Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.The target is not chosen by the gun.
It is the simplest concept yet you cannot seem to grasp the meaning
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
What other rational purpose would you and your ilk have if you are shit-bitching about a gun that is involved in less than 1% of all gun violence, and a mere fraction of the number of unnatural deaths every year?If you really believe this you are insane. If not and you posted it to get attention, I'll give you the same advice: You need to get psychiatric help.
The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
It appears you are the one, "slow of brain" since my comment was too abstract for you to comprehend. Tobacco kills, fast food kills, drug abuse kills and guns kill. Of course the first three can be used in moderation and not be the cause of death, as can a gun when the victim is lucky and no artery is hit or organs destroyed by bone splinters, i.e. secondary projectiles, bacterial infections or TBI.
The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
It appears you are the one, "slow of brain" since my comment was too abstract for you to comprehend. Tobacco kills, fast food kills, drug abuse kills and guns kill. Of course the first three can be used in moderation and not be the cause of death, as can a gun when the victim is lucky and no artery is hit or organs destroyed by bone splinters, i.e. secondary projectiles, bacterial infections or TBI.
You got a whole lot of Tobacco breaking down your door trying to jam it down your throat? Do ya?
One example is murder, the other is lifestyle.
So spin all you want, but if there were drugs on the market that forced you to shove Big Mac's down kids throats until they burst, you'd say, GET THOSE OFF THE DAMN MARKET.
Those drugs do exist THAT CAUSE MURDER CRAZED PSYCHOPATHS, But that's OK, blame the murder weapon, not the DOCTOR PROSCRIBING THE DRUG!
Once again, a message from the champion of the left:
Guess you kinda like dead kids?
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
It appears you are the one, "slow of brain" since my comment was too abstract for you to comprehend. Tobacco kills, fast food kills, drug abuse kills and guns kill. Of course the first three can be used in moderation and not be the cause of death, as can a gun when the victim is lucky and no artery is hit or organs destroyed by bone splinters, i.e. secondary projectiles, bacterial infections or TBI.
You got a whole lot of Tobacco breaking down your door trying to jam it down your throat? Do ya?
One example is murder, the other is lifestyle.
So spin all you want, but if there were drugs on the market that forced you to shove Big Mac's down kids throats until they burst, you'd say, GET THOSE OFF THE DAMN MARKET.
Those drugs do exist THAT CAUSE MURDER CRAZED PSYCHOPATHS, But that's OK, blame the murder weapon, not the DOCTOR PROSCRIBING THE DRUG!
Once again, a message from the champion of the left:
Guess you kinda like dead kids?
As I posted, my comment was abstract, way beyond the comprehension of a concrete thinker.
What a banana, SSRI's He says. Weak ass logic or what they think is logic. The one I always like is to bring up their president Scum Bag and they go directly to Clinton and Obama ,like somehow what someone else does justifies what Scum Bag does , They are a very weak minded group as a whole and display that here every day, SSRI's he says.If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.It is when something makes them irrational.
I absolutely agree 100%. The gun bans themselves are irrational reactions, especially when we know what turns otherwise law abiding young people into psychopathic mass killers.
I think I've posted dozens of times about people that took these, went full psycho, and killed any number of people, sometimes with a gun, but surprisingly, a large number chose a car instead. In one case a teacher mowed down 8 kids, another a Mother used her car to drive down a freeway the wrong way and took out 7.
But the ones the press seems to report on the most are the school shootings. AND in almost each of these cases the student involved was on, or coming off a certain type of antidepressant.
So, I guess I could use jbanders postings as an example.
Take away SSRI's and you have no SSRI related murders.
Of course, as I've shown, SSRI murders are not limited by the tool. So take away the tool and the evidence is clear, they will just use another. A zero sum game that nobody wins.
What a banana, SSRI's He says. Weak ass logic or what they think is logic. The one I always like is to bring up their president Scum Bag and they go directly to Clinton and Obama ,like somehow what someone else does justifies what Scum Bag does , They are a very weak minded group as a whole and display that here every day, SSRI's he says.If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.It is when something makes them irrational.
I absolutely agree 100%. The gun bans themselves are irrational reactions, especially when we know what turns otherwise law abiding young people into psychopathic mass killers.
I think I've posted dozens of times about people that took these, went full psycho, and killed any number of people, sometimes with a gun, but surprisingly, a large number chose a car instead. In one case a teacher mowed down 8 kids, another a Mother used her car to drive down a freeway the wrong way and took out 7.
But the ones the press seems to report on the most are the school shootings. AND in almost each of these cases the student involved was on, or coming off a certain type of antidepressant.
So, I guess I could use jbanders postings as an example.
Take away SSRI's and you have no SSRI related murders.
Of course, as I've shown, SSRI murders are not limited by the tool. So take away the tool and the evidence is clear, they will just use another. A zero sum game that nobody wins.
OK killerWhat a banana, SSRI's He says. Weak ass logic or what they think is logic. The one I always like is to bring up their president Scum Bag and they go directly to Clinton and Obama ,like somehow what someone else does justifies what Scum Bag does , They are a very weak minded group as a whole and display that here every day, SSRI's he says.If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.It is when something makes them irrational.
I absolutely agree 100%. The gun bans themselves are irrational reactions, especially when we know what turns otherwise law abiding young people into psychopathic mass killers.
I think I've posted dozens of times about people that took these, went full psycho, and killed any number of people, sometimes with a gun, but surprisingly, a large number chose a car instead. In one case a teacher mowed down 8 kids, another a Mother used her car to drive down a freeway the wrong way and took out 7.
But the ones the press seems to report on the most are the school shootings. AND in almost each of these cases the student involved was on, or coming off a certain type of antidepressant.
So, I guess I could use jbanders postings as an example.
Take away SSRI's and you have no SSRI related murders.
Of course, as I've shown, SSRI murders are not limited by the tool. So take away the tool and the evidence is clear, they will just use another. A zero sum game that nobody wins.
^^^^^^^ are you on antidepressants? Kinda want to warn the local schools about you, if you get my drift.
If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.It is when something makes them irrational.
Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the publicNo, the gun is made to kill. Period. It is not a utility which has any other purpose. It maybe used to protect someone, but the threat to kill is always there.
So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon
And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.
Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide
Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..
There is absolutely no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Don't know , no one does but I know for the fact that it is the gun of choice for any serious mass murderer in public and in our schools. Its a hamburger gun and the fact that there is other hamburger guns out there, makes it no less of reason not to regulate this hamburger gun.The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.Were they ever used in combat?Lol
...and AR15’s have never been used in any military theatre... ever
Because they are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less. They do make for great varmit to large game rifles though.
There were 4000 AR-15s used in Vietnam in 1964 by the Air Force. In fact, the AF still had some in service as late at 1990. The AR-15 orginally was the AR-15 model 601. The 602 became the XM-16 and the 604 became the M-16A-1. When the full auto version of the M-16 was phased out along with it the full auto AR-15 was also phased out in 1990. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the 604 quickly and called a M-16. Unlike the semi auto AR-15, the AR-15 Model 601 used the same basic parts as the M-16A-1 and operated full Auto. Plus, the AR-15 was already being used world wide as early as 1959 in it's full auto version. Malaysia and other countries on a budget were using them. The AR-15 that you know today was introduced AFTER the introduction of the AR-15 Model 601 was discontinued for the Model 604 M-16. Welcome to the History of MY Military Career.
Now, I suggest you do a little research before you make another damned fool of yourself. I am having quite a laugh fest at your expense. And you say you are an arms dealer? Is there a hand attached to that arm you deal in?
And exactly, whether military grade or not, are these guns used in homicides each year, and in these, how many would have been successful using a differrent type gun or other weapon?
Pointing out your blind, obtuse hypocrisy is entirely relevant.What a banana, SSRI's He says. Weak ass logic or what they think is logic. The one I always like is to bring up their president Scum Bag and they go directly to Clinton and Obama ,like somehow what someone else does justifies what Scum Bag does , They are a very weak minded group as a whole and display that here every day, SSRI's he says.
GoofballThe gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
Dig deeper I'm sure you can come up with something even more ridiculous.The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.
A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.
Bullshit ^^^. The first clause ("A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder") is correct. The rest (a death is a death no matter what tool) is absurd.
Death by a heart attack can be (for example) a genetic deficiency, the use of Tobacco, fast food, drug abuse, etc. Not only is your post absurd and ridiculous, it is also a logical fallacy.
Context is lost on the slow of brain.
Note "murder" is used in the example so the context is death by murder, and it is the death that is relevant, not the tool used to accomplish it.
Some folks just need everything spelled out for em I guess.
It appears you are the one, "slow of brain" since my comment was too abstract for you to comprehend. Tobacco kills, fast food kills, drug abuse kills and guns kill. Of course the first three can be used in moderation and not be the cause of death, as can a gun when the victim is lucky and no artery is hit or organs destroyed by bone splinters, i.e. secondary projectiles, bacterial infections or TBI.
You got a whole lot of Tobacco breaking down your door trying to jam it down your throat? Do ya?
One example is murder, the other is lifestyle.
So spin all you want, but if there were drugs on the market that forced you to shove Big Mac's down kids throats until they burst, you'd say, GET THOSE OFF THE DAMN MARKET.
Those drugs do exist THAT CAUSE MURDER CRAZED PSYCHOPATHS, But that's OK, blame the murder weapon, not the DOCTOR PROSCRIBING THE DRUG!
Once again, a message from the champion of the left:
Guess you kinda like dead kids?
Let me see , what would happen if you took the weapon of choice for any mass murderer, either in or out ofschool.If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.It is when something makes them irrational.
The way to understand this clearly is to do a thought experiment.
Let's say they get their wish, and we ban the scary looking black gun. There's no more arguing about it, they're magically just gone. No one has one. Are children any safer in schools, or do they continue getting shot? When it becomes obvious that they have accomplished precisely zero to make anyone safer, what will they do?
Yes, we know. It's on to the next scary looking gun.
Well when it's banned it won't be protected by the 2nd. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders . The pistol holds supreme because it is made up of family disputes and the gun Bubba killing that then goes along with it. Of the mass murders over 10 people the a major majority are killed by your hamburger gun your trying to protect, You see I don't give a dam what you want as far as these hamburger guns are concerned , my only concern is what I want , and I want them banned and have and will supply money to accomplish that.Don't know , no one does but I know for the fact that it is the gun of choice for any serious mass murderer in public and in our schools. Its a hamburger gun and the fact that there is other hamburger guns out there, makes it no less of reason not to regulate this hamburger gun.The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.Were they ever used in combat?There were 4000 AR-15s used in Vietnam in 1964 by the Air Force. In fact, the AF still had some in service as late at 1990. The AR-15 orginally was the AR-15 model 601. The 602 became the XM-16 and the 604 became the M-16A-1. When the full auto version of the M-16 was phased out along with it the full auto AR-15 was also phased out in 1990. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the 604 quickly and called a M-16. Unlike the semi auto AR-15, the AR-15 Model 601 used the same basic parts as the M-16A-1 and operated full Auto. Plus, the AR-15 was already being used world wide as early as 1959 in it's full auto version. Malaysia and other countries on a budget were using them. The AR-15 that you know today was introduced AFTER the introduction of the AR-15 Model 601 was discontinued for the Model 604 M-16. Welcome to the History of MY Military Career.
Now, I suggest you do a little research before you make another damned fool of yourself. I am having quite a laugh fest at your expense. And you say you are an arms dealer? Is there a hand attached to that arm you deal in?
And exactly, whether military grade or not, are these guns used in homicides each year, and in these, how many would have been successful using a differrent type gun or other weapon?
No...it is not the gun of choice....the pistol is the gun of choice...in fact, the worst school shooting was done with two handguns, not a rifle.....
That gun you hate....is protected by the 2nd Amendment....specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment as stated by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park.....as he bitch slapped the 7th circuit for ignoring D.C. v Heller and it's protection for guns that are in common use for lawful purposes, stating the AR-15 rifle is just such a gun....
Well when it's banned it won't be protected by the 2nd. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders . The pistol holds supreme because it is made up of family disputes and the gun Bubba killing that then goes along with it. Of the mass murders over 10 people the a major majority are killed by your hamburger gun your trying to protect, You see I don't give a dam what you want as far as these hamburger guns are concerned , my only concern is what I want , and I want them banned and have and will supply money to accomplish that.Don't know , no one does but I know for the fact that it is the gun of choice for any serious mass murderer in public and in our schools. Its a hamburger gun and the fact that there is other hamburger guns out there, makes it no less of reason not to regulate this hamburger gun.The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.Were they ever used in combat?
And exactly, whether military grade or not, are these guns used in homicides each year, and in these, how many would have been successful using a differrent type gun or other weapon?
No...it is not the gun of choice....the pistol is the gun of choice...in fact, the worst school shooting was done with two handguns, not a rifle.....
That gun you hate....is protected by the 2nd Amendment....specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment as stated by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park.....as he bitch slapped the 7th circuit for ignoring D.C. v Heller and it's protection for guns that are in common use for lawful purposes, stating the AR-15 rifle is just such a gun....
I want To tell everyone before hand, that the gun Bubbas will turn this into I want to ban all guns , because the brain drain that goes with this group dictates that stupid kind of thinking.
The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders .
Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the publicSo its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon
And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.
Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide
Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..
There is absolutely no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
To repeat.... this rifle has never been used by the military. It has never been used in a war. It is not a weapon of war. It is the exact same rifle as all other semi automatic rifles, and as well, every semi automatic pistol and shotgun.......no difference in how they operate.....and you can even call revolvers semi automatic weapons as well...
There have been millions of these rifles in private hands since they came out.....and only a few are used a year for crime or murder..
In fact....more people are killed by lawn mowers every single year than are killed each year by any mass public shooter with an AR-15 rifle..... If you want to save more lives, ban lawn mowers.....
AR15s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing lessWell when it's banned it won't be protected by the 2nd. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice by any big number mass murders . The pistol holds supreme because it is made up of family disputes and the gun Bubba killing that then goes along with it. Of the mass murders over 10 people the a major majority are killed by your hamburger gun your trying to protect, You see I don't give a dam what you want as far as these hamburger guns are concerned , my only concern is what I want , and I want them banned and have and will supply money to accomplish that.Don't know , no one does but I know for the fact that it is the gun of choice for any serious mass murderer in public and in our schools. Its a hamburger gun and the fact that there is other hamburger guns out there, makes it no less of reason not to regulate this hamburger gun.The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.Were they ever used in combat?
And exactly, whether military grade or not, are these guns used in homicides each year, and in these, how many would have been successful using a differrent type gun or other weapon?
No...it is not the gun of choice....the pistol is the gun of choice...in fact, the worst school shooting was done with two handguns, not a rifle.....
That gun you hate....is protected by the 2nd Amendment....specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment as stated by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park.....as he bitch slapped the 7th circuit for ignoring D.C. v Heller and it's protection for guns that are in common use for lawful purposes, stating the AR-15 rifle is just such a gun....
I want To tell everyone before hand, that the gun Bubbas will turn this into I want to ban all guns , because the brain drain that goes with this group dictates that stupid kind of thinking.
