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

[jbander]

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

By way of example, you get a call from your daughter that she just fought off a rapist who told her that he was going to kill her after (details not appropriate for this forum) and dump her body somewhere where no one would ever find her. She continued the description by telling you how she fought him off and that the reason she was able to escape was by the use of a weapon.

Which, of the many weapons that she might tell you she used to save her life, would you find unacceptable to have used?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing the weapon she choose to fight off the attack was registered?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing she had no license for it?

Would you find it unacceptable that she completed no government mandated training with it?

Would you find it unacceptable that the weapon she used had a rail on it?

Would you find it unacceptable that it was Military grade?

I think the truth is that you probably wouldn't care. And maybe, most important is that nobody really would care, except perhaps the murderous rapist.

Look forward to your response.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker.

The hope being that the attacker might not be equally trained, in such a case, a gun becomes the equalizer.

Wrong, the gun can become problematic in close quarters. any hesitance by the daughter in your scenario can result in having the gun used on her.

You may own guns, but its clear you've never been trained to do anything but point and shoot, and assume a gun is always loaded. Even LE, well trained on the use of guns in stressful situations make mistakes. To state this daughter in the scenario, in a very stressful situation,would be able to defend herself, is wishful thinking.

Your making things up to suit the needs of the argument. 1. You are assuming a close quarters confrontation, which is not stated. 2.) You forget she made the call, so obviously she survived the attack and was able to repel the attack.

Simple enough to say, no, I cannot find that the use of any weapon necessary that my daughter used would meet with my ire.

Funny the guy made nothing up, you need some help understanding a comment here just ask and someone here may help you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

At some point, we have to stop the hysteria and think. Freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous and requires responsibility. It's also vastly preferable to the alternative.

We should be extremely reluctant to trade any freedom for an illusion of safety.

"Illusion of safety"? So, if I want to have a surface to air missile, I should have the freedom to play with a SAM in my backyard which is adjacent to the airport?

"Stop the hysteria" An odd comment. Those of us who want to see common sense guns controls, mostly have never experienced the lose of the parents in Newtown or Parkland or Columbine or Virginia Tech. Speaking for myself, I'm not hysterical when I've posted the common sense examples of gun control, i.e. licensing, registration, background checks, sales records, etc.

And yet when I've posted such controls in detail, the response from those opposed to any form of gun control is obsessive and hysterical.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's funny how the focus is always about definitions, and not the consequences of guns used in committing mass murders. Both sides argue about the type of guns, and on one seems to focus on the fact that guns of all kinds are easy to obtain, and all are lethal weapons.

When you have one side wanting to ban a particular gun without any sort of strict parameters other than "it looks scary" that's the way the discussion will go. We want to know how much buttfucking our rights will take when it's all said and done.

 

[2aguy]

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.
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.

AR15s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less

Again this guy also doesn't have a clue , There is no way that he can change the fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon to compete for a massive government contract for the military. Stick that in your gun expert ear.

and not used in combat until it was modified, and became a totally different firearm

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

You are confirming that the AR-15 is not a military weapon...thank you.

 

[jbander]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

What a bunch crazy's, your might run into another dead end on this one like all your other gun expert gun bubbas foolishness. I never said the AR-15 wasn't ever converted to a M-16 , Confused much big guy.

The AR was not used in combat, until it was converted into an M-17.

Look Closely ,any serial number above 101 was taken by the military. This is still a very early production example It's serial 603294, Dam look whats its called.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Illusion of safety"? So, if I want to have a surface to air missile, I should have the freedom to play with a SAM in my backyard which is adjacent to the airport?

A SAM would and should be regulated by the FAA. It's not a firearm and is as much of an aircraft as it is a weapon.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

It's funny how the focus is always about definitions, and not the consequences of guns used in committing mass murders. Both sides argue about the type of guns, and on one seems to focus on the fact that guns of all kinds are easy to obtain, and all are lethal weapons.

Mass murders account for about 1% of all murders so we should be concentrating our efforts elsewhere

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

Wrong, the AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used by the military....

And more to the point........Miller v United States protects the military weapons too....so you still have no point.

 

[jbander]

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.
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.

AR15s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less

Again this guy also doesn't have a clue , There is no way that he can change the fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon to compete for a massive government contract for the military. Stick that in your gun expert ear.

and not used in combat until it was modified, and became a totally different firearm

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

You are confirming that the AR-15 is not a military weapon...thank you.

I don't think he will play games with you.

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

The Lever action rifle is an actual military weapon, the AR-15, by your own rant, is not.....

 

[Auld Phart]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

What a bunch crazy's, your might run into another dead end on this one like all your other gun expert gun bubbas foolishness. I never said the AR-15 wasn't ever converted to a M-16 , Confused much big guy.

The AR was not used in combat, until it was converted into an M-17.

Look Closely ,any serial number above 101 was taken by the military. This is still a very early production example It's serial 603294, Dam look whats its called.
View attachment 192748

If you have a point there, I fail to se it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

What a bunch crazy's, your might run into another dead end on this one like all your other gun expert gun bubbas foolishness. I never said the AR-15 wasn't ever converted to a M-16 , Confused much big guy.

The AR was not used in combat, until it was converted into an M-17.

Look Closely ,any serial number above 101 was taken by the military. This is still a very early production example It's serial 603294, Dam look whats its called.
View attachment 192748

So the fuck what?

The civilian version of the Ar 15 is not the same. Never was never will be.

And just because a rifle was bought or eve manufactured for the military does not mean it was ever issued for combat

 

[Skull Pilot]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

The Lever action rifle is an actual military weapon, the AR-15, by your own rant, is not.....

My Remington 870 pump action is an actual military weapon

 

[2aguy]

AR15s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less

Again this guy also doesn't have a clue , There is no way that he can change the fact that it was designed and built as a military weapon to compete for a massive government contract for the military. Stick that in your gun expert ear.

and not used in combat until it was modified, and became a totally different firearm

You have it backwards. The AR-15 was produced by Colt in 1959 for small countries on a budget. it was called the AR-15 Model 601. And it was fully automatic. It wasn't introduced as the AR-15 semi auto until AFTER the Model 604 (M-16A-1) was introduced and it the civilian AR-15 didn't share the same receiver nor was the receiver interchangable with either the M-16 of any model nor the AR-15 Model 601. The Air Force purchased 4000 Model 601s but upgraded them to the M-16A-1 Standards. They were retired in 1990 when the AF went to the M-16A-4 and dropped the full auto feature. The Army dropped the full auto feature when they went to the M-16A-3. The Model 601s were never offered to the Civilian Market. Every single one of them were destroyed. Can you imagine just how much one would be worth if you could find one? But you won't find one.

The Model 601 was upgraded to the M-16A-2 that only the Air Force used for many years. The 601 was the test rifle and did see combat in Malaysia and other countries as early as 1959. The Air Force entered the Vietnam War with the AR-15 Model 601 but upgraded to the M-16A-2. You see, there were difference between the Army model M-16A-1 and the AF M-16A-2. The Blowback mechanism was much better in the AF version. The Army decided to save money. The Army upgraded to the M-16A-3 while the AF upgraded to the M-16A-4. Today, the Army is using the M-16A-4 like the AF is.

NO M-16 will accept the receiver from the civilian AR-15 and NO civilian AR-15 will accept the receiver from the M-16 of any model nor will the AR-15 Model 601. I've handled the AR-15 Model 601. Yes, it was upgraded to the M-16A-2 at the time. But the AR-15 Model 601 was always a fully automatic rifle.

No matter how hard you squirm, you can't change history. It already happened.

Good reply, wasn't it presented to the US governmnet first, before the other countries.

and the military found it to be inadequate

And no matter how you slice it the civilian model is not the same as the military model.

And according to the Supreme Court, both models are protected....

 

[2aguy]

Having DECADES of martial arts training, I can testify that a 100lb woman CANNOT with her bare hands disable a 250lb meat head. Even if she kicks the shit out of his ball sack, he will still be able to control and subdue her in seconds. She has a 0% chance of fighting off the attacker.

A knife or a baseball bat would be much more effective, but she will need to be quick and accurate with either. She CANNOT afford to miss. I estimate that, in such a scenario, a woman with a bat or a knife has a 20% chance of fighting off the attacker.

With a gun, I estimate that the odds of fighting off the meat head goes to at least 70%.

Why would we EVER deprive her of a chance to survive?

Here...a female professional boxer vs. her husband with a knife...doesn't work out for her....though she still survived...

Christy Martin claws back after being stabbed, shot, left to die - USATODAY.com

 

[jbander]

Still waiting on a point, Daryl.

The point is, the AR-15 was Military First. And it was full auto before it was semi auto. I learned to shoot a M-16 that was really an AR-15 Model 601 in the Air Force. The M-16 has a bar charging handle while the Model 601 has a triangle charging handle. I wonder how many others mistook the 601 for the M-16 as well.

The original rant was that there never was an Auto Version of the AR-15. Well, the Full Auto AR-15 Model 601 started it all and was in service clean up into the 1990s.

Wrong, the AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used by the military....

And more to the point........Miller v United States protects the military weapons too....so you still have no point.

Wonder what this is then

I think all the people that have used this gun will find you lacking in your knowledge of guns. All of you gun Bubbas are a joke , some experts you are. The make believe world of the Gun Bubbas , all bullshit.

 

[2aguy]

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

By way of example, you get a call from your daughter that she just fought off a rapist who told her that he was going to kill her after (details not appropriate for this forum) and dump her body somewhere where no one would ever find her. She continued the description by telling you how she fought him off and that the reason she was able to escape was by the use of a weapon.

Which, of the many weapons that she might tell you she used to save her life, would you find unacceptable to have used?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing the weapon she choose to fight off the attack was registered?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing she had no license for it?

Would you find it unacceptable that she completed no government mandated training with it?

Would you find it unacceptable that the weapon she used had a rail on it?

Would you find it unacceptable that it was Military grade?

I think the truth is that you probably wouldn't care. And maybe, most important is that nobody really would care, except perhaps the murderous rapist.

Look forward to your response.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker.

The hope being that the attacker might not be equally trained, in such a case, a gun becomes the equalizer.

Wrong, the gun can become problematic in close quarters. any hesitance by the daughter in your scenario can result in having the gun used on her.

You may own guns, but its clear you've never been trained to do anything but point and shoot, and assume a gun is always loaded. Even LE, well trained on the use of guns in stressful situations make mistakes. To state this daughter in the scenario, in a very stressful situation,would be able to defend herself, is wishful thinking.

And yet that scenario hasn't happened........

And more often than not, women with very little training are not disarmed by their attacker and manage to use their own guns to drive off or kill a male attacker or male attackers......

You make things up out of your imagination, when reality shows you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

It's funny how the focus is always about definitions, and not the consequences of guns used in committing mass murders. Both sides argue about the type of guns, and on one seems to focus on the fact that guns of all kinds are easy to obtain, and all are lethal weapons.

No...we talk about the consequences all the time, then you change the topic...

Lawn mowers kill more people every single year than mass public shooters do. The only year this wasn't true was 2017. That means that every single year lawn mowers kill more people than mass shooters with AR-15 rifles....

Guns used by Americans stop violent criminals on average 2.4 million times a year, according to the CDC.....that means rapes, robberies and murders that are not successful because Americans with little to no training use guns to save their own lives and the lives of others...

Far more lives are saved with guns than are taken with guns....that is what you can't admit.

 

[2aguy]

At some point, we have to stop the hysteria and think. Freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous and requires responsibility. It's also vastly preferable to the alternative.

We should be extremely reluctant to trade any freedom for an illusion of safety.

"Illusion of safety"? So, if I want to have a surface to air missile, I should have the freedom to play with a SAM in my backyard which is adjacent to the airport?

"Stop the hysteria" An odd comment. Those of us who want to see common sense guns controls, mostly have never experienced the lose of the parents in Newtown or Parkland or Columbine or Virginia Tech. Speaking for myself, I'm not hysterical when I've posted the common sense examples of gun control, i.e. licensing, registration, background checks, sales records, etc.

And yet when I've posted such controls in detail, the response from those opposed to any form of gun control is obsessive and hysterical.

You have never posted common sense gun control. Nothing you have posted would effect criminals or mass shooters, so none of your ideas are common sense.

Licensing.... criminals using illegal guns can't buy, own or carry the guns which means they can't get a license to begin with...but they are the ones responsible for the 11,004 gun murders......

Registration = confiscation, which is why you want registration. Registration is against the law for Criminals according to the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision....it also does nothing to stop crime or solve crime. Mass shooters would register their guns before they commit mass shootings.....
Registration is also unnecessary....if you are found in possession of a gun, cops can simply run your name through the data base, if you are a felon, they will arrest you, if not, they will not arrest you...see how easy that is, and it does not require registration of guns.

Background checks...criminals do not go through background checks, they get people who can already pass current background checks buy their guns, or they steal the guns....which means universal background checks will be passed by the same buyers...mass shooters can pass any background check or they steal the guns they use to commit murder.

Sales records...are useless in solving crimes since crime guns that are found are not used by the original owner......and again, you just want them so you know where to go when you get the power to ban and confiscate guns....

So again, nothing you propose is common sense or useful.....

What is useful? Locking up gun criminals for 30 years...... locking up felons caught with illegal guns for 30 years...... that is what we need.

 

[jbander]

FOR ALL THE MAKE BELIEVE EXPERTS HERE> This is up in the numbers being a model 606