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

[jbander]

FACT gun bubbas know shit about guns, as proven in depth by me , who only knows a little about guns.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You are not worth the time nor the bandwidth. Now outside and play with the dog.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

And, the point was that because the AR15 was designed for military contract, it should be banned?

Again, list all firearms NOT designed for military use.

The Savage Model 60 has NEVER seen military action. And never will. But most of us first learned to shoot with it before we fired any other rifle. Now, please go to your next nonsensical point so we can laugh at you more.

And we are coming for your guns. But rest assured, we will leave your Model 60.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I didn't mention anything about military history

The FACT is that it is the firing mechanism that defines a firearm as semiauto or fully auto not what the gun looks like

Those Ar 15s bought by the air force were modified ( you said it yourself)

Once they were modified they were completely different rifles

Wrong on both counts. Here is a picture of an AR-15 Model 601. You will notice the selector settings.

What are you trying to prove here? Colt can modify its sporting rifles and custom outfit them for police use, just like Ford/GM will outfit police cars to specs from police departments.

He's trying to say that a car modified for a stock car race is the same as one you buy off the showroom floor

Wrong, cupcake. The AR-15 Model 601 was what I and hundreds of thousands of other used in the Air Force. Yes, we called it M-16 but it had the triangle charging handle identifying it as an AR-15 that just had the rails and such to mount the M-16 accessories on. Otherwise, the AR-15 Model 601 is identical to the M-16A-2 except the AR-15 model 601 was green instead of black. It's like adding stock racks to your pickup.

And no matter what you say it is not the same rifle that is available to civilians

It has the same performance, shares most of the same parts. It's like the difference between a Buick and a Chevy. The Buick gets the automatic shift on the column and the Chevy gets the manual shift on the floor. You lost this round. Please move on to your next nonsensical point so we can kick your ass around even more.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

Wow, now you are Bruce Lee. Imagine that. What next. I hear the role for Lady Salk is open. Let's not go here. Because, as a professional, I see flaws in your story, Babyson.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, hysteria. The exaggeration of the SAM is hysterical, as no one I know is saying they should be allowed to have one.

Illusion of safety is just that, an illusion. The vast majority of us will never face a gun weilded in anger against us, so banning any particular model because it looks scary is going to provide only an illusion of increased safety. It literally won't change the chances that you will be shot in your lifetime.

Since banning the AR won't increase public safety at all, what are you really trying to accomplish? Sure, let's make it harder for the insane to get hold of guns, but let's also not make it harder for the sane to get them if they wish.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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....

You watch way too many movies. You commented on someone that pretty well hit it on the head. For a Woman, a scream or nails to the eyes are much more effective and both can be done while in a panicked condition. The best defense is not to be there in the first place. Don't go out alone. Go in a group. If you haven't hammered that into your Daughter's head over and over then maybe she needs to have a gun to shoot YOU with.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Savage Model 60 has NEVER seen military action. And never will. But most of us first learned to shoot with it before we fired any other rifle. Now, please go to your next nonsensical point so we can laugh at you more.

And we are coming for your guns. But rest assured, we will leave your Model 60.

Okay:

By the way, the Model 60 is explicitly based on the MILITARY M1 carbine.

So, fuck you. Yes you are coming for the Model 60, even if you are too stupid to realize it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Savage Model 60 has NEVER seen military action. And never will. But most of us first learned to shoot with it before we fired any other rifle. Now, please go to your next nonsensical point so we can laugh at you more.

And we are coming for your guns. But rest assured, we will leave your Model 60.

Okay:

By the way, the Model 60 is explicitly based on the MILITARY M1 carbine.

So, fuck you. Yes you are coming for the Model 60, even if you are too stupid to realize it.

This was a test and you failed. Savage never Made a Model 60. Never. Marlin made the Model 60 and the most produced rifle in the world.

This rifle has Zero in common with the M-1 with the exception of it being called a rifle. The Model 60 is a simple bow back action with a tube feed. It's so simple it's a wonder it works. But it works extremely well. Great for new shooters and has ZERO military uses. There are also very few addons available for it. You morons wanted something that was never used in a military conflict, there it is. The one MOST of us learned to shoot with since 1960.

 

[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.
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

Well I never said it was . Its the other way around you said the AR wasn't bought by the military or used by them , and your 100% bullshitter , live with it I made a fool of you in just a couple of comments

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

The Model 870 is the second most produced and used long gun in existance. I've owned at least one myself. And I've fired one on a Military Range as well. It's also my pick for the best Home Defense Weapon of them all. There is nothing more scarier than looking down something that looks like the size of a sewer pipe that doesn't have to hit dead center to blow you away.

That being said, the Model 870 was originally used as a great hunting shotgun. It's simple, easy to use and as a 12 gauge, it can knock down a bird pretty easy. It was adopted by the US Military later and used in Vietnam and made quite a name for itself for short to medium range use.

By my own rant, the AR-15 has always been a Military Weapon that is used by civilians outside of the Military. You still can't accept the fact that the original AR-15 model 601 was a fully automatic weapon and used in many different militaries around the world as early as 1959 and was still being used in the US Military as late as the early 1990s. And the performance of the Civilian AR-15 is exactly the same as the M-16A-4 when it's fired in it's normal mode of operation which is single shot. Is the AR-15 equivalent to an Assault Rifle, you bet it is. Much more so than the Mini-14. I think we have already covered the difference between the Mini-14 and the AR-15 (Match Grade).

So how about stopping trying to make me look like I have said something I didn't say. Newsflash: That's called lying.

 

[jbander]

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.

You are not worth the time nor the bandwidth. Now outside and play with the dog.

Buried you guys didn't I , just a little upset I see.

 

[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.

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

The Model 870 is the second most produced and used long gun in existance. I've owned at least one myself. And I've fired one on a Military Range as well. It's also my pick for the best Home Defense Weapon of them all. There is nothing more scarier than looking down something that looks like the size of a sewer pipe that doesn't have to hit dead center to blow you away.

That being said, the Model 870 was originally used as a great hunting shotgun. It's simple, easy to use and as a 12 gauge, it can knock down a bird pretty easy. It was adopted by the US Military later and used in Vietnam and made quite a name for itself for short to medium range use.

By my own rant, the AR-15 has always been a Military Weapon that is used by civilians outside of the Military. You still can't accept the fact that the original AR-15 model 601 was a fully automatic weapon and used in many different militaries around the world as early as 1959 and was still being used in the US Military as late as the early 1990s. And the performance of the Civilian AR-15 is exactly the same as the M-16A-4 when it's fired in it's normal mode of operation which is single shot. Is the AR-15 equivalent to an Assault Rifle, you bet it is. Much more so than the Mini-14. I think we have already covered the difference between the Mini-14 and the AR-15 (Match Grade).

So how about stopping trying to make me look like I have said something I didn't say. Newsflash: That's called lying.

You can get either gun in multiple barrel lengths and and they both can have the same twist rate. AR-15 comes in multiple twist length and the Mini is 1:9" But they both can use the same cartridge. The mini will take the Nato round also . I know nothing about match grade, is that the difference , otherwise I see it a a horse apiece.

 

[Pop23]

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....

You watch way too many movies. You commented on someone that pretty well hit it on the head. For a Woman, a scream or nails to the eyes are much more effective and both can be done while in a panicked condition. The best defense is not to be there in the first place. Don't go out alone. Go in a group. If you haven't hammered that into your Daughter's head over and over then maybe she needs to have a gun to shoot YOU with.

Must be a Muslim the way he looks at women!

 

[Pop23]

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.

You are not worth the time nor the bandwidth. Now outside and play with the dog.

Buried you guys didn't I , just a little upset I see.

The only thing you buried was your head up your ass.

Advice. Don’t fart.

 

[jbander]

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.

You are not worth the time nor the bandwidth. Now outside and play with the dog.

Buried you guys didn't I , just a little upset I see.

The only thing you buried was your head up your ass.

Advice. Don’t fart.

Everyone is laughing at you. Made a complete fool of you and it was easy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

LOL

Boy, are you ever wrong.

True that a kick in the groin but there's more to a "man" than his groin.

If you really had all that knowledge, you would know that its not all about weight.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

This is always ignored. The gun nuts think that if they can hit targets at the firing range, they can fight off attacker.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I've been there. It doesn't go the way you think it will and the aftermath is nothing at all like you think it will be.

You also make a very good point about cops - a gazillion cops empty their guns into their supposed bad guy and he's actually hit 12 times.

And yet, the nutters think they can put a teacher through an 8 hour course and he/she will e able to protect the school. Its idiotic.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

You are not worth the time nor the bandwidth. Now outside and play with the dog.

Buried you guys didn't I , just a little upset I see.

The only thing you buried was your head up your ass.

Advice. Don’t fart.

Everyone is laughing at you. Made a complete fool of you and it was easy.

Made a complete fool of yourself, and it was easy.

You still have posted the link or the information you 'claim' you found about the number of mass murders events caused by ARs.

ashamed of what you found?

 

[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.

This is always ignored. The gun nuts think that if they can hit targets at the firing range, they can fight off attacker.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I've been there. It doesn't go the way you think it will and the aftermath is nothing at all like you think it will be.

You also make a very good point about cops - a gazillion cops empty their guns into their supposed bad guy and he's actually hit 12 times.

And yet, the nutters think they can put a teacher through an 8 hour course and he/she will e able to protect the school. Its idiotic.

Police hit there target 18% of the time when the bad guy has a gun. so do you want to guess how this lame crew would do in the same position, I say they are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot then hit the bad guy. What do you think