Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.
think what you're having trouble understanding is that JoeB131 is almost certainly lying about the experience he claims to have had in the military, and with firearms. If he really had the experience that he claims, then he'd know that the AR-15 and the M-16 are nowhere near as intimidating to actually handle and fire as quite a few other common firearms; and if he's really so much of a Kuntzman that an M-16 would be that intimidating to him, then he would never have lasted very long in the Army.
Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
Chances are better you survive a pistol wound. Not so much with an AR.Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.
Something no civilian should own. Ever.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols... They involve assault rifles...
Chances are better you survive a pistol wound. Not so much with an AR.Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.
Something no civilian should own. Ever.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols... They involve assault rifles...
When that round hits an organ, it can't be repaired. It is designed for killing.Chances are better you survive a pistol wound. Not so much with an AR.Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.
Something no civilian should own. Ever.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols... They involve assault rifles...
Exactly. The muzzle velocity of a 9mm is significantly slower than what an AR-15 shoots. And, the force that is delivered is also significantly less.
Then, there is that nasty little fact that the ammo of the AR-15 is designed to shatter on impact. 9mm's don't nearly as bad as the AR-15.
Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.
Something no civilian should own. Ever.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols... They involve assault rifles...
You know, the Las Vegas shooting blows holes in the theory that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. The Vegas shooter was using AR-15's, and was shooting from far enough away that the handguns some of the people at the concert were carrying basically ineffective, as they didn't have the range to reach the shooter.
And yeah JoeB...................I can't really see the necessity of a weapon that is specifically designed to throw lots of ammo down range in a short period of time outside of a war zone.
Chances are better you survive a pistol wound. Not so much with an AR.Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.
Something no civilian should own. Ever.
No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.
One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols... They involve assault rifles...
Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.
It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.
One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.
I'm not intimidated by firing it,MOrmon Bob... I'm initmidated being on the downrange side of it with a crazy nut behind it.
The problem is, we have too many of them out there in the hands of nuts...
Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.
Not what I said at all...
Okay, Corky, try to follow this... an AR had a higher rate of fire, and can do more damage than a pistol. The ammo is specifically designed to do more damage when it hits someone.
It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.
That's again- retarded. Most of the things we use every day aren't designed to kill people.
18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......
Bicycles killed 345 people in 2017.
You are insane.
18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......
Bicycles killed 345 people in 2017.
You are insane.
Bicycles aren't designed to kill people, and the Bicycle industry isn't marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.
Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.
Not what I said at all...
Okay, Corky, try to follow this... an AR had a higher rate of fire, and can do more damage than a pistol. The ammo is specifically designed to do more damage when it hits someone.
It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.
That's again- retarded. Most of the things we use every day aren't designed to kill people.
One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.
I'm not intimidated by firing it,MOrmon Bob... I'm initmidated being on the downrange side of it with a crazy nut behind it.
The problem is, we have too many of them out there in the hands of nuts...
18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......
Bicycles killed 345 people in 2017.
You are insane.
One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.
I'm not intimidated by firing it,MOrmon Bob... I'm initmidated being on the downrange side of it with a crazy nut behind it.
The problem is, we have too many of them out there in the hands of nuts...
18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......
Bicycles killed 345 people in 2017.
You are insane.
Bicycles didn't kill those people. Drivers in cars that ran over the bicyclists is what killed them.
And yet bicycles kill more people than the AR-15 rifle......knives kill more people than the AR-15 rifle.....
cars killed over 38,000 people...
18 million AR-15 rifles..... 3 were used illegally.....
You are an idiot.
And yet bicycles kill more people than the AR-15 rifle......knives kill more people than the AR-15 rifle.....
cars killed over 38,000 people...
18 million AR-15 rifles..... 3 were used illegally.....
You are an idiot.
You're numbers are crap.... Do you just make this shit up?
Point is, nobody is making me go through a metal detector or a security checkpoint because I might have a bicycle.
