The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[westwall]

Hey...twit....Charleston church shooting was a pistol.....go fuck yourself.

isla vista., Santa Barbara....pistols...but thanks for playing......

And I never said all of them were with an assault weapon, I said at least 8 of them were. You then insisted there weren't even 8 mass shootings in the last two years. Well, guess what? there were 14, you fucktard!

Then why the fuck did you list them moron........Mother Jones documented them...there are actual qualifications for a mass shooting moron.....and I listed the number...

What the fuck is wrong with you. I said that of the last 12, 8 were assault rifles. You said there weren't that many mass shotings in the last two years - repeatedly. I named three just in the last year - all with assault rifles. You then kept insisting that there weren't any more mass shootings to be found. i just listed for you 14 in the last two years, the majority of which used assault rifles.

Ya know what? you're a retard. Welcome to my ignore list.

Hey dipshit......I gave you the entire list going back to 1982....a list I have used repeatedly here on U.S. message....try to think before you post....

Except you clearly didn't list all of the mass shootings going back to 1982, because all of the ones I listed were just in the last two years, and weren't even on your list. Whatever.

And the point that you are ignoring is even in your perfect world where guns are denied to the law abiding, mass murders still occur, and the death tolls are larger than here. What is the definition of insanity again?

 

[Old Rocks]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

 

[westwall]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

 

[Czernobog]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

 

[there4eyeM]

The appeal these weapons have, the image they present, are troubling. Other weapons of the same capacity and rate of fire don't attract the same 'clientèle'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

silencers are big out here

why bother the neighbors when you are knocking off coyotes at 3 in the morning

"why bother the neighbors when you are knocking off coyotes(Or homosexuals) at 3 in the morning".

stop your projecting just because you hate gays

doesnt mean anyone else does

What makes you think I "hate gays"? Too early for a joke? Gays are obviously confused. It isn't my fault any of this happened. If you can't look at it without freaking out and irrationally blaming everyone in sight maybe you need to back off of it for a few days until you can think more clearly.

stop projecting your hatred for gays onto others

You are an idiot. I don't "hate" gays. I just don't care about them They seem confused and constantly take the role of "victim". Maybe they are legitimate victims but because I don't share their "burden" I cannot truthfully subscribe to it. It isn't my problem nor is it my responsibility to compensate for what they believe they are "owed" by society.

If you take what I just put down as "hate" then you are too stupid to hold a conversation with. You really need to spend your time conversing with only those that share your thoughts and see the world exactly the way you do. That way you are assured of learning nothing other than what your circle jerk provides.

of course you do that is why you falsely attempted to throw in gay haters in with lawful gun owners

fuckers like you make want to throw up

 

[eflatminor]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

 

[eflatminor]

However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For law abiding citizens, yes. For criminals, no.

So, yes or no, do you want to see good people at a tactical disadvantage to criminals?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

No


Moron, the answer is no. Those who are intent on shooting up a room full of people will always be able to obtain said weapon.

One can look at the failure of the war on drugs for absolute proof of that.

You people are fools.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

 

[there4eyeM]

US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health:
The wounding effects of 5.56 and 7.62 mm calibre bullets, hitting on soft tissues of 130 dogs at various velocities ranging from 513 to 933 m/s have been studied. The injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was more severe than that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. This is due to the difference in ballistic behavior between the two types of bullets. The wound caused by 5.56 mm bullet was characterized by a trumpet-shaped channel with large defect. The skin around the exit was torn away and its shape was irregular, which, however, occurred only when the tumbling and the breaking of the bullet existed. High-speed X-ray photograph demonstrated that in 5.56 mm bullet group, temporary cavity was much larger and lasted longer. Splashing phenomenon could be seen at the exist and the fragments of the bullet could be found somewhere. Based on the comparisons the amount of absorbed energy, the volume of wound channel, the frequency of developing complex wound and the ratio of dimensions between the entrance and the exit, it proved that the injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was several to dozens of time as severe as that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. Nevertheless, wound extents by both types of bullet would be similar if the inflicting bullet did not show any significant tumbling, breaking or deformation.

 

[Rustic]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

 

[eflatminor]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

Of course there are semi auto firearms in use by the military (every Berretta sidearm, for example). That doesn't change the fact that you can't call an AR15 a weapon of war, unless you're ready to apply that term to every firearm capable of firing more than one shot at at time, which would include revolvers.

Do you disagree with anything else I wrote here? Or do you just want to get into a semantic bitch slap argument?

Good God man, I'm on your side!

 

[there4eyeM]

from 'The Arms Guide':
As with so many elements of making a firearm purchase, the “right” option is subjective. If all you intend to purchase are .223 Remington rounds, there is nothing wrong with getting a rifle chambered for .223. However, if you want the option of firing milspec 5.56 through your rifle, you may prefer picking up a 5.56 chambered rifle. After all, you can still fire the .223 through it, safely, if you want. Price and personal preference are also factors to consider when making that decision. What works for you?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

Of course there are semi auto firearms in use by the military (every Berretta sidearm, for example). That doesn't change the fact that you can't call an AR15 a weapon of war, unless you're ready to apply that term to every firearm capable of firing more than one shot at at time, which would include revolvers.

Do you disagree with anything else I wrote here? Or do you just want to get into a semantic bitch slap argument?

Good God man, I'm on your side!

I don't care if you are on my side or not, words matter. Weapons of war is a stupid misuse of terms that Democrats are now using to try to scare people. Why you would try to define it as anything other than laughable mystifies me.


I am not in this just to argue and scream that I'm right, I'm in it to convince well meaning people that a gun ban isn't the solution. The fringe lunatics who aren't interested in discussion are not my audience. So it offends me when people who are "on my side" also use incorrect terms and poor logic.

Assault weapons is a legal term
Assault rifle is a military term

Assault rifles are already banned insofar as they can no longer be manufactured for civilian use in this country . Nor can they be imported. They can however be legally owned if they were build prior to 1969.

Assault weapons on the other hand are not banned in this country and anyone can go online and buy a brand new one and have it shipped right to their house, or walk into a gun store, or even get on FaceBook and buy one without any sort of background check.

No one could possibly believe it should be that easy to get one. BUT that has nothing to do with a ban or confiscation that many fools are wanting.

 

[there4eyeM]

from Wikipedia:
"The AR-15 is a military and civilian rifle that has been produced in many different versions. The term AR-15 was chosen by Colt for the civilian models it produced after selling the rifle to the U.S. military as the M16 rifle, and many people and references use the term AR-15 exclusively for civilian models. This article discusses the original design for military users and its major variants, however they are labeled. AR-15 rifles are lightweight, gas-operated, magazine-fed, and air-cooled. They fire an intermediate cartridge, and are manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials.

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle. In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians designated as the Colt SP1. Although the name AR-15 remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers."

The AR 15 is a semi-auto M 16.

 

[eflatminor]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

Of course there are semi auto firearms in use by the military (every Berretta sidearm, for example). That doesn't change the fact that you can't call an AR15 a weapon of war, unless you're ready to apply that term to every firearm capable of firing more than one shot at at time, which would include revolvers.

Do you disagree with anything else I wrote here? Or do you just want to get into a semantic bitch slap argument?

Good God man, I'm on your side!

I don't care if you are on my side or not, words matter. Weapons of war is a stupid misuse of terms that Democrats are now using to try to scare people. Why you would try to define it as anything other than laughable mystifies me.


I am not in this just to argue and scream that I'm right, I'm in it to convince well meaning people that a gun ban isn't the solution. The fringe lunatics who aren't interested in discussion are not my audience. So it offends me when people who are "on my side" also use incorrect terms and poor logic.

Assault weapons is a legal term
Assault rifle is a military term

Assault rifles are already banned insofar as they can no longer be manufactured for civilian use in this country . Nor can they be imported. They can however be legally owned if they were build prior to 1969.

Assault weapons on the other hand are not banned in this country and anyone can go online and buy a brand new one and have it shipped right to their house, or walk into a gun store, or even get on FaceBook and buy one without any sort of background check.

No one could possibly believe it should be that easy to get one. BUT that has nothing to do with a ban or confiscation that many fools are wanting.

I agree entirely! Geez

 

[skookerasbil]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using 00 buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using )) buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

In a soft target environment the .223 is not a "docile" round by any means. Good grief

in a combat situation versus people wearing body armor and such, yeah there are better choices, but against a nightclub full of soft civilians? Tell me what advantage would have been gained by using say a .44 automag?

 

[skookerasbil]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using )) buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

In a soft target environment the .223 is not a "docile" round by any means. Good grief

in a combat situation versus people wearing body armor and such, yeah there are better choices, but against a nightclub full of soft civilians? Tell me what advantage would have been gained by using say a .44 automag?

Whatever you say s0n!!!

Fucking dummies around here.............

A .223 is likely stopping in its intended target. A 7.62 39 is going through a few people......same as a .44 mag.........and a shotgun slug at close range is passing through 6 or 7 people and taking whole organs with it!!.Lots and lots of vids on BOOBTUBE on this stuff.....

Makey-uppey shit on ballistics is ghey




Point is......this outrage about the AR-15 is laughable!!