't have said i any better myself.

Then, funny as all shit, you're post is practically begging me to prove your point for you. Double suck on your part.

He admitted no such thing. The fact that it hasn't occurred isn't proof that it couldn't occur. Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building. According to your "logic," it should have been impossible.

After 9/11 we enacted laws and forced airlines to barricade cockpit doors. Not to mention the creation of the DHS. So, good job Jr, way to fail that shit.

In the meantime we do know the effectiveness of assault style weapons in the hands of terrorists...or anyone really. Why can't you morons just deal with the fact that they are effective? Hell, they are sold as though they are the weapon of choice of warriors. Can't have it both ways.

Your theory is that since it hasn't happened, then it must be impossible. That's an idiot theory.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment covers semi-automatics like the AR-15.

My theory is that weapons like the AR15 are more dangerous than the average handgun, you don't even want to wade into those waters, your ideology won't allow you to.

The 2nd amendment covers the AR15 up until a law were passed to ban it and others like it, then it's up to...oh-oh, the rights bane of American democracy...the judiciary.

I have to state again, I'm not necessarily for the ban of assault style weapons...and after listening to you fucks I'm having a difficult time not just wanting them banned outright. Can't get a straight answer from one of you. Believe what you want but at least have an understanding of their proven ability to mow people down.

Hmmm, wrong. The 2nd Amendment protects the ownership of guns like he AR-15.

 

[nat4900]

Your mother was wise, bro. No doubt a woman as wise as her also taught you to look into a mirror before judging others.

Actually I'm asking for you right wingers to JUDGE yourselves......

So, who among us is advocating for the continued sale of assault weapons to help maniacs kill as many people as possible????

 

[Divine Wind]

.......simple query...What HAPPENED to that anti-gun (read assault weapon) bill????

It was voted down in Congress. How does that change your lie that "They haven't been endangered of banning in over a decade"?

Are you man enough to admit you misspoke? Lied? Or are you just a spineless weasel who will dodge and evade the fact you were caught in a lie?

 

[bripat9643]

Your mother was wise, bro. No doubt a woman as wise as her also taught you to look into a mirror before judging others.

Actually I'm asking for you right wingers to JUDGE yourselves......

So, who among us is advocating for the continued sale of assault weapons to help maniacs kill as many people as possible????

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It's semi-automatic, like any standard hunting rifle.