Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[Kilroy2]

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

Ok.
So?

OK.
So?

Still waiting for your sound argument.

And again.....

Nashville

AR-15 rifle 6 killed

Kerch, Russia

5 shot, pump action shotgun, not a rifle, no magazine

20 killed

Navy Yard shooting

5 shot, pump action shotgun,not a rifle, no magazine

12 killed

Cumbria shooting in Britain...

...no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle

13 killed, 11 injured....

Santa Fe, High school shooting

No rifle, pump action shotgun, .38 caliber revolver

10 killed

Luby's Cafe

24 killed, 2 pistols

Virgina Tech

32 people killed, 2 pistols.

The gun does not determine how many are killed and you have been explained this over and over

The amount of time the killer has in a gun free zone before someone shoota and stops them determines how many get killed as the two example above show.


==========
From 1982....various attacks.....most done without rifles, you twit.


Gilroy, semi-auto rifle with large magazine....3 killed

Dayton, democrat, socialist, antifa member, elizabeth warren supporter, semi-auto rifle with regular magazine....9 killed.

Umpquaa Community college shooting....5 pistols, 9 killed

Charleston Church shooting, 9 dead, 1 pistol.

Atlanta spree shooting.... 9 dead 3 pistols

Red Lake shooting 10 dead 2 pistols.

Santa Fe High school shooting...no rifle, no magazine.....shot gun and .38 revolver... 10 killed

Russian Polytechnic school shooting.... no rifle, no magazine.....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun....20 killed, 40 injured.

Navy Yard shooting.... no rifle, no magazine, tube fed pump action shotgun, 5,6 or 7 shot pump action shotgun....12 killed

Virginia Tech.... 32 people killed, 2 pistols.

Luby's cafe.... 24 killed, 2 pistols

British, Cumbria shooting....no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle 13 killed, 11 injured....

Fort Hood....1 pistol....13 killed

Virginia beach...2 pistols .... 12 killed

The gun does not determine how many are killed and you have been explained this over and over - you


You just want to simplify it in order to pad a loosing argument.

The gun is a factor and yet there are numerous factors that can play into it. The number of people in the area, response time by law enforcement, how much cover there is to hide, etc. Pistol is easier to handle and generally requires more up close shootings. AR 15 can be used from a distance which would add time to find the shooter.

but you argument to remove the gun and say it does not determine how many are killed is self serving.

Also you want to limit it to people who were killed. Ignoring the trauma of having been shoot. Pretending that it is ok because they survived. Yes they are lucky they survived but the trauma is with them for the rest of their lives.

Yet you do not care


On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the ...
Deaths: 58 (including the perpetrator and two ...
Injured: ≈ 867 (413+ by gunfire or shrapnel). This is the largest number and you would have to add other shooting to match this number. Also you refuse to acknowledge those who survived and have to live with a wound and the trauma of being shot.

This show what

Yes a pistol is the most preferred method but since they are not going to ban pistols. Followed by rifles, and last shotguns. Rifles are the logical

If the shooter had a rifle then there would have been more killings. Pistol is used most of the time for other reasons such as it a lot easy to get. They (guns) are cheaper (200 dollars vs 5,000 and up for AR rifles) There are more pistols in circulation and they are easier to conceal. They are easier to use than an AR. So there are factor that you ignore in order to support that AR-15 weapons should not be banned.

So just because of cost, concealment, ease of use, familiarity, and the amount of pistols in circulation , that is the reason guns are the preferred method. Ultimately they are not going to ban guns. They should ban ar-15 type weapons. The Las Vegas shows what could happen if those with mental problems could afford an AR rifle. Then they would have to learn to shoot one. Pistol are cheap and people tend to leave them lying around to be stolen or borrowed (in your words).

 

[2aguy]

I showed a video explaining that the damage done to the human body is greater for an AR-15 style rifle than for a handgun. The points were raised given a study in a USC lab, a trauma surgeon, a hospital head, and others.

Your response is that the AR-15 style rifle is no different from any other firearm.

You're obviously wrong.

And that is a lie....the AR-15 does not do more damage than other rifles...which is what you are implying.....lying about......

There have been numerous reports that the military's 5.56 FMJ round has insufficient terminal effectiveness in combat. Combat veteran and military small arms expert Jim Schatz explains, "The disturbing failure of the 5.56x45mm caliber to consistently offer adequate incapacitation has been known for nearly 20 years." He describes one Special Forces (SF) mission in Afghanistan when an insurgent was shot seven or eight times in the torso with the 5.56 round, got back up, climbed over a wall, and reengaged other SF soldiers, killing a SF medic. The insurgent then was shot another six-to-eight times from about 20-30 yards before finally being killed by a SF soldier with a handgun.

Similarly, Rob Maylor, a former Australian SAS sniper, has "on several occasions witnessed bad guys being hit multiple times by 5.56mm . . . at varying ranges and then continue[] to fight." He explains that while the 5.56 round is designed to yaw and fragment, "[t]his isn't happening all the time and as a result projectiles are passing through the body with minimal damage."

Mark Bowden's bestselling book Black Hawk Down gives vivid accounts of less-than-lethal performance of the Army's green-tip 5.56mm bullet (M855) in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. He describes one Delta operator's rounds as

These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that

n 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked into my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet's temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly.

Dr. Fackler further notes that "n my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that [the 5.56mm] produced unacceptably minimal, rather than 'massive,' wounds."

Like any firearm, the AR rifle in typical calibers such as .223/5.56mm, can cause serious or lethal wounds, and so can other rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft-point) .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm FMJ bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles (e.g., .30-30, .308). A comparison of those profiles shows that the wounding effects of the larger caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223/5.56, and typically more so.

According to Dr. Fackler, the .223 Remington is "a 'varmint' cartridge, used effectively for shooting woodchucks, crows, and coyotes." Because of its smaller size, there is an ongoing debate among hunters over whether the .223 round has adequate terminal performance for taking deer or larger game. Some states ban the use of .223 caliber rifles when hunting deer and other animals larger than varmints because their rounds lack sufficient power. The ethos of hunting is to take an animal with a single fatal shot. In the views of some state game commissions, the usual AR calibers of .223 and 5.56mm are too weak; at least a .270 is required for hunting deer, antelope, or anything larger.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Two contrasting points can't both make sense, genius. Only one of us is right, and that's obviously not you.

Thanks for playing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Several messages, and you just got the point now. Maybe we should wait a few more days before you notice the thread title.

Wut?
How does the fact an 5.56 round from a AR15 does more damage than a handgun round create or support a sound argument for banning AR15s?

 

[ralfy]

So your contention is that the AR15 and the Mini 14 Ranch rifle projectiles react differently when they hit a body? Do I have that clear? Ummmmm OK, whatever you say.

No, according to the video the AR15-style rifle is not the same as a handgun.

 

[ralfy]

Sorry, SCOTUS disagrees with you and they have the say. Sucks to be you.

SCOTUS supports my argument. The difference is that they argue that 2A protects the right to bear arms. I'm arguing that the right to bear arms is based on the natural right of self-defense, and thus exists without 2A.

Sucks to be a GovCo shill like you.

 

[ralfy]

well the supreme court does not agree with you. What part of ..... will not be infringed do you not get.

I'll make it simple for you. The right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense, which is part of English common law. That also explains why colonists were armed before 2A. That's also why they had militias, with some used for slave patrols, also before 2A.

Framers used the natural right to defend oneself to justify the presence of state militias and regulated militias. The latter are explained in Art 1. Sec. 8 of the Constiution and the Militia Acts. The Militia Acts also called for mandatory service and explained the type of weapons needed.

Eventually, state militias were replaced by the police and regulated militias by the National Guard. Mandatory service was replaced by the Selective Service System and the possibility of conscription.

What about infringement? Rights may not be infringed but may be abridged, which is why, for example, minors are not allowed to own firearms in some states.

Now, what is it that you did not understand about that?

 

[ralfy]

And that is a lie....the AR-15 does not do more damage than other rifles...which is what you are implying.....lying about......

There have been numerous reports that the military's 5.56 FMJ round has insufficient terminal effectiveness in combat. Combat veteran and military small arms expert Jim Schatz explains, "The disturbing failure of the 5.56x45mm caliber to consistently offer adequate incapacitation has been known for nearly 20 years." He describes one Special Forces (SF) mission in Afghanistan when an insurgent was shot seven or eight times in the torso with the 5.56 round, got back up, climbed over a wall, and reengaged other SF soldiers, killing a SF medic. The insurgent then was shot another six-to-eight times from about 20-30 yards before finally being killed by a SF soldier with a handgun.

Similarly, Rob Maylor, a former Australian SAS sniper, has "on several occasions witnessed bad guys being hit multiple times by 5.56mm . . . at varying ranges and then continue[] to fight." He explains that while the 5.56 round is designed to yaw and fragment, "[t]his isn't happening all the time and as a result projectiles are passing through the body with minimal damage."

Mark Bowden's bestselling book Black Hawk Down gives vivid accounts of less-than-lethal performance of the Army's green-tip 5.56mm bullet (M855) in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. He describes one Delta operator's rounds as

These instances are consistent with Dr. Fackler's own findings. He recounts that


Dr. Fackler further notes that "n my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that [the 5.56mm] produced unacceptably minimal, rather than 'massive,' wounds."

Like any firearm, the AR rifle in typical calibers such as .223/5.56mm, can cause serious or lethal wounds, and so can other rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Wound profiles from the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory illustrate the permanent and temporary cavities, penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation of both the deforming (soft-point) .223 caliber bullet, the non-deforming 5.56mm FMJ bullet, and other larger caliber bullets typically used in hunting rifles (e.g., .30-30, .308). A comparison of those profiles shows that the wounding effects of the larger caliber bullets are at least as extensive as the .223/5.56, and typically more so.

According to Dr. Fackler, the .223 Remington is "a 'varmint' cartridge, used effectively for shooting woodchucks, crows, and coyotes." Because of its smaller size, there is an ongoing debate among hunters over whether the .223 round has adequate terminal performance for taking deer or larger game. Some states ban the use of .223 caliber rifles when hunting deer and other animals larger than varmints because their rounds lack sufficient power. The ethos of hunting is to take an animal with a single fatal shot. In the views of some state game commissions, the usual AR calibers of .223 and 5.56mm are too weak; at least a .270 is required for hunting deer, antelope, or anything larger.

Then how do you explain the findings of those interviewed in the video and who used the same tests suggested by Dr. Fackler?

 

[ralfy]

Thanks for playing.

Yes, that's what happens when you can't counter my arguments. You are left with one-liners.

 

[ralfy]

Wut?
How does the fact an 5.56 round from a AR15 does more damage than a handgun round create or support a sound argument for banning AR15s?

"Wut" indeed. Good grief, whatta genius.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I'll make it simple for you. The right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense, which is part of English common law. That also explains why colonists were armed before 2A. That's also why they had militias, with some used for slave patrols, also before 2A.

Framers used the natural right to defend oneself to justify the presence of state militias and regulated militias. The latter are explained in Art 1. Sec. 8 of the Constiution and the Militia Acts. The Militia Acts also called for mandatory service and explained the type of weapons needed.

Eventually, state militias were replaced by the police and regulated militias by the National Guard. Mandatory service was replaced by the Selective Service System and the possibility of conscription.

What about infringement? Rights may not be infringed but may be abridged, which is why, for example, minors are not allowed to own firearms in some states.

Now, what is it that you did not understand about that?

NO. The 2nd amendment is one of those right that are GOD GIVEN which means it cannot be taken away by man LEGALLY. There are about 400million guns in this nation and you will not get them.

 

[Concerned American]

I'll make it simple for you. The right to bear arms is based on the right to self-defense, which is part of English common law. That also explains why colonists were armed before 2A. That's also why they had militias, with some used for slave patrols, also before 2A.

Framers used the natural right to defend oneself to justify the presence of state militias and regulated militias. The latter are explained in Art 1. Sec. 8 of the Constiution and the Militia Acts. The Militia Acts also called for mandatory service and explained the type of weapons needed.

Eventually, state militias were replaced by the police and regulated militias by the National Guard. Mandatory service was replaced by the Selective Service System and the possibility of conscription.

What about infringement? Rights may not be infringed but may be abridged, which is why, for example, minors are not allowed to own firearms in some states.

Now, what is it that you did not understand about that?

Apparently you didn't grasp something as simple as the title--topic has nothing to do with your diatribe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Wut" indeed. Good grief, whatta genius.

Yes, that's what happens when you can't answer my questions. You are left with incoherent, evasive babble.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Every time an AR15 is used in a mass shooting - and quite often, even when they aren't - the anti-gun left, in a pre-packaged reactionary response , screams from a ban on same, complete with "information" designed to evoke an emotional response, and, they hope, gain your support for said ban.

What do they NOT tell you?

-American civilians own ~20,000,000 AR15s
-Of the 636 mas shootings in the US, 2022, 8 involved an AR15
-OF the 660 people killed in those mass shootings 54 were killed with an AR15.
[ SOURCES NOTED BELOW ]

Why do they not tell you this?

Because they know there's no sound argument for the ban they call for.
Because they know they need to prey on the emotions of the ignorant to move their ban forward
Because they know preying on the emotions of the ignorant works.
Because they don't care about mass shootings or the people in them - they just want to ban AR15s.

There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s; those who support said ban, in their responses, will demonstrate the truth of this statement.


20,000,000 AR15s:

Why even more Americans are arming up with AR-15 guns

What's behind the popularity of the AR-15, and what responsibility do gun makers have when their products are used in mass shootings?

www.cnbc.com

Mass shootings as defined by:
Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive
Supplemental / detailed information from;
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

They know it won't help but it makes them "feel" better if they've "done" something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They know it won't help but it makes them "feel" better if they've "done" something.

The useful idiots will, sure.
Their masters will check off a box on their list and move on to the next weapon.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently you didn't grasp something as simple as the title--topic has nothing to do with your diatribe.

Apparently, he believes the fact a 5.56x45 round will cause more trauma than a handgun round is a rational, reasoned argument for banning AR15s.
Speaks for itself.

 

[2aguy]

Then how do you explain the findings of those interviewed in the video and who used the same tests suggested by Dr. Fackler?

They lied. They are anti-gun activists....

 

[Captain Caveman]

Apparently, he believes the fact a 5.56x45 round will cause more trauma than a handgun round is a rational, reasoned argument for banning AR15s.
Speaks for itself.

The thing is numpty, people (even in the UK) own and want to enjoy the safe use of guns. The problem is society, humans. Some spoil it for the majority. Doesn't matter if numpties misuse cars, ladders, knives, whatever... they simply spoil it for the rest because in order to try and reduce incidents, innocent casualties etc.., some kinda control/regulation etc.. gets implemented, and it annoys the sensibles. Society, unfortunately, has to walk at the speed of the slowest, otherwise chaos ensures.

But the 2nd on the whole ignores those that cause problems, those that are not suitable to own or touch a gun, so you feel qualified to arm yourself to the teeth. And the more you arm yourself, mass shootings continue and increase.

The other problem you've got is an American brain, you can only default between the current mayhem of guns or no guns. Middle ground is alien to you.

So have the 2nd as in you have the right to a gun, but shock horror, amend it, but go for middle ground. So take out the, "Shall not be infringed", and put in a clear wording that as long as your police record is clear, your medical record doesn't show you're a loon, and your driving record doesn't show you used your car to ram/run over people. All those three, you personally have control of. If you fear that, it means you're hiding something.

Guns in the army are used to shoot people, guns in society are not. If you feel you would shoot someone, you are the worst person to own a gun. And some gun features/types are just not needed in society, like bump stocks and the AR-15.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I nearly added M14 Shooter that I bet a million dollars you would reply with a laughing of thumbs down emoji because you have a dreadful orientation towards guns and people. You are a prime example why America has a gun incident crisis.

 

[Concerned American]

Apparently, he believes the fact a 5.56x45 round will cause more trauma than a handgun round is a rational, reasoned argument for banning AR15s.
Speaks for itself.

I guess he is unaware that round can be fired from a hand gun as well.