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

[Iceweasel]

The preferred method for these types is bombing anyway. It's only political because of the method. If he had bombed the place many more would be dead he he might be free to strike again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

A quite noteworthy deflection.

It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/​

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:

• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13​

Which part here specifically covers anything I've said? Let's start there.

This whole thread, according to nat, was about the AR-15 assault rifle Mateen used. Or are you not paying attention?

 

[OKTexas]

Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

Moron....NO ONE is absolving terrorists for thier evil deeds....NO ONE.....

What this thread is about is the freaking EASE that your ilk allows for terrorists to kill MORE and more people....all so that your ilk can flaunt the 2nd amendment.

How about you stop flaunting the 1st Amendment? Take your tripe and bile elsewhere.

 

[bripat9643]

What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

A quite noteworthy deflection.

It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/​

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:

• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13​

Which part here specifically covers anything I've said? Let's start there.

Myth: Assault weapons are used in mass public shootings

Fact: A decade long study, covering 84 mass public shootings, found that pistols were used 60% of the time. Rifles were used 27%. 14 But that is all types of rifles, and so-called “assault weapons” (such as the AR-15 or civilian versions of the AK-47) are a subset of these.​

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes, I always enjoy the argument that our rights are only rights if we can prove we need them.

So any kid can get pot, and it's illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? I started one of the longest threads in the political section on that, and no actual ideas from leftists other than to end freedom and become a totalitarian State, they had nothing else. Until you figure that out, why ask stupid questions like that?

If you have an actual plan, let's hear it. But you don't, do you. Your plan is to pass a law and then say WTF, why didn't it work? Also, psst, murder is illegal, so making guns illegal may not work ...

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

You're not going to keep guns from criminals. Not entirely, just like because murder is illegal you're not going to end murder.

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

Sure he would. He can repeal that rule the day he is inaugurated with an Executive Order.

What rule?

 

[Rustic]

Not so much with a revolver?
Lol

Is that even a serious reply?

You want to compare a guy going for a world record with someone who bought his assault style weapon mere days ago? Jesus, can you guys put a coherent thought together?

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

You obviously have not been to any shooting competitions… LOL
There's one up your next week in deadwood South Dakota, and what separates the worst from the best… Milliseconds
So no, you don't need 20, 50 or 100 round magazines and called "assault weapon"(which is really a sporting rifle) to kill people. You just need hate...

Maybe do me a favor and leave the fantasy world of speed shooting and document the worst mass shooting that involved only a revolver. Hell, give me the 10 worst.

Or, fuck it, let's pretend the weapon of choice of zero consequence.

Do me a favor, realize that the individual person is doing the killing, not the gun… LOL
You do realize guns are just made out of plastic metal and wood and cannot act on their own?

 

[bripat9643]

You're not going to keep guns from criminals. Not entirely, just like because murder is illegal you're not going to end murder.

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

Sure he would. He can repeal that rule the day he is inaugurated with an Executive Order.

What rule?

The rule that says service people can't be armed while on base.

 

[Norman]

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

A quite noteworthy deflection.

It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/​

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:

• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13​

Now... what does terrorism list have to say about muslims?

 

[HappyJoy]

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

Kind of gives you a hint as their purpose, no?

No. I'm not expecting that kind of trouble, but I am prepared for it.

That's an interesting way of saying nothing at all but pretending you are.

I didn't pretend anything, you are too stupid to grasp simple concepts.

Not really, you're talking about some vague generalities about how you're 'prepared'. Not doing much for the debate.

 

[depotoo]

How sadly, wrongfully simplistic your statement is. Maybe you need to recognize the facts this guy was investigated by the fbi yet was not under surveillance. Whh? What failed here?
And if you truly believe that someone with this kind of hate and seeks to inflict terrror will follow any gun laws you may be just about as crazed as him. He obviously shoved aside any laws against murder, didn't he? No gun law would have stopped him. The club was a no gun zone. He also ignored that law, too, didn't he?

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,

 

[HappyJoy]

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

Sure he would. He can repeal that rule the day he is inaugurated with an Executive Order.

What rule?

The rule that says service people can't be armed while on base.

How long has that rule been in effect and do you really think that has seriously entered Trump's brain? You guys and your idols

 

[bripat9643]

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

Sure he would. He can repeal that rule the day he is inaugurated with an Executive Order.

What rule?

The rule that says service people can't be armed while on base.

How long has that rule been in effect and do you really think that has seriously entered Trump's brain? You guys and your idols

It's been in effect since the Clinton administration. I think Obama is well aware of it since it became an issue after the Fort Hood shootings.

 

[depotoo]

Gun control is for law abiding citizens-not terrorists or criminals. And the tougher the gun laws on the law abiding, the easier it is for the crazed and terrorists to inflict their death wish for others on the law abiding

 

[HappyJoy]

Is that even a serious reply?

You want to compare a guy going for a world record with someone who bought his assault style weapon mere days ago? Jesus, can you guys put a coherent thought together?

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

You obviously have not been to any shooting competitions… LOL
There's one up your next week in deadwood South Dakota, and what separates the worst from the best… Milliseconds
So no, you don't need 20, 50 or 100 round magazines and called "assault weapon"(which is really a sporting rifle) to kill people. You just need hate...

Maybe do me a favor and leave the fantasy world of speed shooting and document the worst mass shooting that involved only a revolver. Hell, give me the 10 worst.

Or, fuck it, let's pretend the weapon of choice of zero consequence.

Do me a favor, realize that the individual person is doing the killing, not the gun… LOL
You do realize guns are just made out of plastic metal and wood and cannot act on their own?

Of course the person is doing the killing. Nobody is saying otherwise, kind of a stupid talking point by the right. "guns don't kill people, people kill people" No shit, why make it easy for them?

Nukes don't kill people, North Korea potentially will. I wonder what they will use and I wonder who would be against having whatever that is.

 

[P@triot]

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,

That's not a "tough" choice at all. That's the easiest choice ever. The U.S. Constitution guaranteed my rights to keep and bear arms. Doesn't bother me one bit that people like you are too stupid to be armed so you can protect yourself.

The U.S. Constitution guaranteed you freedom (including the freedom to own and carry firearms). It never guaranteed you security.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Contumacious]

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

You obviously have not been to any shooting competitions… LOL
There's one up your next week in deadwood South Dakota, and what separates the worst from the best… Milliseconds
So no, you don't need 20, 50 or 100 round magazines and called "assault weapon"(which is really a sporting rifle) to kill people. You just need hate...

Maybe do me a favor and leave the fantasy world of speed shooting and document the worst mass shooting that involved only a revolver. Hell, give me the 10 worst.

Or, fuck it, let's pretend the weapon of choice of zero consequence.

Do me a favor, realize that the individual person is doing the killing, not the gun… LOL
You do realize guns are just made out of plastic metal and wood and cannot act on their own?

Of course the person is doing the killing. Nobody is saying otherwise, kind of a stupid talking point by the right. "guns don't kill people, people kill people" No shit, why make it easy for them?

Nukes don't kill people, North Korea potentially will. I wonder what they will use and I wonder who would be against having whatever that is.

I agree.

The government should not make it easy by ABOLISHING GUN FREE ZONES and the 9th US Circuit court of appeals and incorporating that territory with the 5th Court of Appeals.

 

[Hossfly]

The following awarded for starting this thread.

 

[PredFan]

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,

Your OP is a straw man and fails in every logical way.

 

[HappyJoy]

By the way, wingnuts. I own a handgun, just a simple Glock 9mm. I'm not against the ownership of guns and even if I were, it's a protected right under the 2nd.

I've thought about buying an AR-15 for the last couple of years, they look like fun and I can certainly understand why they and guns in general are popular.

However, in this debate about what should be legal or how we decide who should even own a gun, at least recognize that some guns do more damage to others. Last night/this morning a horrible new record for our country was achieved and the AR15 is the tool used to achieve it. That is fact, that is life.

I think the FBI needs to do a better job of vetting those that have had interactions with terrorism, regardless of it's origins, that's just common sense. We also need to be realistic about the guns chosen, used and how they attained them. That is also common sense. Chill out wingnuts.

 

[skye]

I agree with Hossfly!

Stupid thread of the year 2016 (so far).