What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Skull Pilot]

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

hey didn't you just say the 5.56 was a round designed to wound not kill?

make up your mind

and you know as well as I do that an AR fires no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

Let's take a look at the Vegas shooting. Over 500 people were wounded versus 57 confirmed dead. It does a lot of both wound and kill and it does it very fast and efficient. It's design, for the day, was dead on for combat.

it is no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle and here you are saying you don't want to ban all semiautomatics while calling to get rid of just one type because it's "too deadly"

I don't want to ban any of them. But I do want some checks and balances. When one weapon is as efficient in killing and wounding as the AR then it's worth seriously looking at.

The fact is, if you are going to go balls out for 10 minutes, the AR IS much faster than the sporting semi autos. If you are talking about one 30 round mag then no it's not. But bring lots of mags and the AR is now being used for what it was originally designed for and it's better at it than all the others.

That is utter horseshit

to paraphrase you

if it sounds like a gun ban it is a gun ban.

You do not want anyone to have a .223 semiautomatic

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are talking about mass murders where innocent people are slaughtered.

Accorduing to you, we can't do anything about them because they represent a low percentage in the all gun violence statistics.

I'm saying banning one rifle will do nothing to stop them.

If you want to stop people from shooting up a school then don't allow people with guns to simply walk into a school as they all seem to be able to do

The AR is not used because it is somehow more deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle it's it tends to be used because it is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

It's no different than the most popular car model in the country being involved in more accidents than any other model.

It's used for the same reason just another model of it is used in Combat. It's damned good at killing or wounding lots of people fast and even a child can operate it with little training.

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

You really think that the US Military would fire on US citizens? You've never served if you do.

I took an oath. And it included foreign AND Domestic. If a group is trying to do a violent overthrow that is still covered in my oath. I took that oath 5 times and no one of any authority has ever told me to disregard it. So I still am held by it.

 

[sparky]

Over and over where anyone saying that we have no chance is proven to be a Goddamn idiot?

you, nor anyone else, has any proof

~S~

 

[2aguy]

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

hey didn't you just say the 5.56 was a round designed to wound not kill?

make up your mind

and you know as well as I do that an AR fires no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

Let's take a look at the Vegas shooting. Over 500 people were wounded versus 57 confirmed dead. It does a lot of both wound and kill and it does it very fast and efficient. It's design, for the day, was dead on for combat.

it is no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle and here you are saying you don't want to ban all semiautomatics while calling to get rid of just one type because it's "too deadly"

I don't want to ban any of them. But I do want some checks and balances. When one weapon is as efficient in killing and wounding as the AR then it's worth seriously looking at.

The fact is, if you are going to go balls out for 10 minutes, the AR IS much faster than the sporting semi autos. If you are talking about one 30 round mag then no it's not. But bring lots of mags and the AR is now being used for what it was originally designed for and it's better at it than all the others.

Wrong.... you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[sparky]

It's too bad these gun debates are always two dimesional /black/white mentality

That's the biggest part of the problem

jmho

~S~

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

hey didn't you just say the 5.56 was a round designed to wound not kill?

make up your mind

and you know as well as I do that an AR fires no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

Let's take a look at the Vegas shooting. Over 500 people were wounded versus 57 confirmed dead. It does a lot of both wound and kill and it does it very fast and efficient. It's design, for the day, was dead on for combat.

it is no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle and here you are saying you don't want to ban all semiautomatics while calling to get rid of just one type because it's "too deadly"

I don't want to ban any of them. But I do want some checks and balances. When one weapon is as efficient in killing and wounding as the AR then it's worth seriously looking at.

The fact is, if you are going to go balls out for 10 minutes, the AR IS much faster than the sporting semi autos. If you are talking about one 30 round mag then no it's not. But bring lots of mags and the AR is now being used for what it was originally designed for and it's better at it than all the others.

That is utter horseshit

to paraphrase you

if it sounds like a gun ban it is a gun ban.

You do not want anyone to have a .223 semiautomatic

The 223 isn't the problem. It's a substandard round for hunting. Many times, it doesn't do the kill in one shot. One Shot, One Kill. When you can get one shot one kill then that's a good round no matter what it's fired from. If it has a higher degree of wounding then it's a substandard round. And since the 556 Nato (which is a more powerful round if you have the right chambered barrel) is designed to borderline kill then as a hunting rifle even that is substandard. But if you can throw out more lead than any other of the sporting rifles then that's not a sporting rifle anymore. It's using it as it was intended for and that is the shoot lots and lots of people fast and continuous. And that is exactly what the AR can do and does do for both the Military and the Sillyvillians.

 

[Doc1]

I'm saying banning one rifle will do nothing to stop them.

If you want to stop people from shooting up a school then don't allow people with guns to simply walk into a school as they all seem to be able to do

The AR is not used because it is somehow more deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle it's it tends to be used because it is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

It's no different than the most popular car model in the country being involved in more accidents than any other model.

It's used for the same reason just another model of it is used in Combat. It's damned good at killing or wounding lots of people fast and even a child can operate it with little training.

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

You really think that the US Military would fire on US citizens? You've never served if you do.

I took an oath. And it included foreign AND Domestic. If a group is trying to do a violent overthrow that is still covered in my oath. I took that oath 5 times and no one of any authority has ever told me to disregard it. So I still am held by it.

The ONLY overthrow going on here is being perpetrated by the American Left. IF you served you were an "in the rear with the gear" guy. Our military will NOT fire on people who are doing nothing more than defending their rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's used for the same reason just another model of it is used in Combat. It's damned good at killing or wounding lots of people fast and even a child can operate it with little training.

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

You really think that the US Military would fire on US citizens? You've never served if you do.

I took an oath. And it included foreign AND Domestic. If a group is trying to do a violent overthrow that is still covered in my oath. I took that oath 5 times and no one of any authority has ever told me to disregard it. So I still am held by it.

The ONLY overthrow going on here is being perpetrated by the American Left. IF you served you were an "in the rear with the gear" guy. Our military will NOT fire on people who are doing nothing more than defending their rights.

We will if you are trying to overthrow the Constitutionally elected government like many seem to suggest. Your are fighting for your rights except the laws say you are just a domestic terrorist and that is covered in my Oath to serve. So yes, the Military will fire on you if you grab your gun of go for that overthrow since you are NOT a citizen anymore. When the first shot you fired, you negated your citizenship.

 

[sparky]

Our military will NOT fire on people who are doing nothing more than defending their rights.

so take you gun to the white house ,and let us know how it works out Doc

~S~

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So why are you so obsessed with a rifle that is used in less than 1% of all murders?

We are talking about mass murders where innocent people are slaughtered.

Accorduing to you, we can't do anything about them because they represent a low percentage in the all gun violence statistics.

I'm saying banning one rifle will do nothing to stop them.

If you want to stop people from shooting up a school then don't allow people with guns to simply walk into a school as they all seem to be able to do

The AR is not used because it is somehow more deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle it's it tends to be used because it is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

It's no different than the most popular car model in the country being involved in more accidents than any other model.

It's used for the same reason just another model of it is used in Combat. It's damned good at killing or wounding lots of people fast and even a child can operate it with little training.

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

Even if only 10 million people are armed with them, the entire world cannot defeat a ground force that big.

The Afghan and Iraq fighting rolled on for more that a decade. Wonder why?

This does not account for overruning, commandeering, and repurposing of heavy U.S. military equipment against them.

Then, there's the practical side. How does a government maintain power over a population that has wholly rejected it?

The only reason we have the mere appearance of fair elections is armed citizenry.

But, these arguments prove that we need more firepower. You are arguing our case for us. We need machine guns. We need enough state-of-the-art weaponry to defend against our own government.

.

 

[EGR one]

No conflating mass shootings into a major factor in the murder rate is dishonest

The advantage of tne AR15 is highlighted in mass shootings.where the semi-automatic aspect with larger magazines & accuracy creates a higher death toll.

When reducing these death tolls, the banning on these assault type rifles makes sense.

It makes no sense. Changing a magazine on any gun does not take that long. Here is a video of how fast a magazine can be changed on a handgun; pay attention to the accuracy as well:

If they are equivalent to the AR-15 then why do you need them?

Because they are customizable, easy to shoot for all sizes of shooters especially women and the only reason you twits want the AR-15 so bad is that if you establish the precedent that the AR-15 rifle is dangerous because it is a semi automatic weapon....then you can come back and demand all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers be banned because as we tell you, and you will state later.....they all operate the same way.

You left out the mos important. It's the one designed to do the most damage in the fastest time. And you left out that it was designed as a combat rifle. Then you left out that there are much better alternatives. You left out that it has the body count record for mass shooters. You left out that it's easy to conceal and transport it.

I don't advocate outright banning of the AR but I do advocate better controls on it through common sense firearms regulation.

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

 

[Doc1]

Our military will NOT fire on people who are doing nothing more than defending their rights.

so take you gun to the white house ,and let us know how it works out Doc

~S~

LOL, illogical extreme dumb ass.

 

[Doc1]

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

You really think that the US Military would fire on US citizens? You've never served if you do.

I took an oath. And it included foreign AND Domestic. If a group is trying to do a violent overthrow that is still covered in my oath. I took that oath 5 times and no one of any authority has ever told me to disregard it. So I still am held by it.

The ONLY overthrow going on here is being perpetrated by the American Left. IF you served you were an "in the rear with the gear" guy. Our military will NOT fire on people who are doing nothing more than defending their rights.

We will if you are trying to overthrow the Constitutionally elected government like many seem to suggest. Your are fighting for your rights except the laws say you are just a domestic terrorist and that is covered in my Oath to serve. So yes, the Military will fire on you if you grab your gun of go for that overthrow since you are NOT a citizen anymore. When the first shot you fired, you negated your citizenship.

(smile) The Feds come for American's guns and we refuse OUR military will NOT fire on us.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can't defend ourselves against our own government with these pea shooters.

We need machine guns right now.

.

 

[John Shaw]

Republicans see mass shootings as a form of population control, I guess.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's too bad these gun debates are always two dimesional /black/white mentality

That's the biggest part of the problem

jmho

~S~

You will notice that I don't advocate the banning but the regulation. I think we both know there is a world of difference in those two terms. But the gun crazies operate that if you are not completely with them, you are completely against them. And they are looking for someone else to blame other than themselves. What they don't understand is, they may be right on certain parts but they come off as crackpot overall. And then things may go overboard on the Regulations. Usually, the new gun regs pretty well it right in most states. And they are all slowly coming towards the same Regulations. Then when they notice that there are enough of people like me and yes, the other side fringe, posting then here comes the temper tantrum and the threat of a revolution to "Protect their Rights".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We can't defend ourselves against our own government with these pea shooters.

We need machine guns right now.

.

So you get your machine guns and go for it. As you stand on your little hill and look out across the landscape at the Federal US Military, It reminds me of a Movie Quote, "I think we need a bigger boat".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are talking about mass murders where innocent people are slaughtered.

Accorduing to you, we can't do anything about them because they represent a low percentage in the all gun violence statistics.

I'm saying banning one rifle will do nothing to stop them.

If you want to stop people from shooting up a school then don't allow people with guns to simply walk into a school as they all seem to be able to do

The AR is not used because it is somehow more deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle it's it tends to be used because it is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

It's no different than the most popular car model in the country being involved in more accidents than any other model.

It's used for the same reason just another model of it is used in Combat. It's damned good at killing or wounding lots of people fast and even a child can operate it with little training.

And you keep saying that we have ZERO chance at removing and replacing a tyrannical government.

Make up your mind. Are 90 million AR-style weapons effective in ground combat or are they not?

Unless you show up with Mobile Artillery which kills more than any MG in existance. Unless you have the the logistics, unless you have an Air Force. Unless you have your own Navy.

As for 90 million, most people don't own an AR. Most of the ARs are owned by a very low percentage of the population. If you have one, there is a good chance you will have at least 2 or more. You seem to have left that out.

Even if only 10 million people are armed with them, the entire world cannot defeat a ground force that big.

The Afghan and Iraq fighting rolled on for more that a decade. Wonder why?

This does not account for overruning, commandeering, and repurposing of heavy U.S. military equipment against them.

Then, there's the practical side. How does a government maintain power over a population that has wholly rejected it?

The only reason we have the mere appearance of fair elections is armed citizenry.

But, these arguments prove that we need more firepower. You are arguing our case for us. We need machine guns. We need enough state-of-the-art weaponry to defend against our own government.

.

And at some point you will be labeled a Domestic Terrorist and you just lost all protections.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can't defend ourselves against our own government with these pea shooters.

We need machine guns right now.

.

So you get your machine guns and go for it. As you stand on your little hill and look out across the landscape at the Federal US Military, It reminds me of a Movie Quote, "I think we need a bigger boat".

so, give us our machine guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, you heard it, folks. Daryl is on board with repealing the Hughes Amendment.

.