“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[Skull Pilot]

If one needless death can be absolutely prevented then it should be prevented. A life is more important than your paranoia. But I guess it pays to be paranoid when they really are out to get you. Why that line must be completely around the block.

You know, by this standard, shouldn't police have the authority to randomly search every home, business, and person to find any illegal items that could harm the public?

If it just prevents ONE needless death, right?

Life is more important than your privacy, right?

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

And blaming all gun owners for the illegal acts of a few is within reason?

 

[Skull Pilot]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

 

[Pop23]

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

So are you.

Explain why my argument is not reason and yours is.

You can't.

You should now understand why your argument is NOT reasonable.

let's see. My reason.

I want to raise the age limit for all states for purchasing guns to 21.
I want to make it where ALL guns sales must pass a gun check
I want to completely outlaw bumps stocks
I want to limit Mag size to no more than 15 rounds
I want the weapons to not have the rails for many of the dangerous addons
I want to make silencers have to have an FFL License to own, purchase or use them.

Not a long list. BTW, Colorado already has these in place. And the NRA has already taken it to court and lost. Welcome to the future. These are reasonable laws. Most of the exceptions were grandfathered in and it only affects new sales, manufacturing. These are not gun Grabbers, they are reasonable otherwise, they would have been found unconstitutional. Some states have gone further while others have not gone quite as far. But most states have at least made an effort. If you don't like the state you are in, move to one you like. But, rest assured, sooner or later, all states will carry reasonable gun control laws similiar to the ones we have here.

Not a long list, but based on pure speculation that it changes the number of deaths caused in mass murder at all. If we base things on pure speculation, it is just as valid to say that banning anything, or any restriction could lead to higher body counts. That is, unless you delve into the paranormal.

 

[mudwhistle]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If one needless death can be absolutely prevented then it should be prevented. A life is more important than your paranoia. But I guess it pays to be paranoid when they really are out to get you. Why that line must be completely around the block.

You know, by this standard, shouldn't police have the authority to randomly search every home, business, and person to find any illegal items that could harm the public?

If it just prevents ONE needless death, right?

Life is more important than your privacy, right?

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

And blaming all gun owners for the illegal acts of a few is within reason?

Since when did I blame ALL Gun Owners? I would have to blame myself as well. Now, wouldn't that be stupid. Almost as stupid as you making that claim. And that's another "Outside" of reason statement on your part.

The more you use that type of "Reasoning" the more we will all lose in the end since the argument against sounds so illogical and childish.

 

[Pop23]

If one needless death can be absolutely prevented then it should be prevented. A life is more important than your paranoia. But I guess it pays to be paranoid when they really are out to get you. Why that line must be completely around the block.

You know, by this standard, shouldn't police have the authority to randomly search every home, business, and person to find any illegal items that could harm the public?

If it just prevents ONE needless death, right?

Life is more important than your privacy, right?

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

And blaming all gun owners for the illegal acts of a few is within reason?

Since when did I blame ALL Gun Owners? I would have to blame myself as well. Now, wouldn't that be stupid. Almost as stupid as you making that claim. And that's another "Outside" of reason statement on your part.

The more you use that type of "Reasoning" the more we will all lose in the end since the argument against sounds so illogical and childish.

Honestly, Daryl hasn't posted anything that "blames all gun owners", but at the same time he wants to restrict "all gun owners", so he is being disingenuous.

 

[Pop23]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

That is YOUR very narrow definition. Others have other definitions. Like, can it accept additional equipment that is strictly used for war like a M203 Grenade Launcher. Can it accept a Silencer, can it accept a Bayonet?

One person said that a Bayonet was just a knife. Not when mounted on the front of a rifle, it's not. It becomes many times more deadly and has only one use and that is of war. You can't use a bayonet to varmint hunt. Those little critters just won't cooperate.

Most of these arguments by you nutters are just strawmen. The AR can be equipped exactly like the M-16 and that is part of the mystique of the weapon. By changing it to not accept the accessories of war much of the mystique is removed. You don't want it classified as an Assault Weapon, remove the ability to accept the War Accessories. Or lose the weapon completely. You people are your own worst enemy.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

 

[hadit]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

But it's black and scary looking, so we'll continue hearing about it being an assault rifle.

 

[Pop23]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

Why would I use that response? You might be correct on the body count, and the equipment used. That is History. Where you fail is when you speculate that those numbers could not have been higher had the criminal actor not been able to obtain any of those as well.

Yes, the individuals that died might not have, but that simply begs the question, what others might have if the "actor" used a different method, and what number could he have killed using a different method, since he could not of obtained the AR?

Is seventeen dead in a hallway, killed in a hallway by an AR legally purchased somehow less gruesome than 17 killed in a hallway by semi auto pistols illegally purchased, or 17 killed by being run down by a rental van?

See, this is where you just become disingenuous. It appears it's not the life's taken, it's the method.

You have no evidence that Murders won't Murder simply because they lack a legal ability, an attachment or because they are of a certain age.

 

[hadit]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

This is the point. Let's say they succeed and ban all black, scary looking guns. What happens next? Children still get shot, concert goers still get killed, the carnage doesn't abate at all. What does any rational person think they will do? They say NOW that they don't want to ban and confiscate all guns, but what will be the tune when this ban doesn't work at all?

 

[Pop23]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

This is the point. Let's say they succeed and ban all black, scary looking guns. What happens next? Children still get shot, concert goers still get killed, the carnage doesn't abate at all. What does any rational person think they will do? They say NOW that they don't want to ban and confiscate all guns, but what will be the tune when this ban doesn't work at all?

They can't really blame themselves now can they. And the public they put in a panic and supported the ideas? Think they will admit they were wrong as well? Doubt it. So instead of seeing the foolishness of the argument they MUST attempt to save face and go further with the bans. At some point you will be spreading butter on your toast with your fingers because no one, under the age of 95 will be allowed a butter knife.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is YOUR very narrow definition. Others have other definitions. Like, can it accept additional equipment that is strictly used for war like a M203 Grenade Launcher. Can it accept a Silencer, can it accept a Bayonet?

One person said that a Bayonet was just a knife. Not when mounted on the front of a rifle, it's not. It becomes many times more deadly and has only one use and that is of war. You can't use a bayonet to varmint hunt. Those little critters just won't cooperate.

Most of these arguments by you nutters are just strawmen. The AR can be equipped exactly like the M-16 and that is part of the mystique of the weapon. By changing it to not accept the accessories of war much of the mystique is removed. You don't want it classified as an Assault Weapon, remove the ability to accept the War Accessories. Or lose the weapon completely. You people are your own worst enemy.

So, it's the modular nature of the AR platform that bothers you?

Where can I buy an M203? Where can I buy the granades? Have you heard of anyone committing a single act of civilian violence in the U.S. using an M203?

A Springfield M1903 has a beyonnet mount. Ban those? Muskets were equipped to attach beyonnets. You are advocating for what amounts to a spear ban. This is so far beyond dumbfuck that I cannot believe anyone would call that reasonable.

The suppressor restriction was obviously proposed and enacted by those with very limited understanding of how muzzle "bang" works. The purpose (preventing us from suppressing muzzle "bang") is just as dubious as all other gun-control measures. Guns making loud noises is a good thing because we can hear a murder in progress? A pillow or plastic coke bottle solves that problem quite well. So, the only people restricted are people like me who obey the law(for now), no matter how stupid it is. Furthermore, ANY firearm can be equipped to attach a suppressor. So, again, your ignorant, lame-assed attempt to define and ban a specific platform or class only works to ban EVERYTHING.

What may only be necessary for hunting is NOT a preclusion on the RIGHT to own firearms. Hunting need is only tangentially relevant, at best. The RIGHT is not based on a specific, arbitrarily narrowed need, just like free speech is not based on any narrowly confined need. Any idiot can say whatever the fuck he wants, without prior restraint. And, spare me the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. No one is precluded fro yelling "fire" anywhere. They are punished after. You have NO REASON to restrain MILLIONS of nonviolent people.

Your advocacy for the unjust restraint of a RIGHT makes you an enemy to freedom. You don't seem to understand the concept. We are not our own enemy. The enemy is the group trying to manufacture a fake pigeon-hole for one firearm platform as an intentional work-around to ban them all. I realize you can't see the nefarious angle being played by the gun-grabbing commie left (or you are deliberately ignoring it), but they have not been able to keep their minions quiet about the real goal. Everything they do is in furtherance of that end. You are either naive to think otherwise or you are one of them.

If you are truly interested in preserving the right (you're not) you should be attacking the REAL enemy, rather than the people actually trying to protect the right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If one needless death can be absolutely prevented then it should be prevented. A life is more important than your paranoia. But I guess it pays to be paranoid when they really are out to get you. Why that line must be completely around the block.

You know, by this standard, shouldn't police have the authority to randomly search every home, business, and person to find any illegal items that could harm the public?

If it just prevents ONE needless death, right?

Life is more important than your privacy, right?

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

And blaming all gun owners for the illegal acts of a few is within reason?

Since when did I blame ALL Gun Owners? I would have to blame myself as well. Now, wouldn't that be stupid. Almost as stupid as you making that claim. And that's another "Outside" of reason statement on your part.

The more you use that type of "Reasoning" the more we will all lose in the end since the argument against sounds so illogical and childish.

You want to restrict the rights of ALL gun owners because a few people commit crimes with guns

 

[Pilot1]

[
You want to restrict the rights of ALL gun owners because a few people commit crimes with guns

That is their goal. It isn't to reduce violence by people illegally using guns, it is to disarm the law abiding so they can be more controlled, and dependent. The entire anti legal gun movement is to create more docile, defenseless populace.

 

[Skull Pilot]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

That is YOUR very narrow definition. Others have other definitions. Like, can it accept additional equipment that is strictly used for war like a M203 Grenade Launcher. Can it accept a Silencer, can it accept a Bayonet?

One person said that a Bayonet was just a knife. Not when mounted on the front of a rifle, it's not. It becomes many times more deadly and has only one use and that is of war. You can't use a bayonet to varmint hunt. Those little critters just won't cooperate.

Most of these arguments by you nutters are just strawmen. The AR can be equipped exactly like the M-16 and that is part of the mystique of the weapon. By changing it to not accept the accessories of war much of the mystique is removed. You don't want it classified as an Assault Weapon, remove the ability to accept the War Accessories. Or lose the weapon completely. You people are your own worst enemy.

When was the last time you saw a bayonet on an AR 15? I for one never have. A grenade launcher? Again never.

And yes it can be equipped like an M 16 but it will never BE an M 16 will it?

The AR frame rifle is the single most popular rifle in the country and how many people are putting grenade launchers and bayonets on them?

We already know that the most minuscule fraction of a percent of people who own an AR 15 will commit a crime with the rifle. That has more to do with the fact that it is the single most popular rifle in the country than it does the fact that it's black and resembles (in looks only) a military rifle.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They can't really blame themselves now can they. And the public they put in a panic and supported the ideas? Think they will admit they were wrong as well? Doubt it. So instead of seeing the foolishness of the argument they MUST attempt to save face and go further with the bans. At some point you will be spreading butter on your toast with your fingers because no one, under the age of 95 will be allowed a butter knife.

Which is why nothing but repeal should be tolerated.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

So you ban the single most popular rifle in the country and like magic mass shootings will stop?

Of course they won't. You will merely make the weapon of choice the second most popular rifle in the country. Then what? Ban that one too?

OK ban the first and second most popular rifles in the country then the weapon of choice will be the third most popular rifle in the country. Then what? Ban that one too?

 

[hadit]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

This is the point. Let's say they succeed and ban all black, scary looking guns. What happens next? Children still get shot, concert goers still get killed, the carnage doesn't abate at all. What does any rational person think they will do? They say NOW that they don't want to ban and confiscate all guns, but what will be the tune when this ban doesn't work at all?

They can't really blame themselves now can they. And the public they put in a panic and supported the ideas? Think they will admit they were wrong as well? Doubt it. So instead of seeing the foolishness of the argument they MUST attempt to save face and go further with the bans. At some point you will be spreading butter on your toast with your fingers because no one, under the age of 95 will be allowed a butter knife.

We think that's an extreme, but is it really when we see ordinary tools being banned and/or confiscated in some countries because they have sharp points?