What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[Brain357]

Gotta love how brainless finds this funny....
View attachment 78921
All burned to the ground by friendly protesters.

It is funny you think guns are the answer. How about insurance?

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Gotta love how brainless finds this funny....
View attachment 78921
All burned to the ground by friendly protesters.

It is funny you think guns are the answer. How about insurance?

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

 

[Brain357]

Gotta love how brainless finds this funny....
View attachment 78921
All burned to the ground by friendly protesters.

It is funny you think guns are the answer. How about insurance?

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Gotta love how brainless finds this funny....
View attachment 78921
All burned to the ground by friendly protesters.

It is funny you think guns are the answer. How about insurance?

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

 

[OKTexas]

And 0 examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense. Sure are lots of mass killers using them though.

Tell that to folks defending a business against riots.

Non-lethal tools for defending a business against rioters:

​

Of course, the security devices pictured above are not going to 100% effective against supremely determined rioters who aim to invade a business; however, if there are that many of them who are committed to assaulting the shop owner or employee, a gun, or many guns, isn't going to stop them either. The rioters that took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran showed us that much is so.

A far more reliable and far less deadly means for dissuading people from rioting is not to do things and implement policies that are bound to piss off a sh*tload of people. Collaboration is far more effective than is confrontation, which does little but give rise to the motivation for escalation.

​

So they then burn your place to the ground instead.

Red:
Maybe they do, but guns aren't going to stop that from happening.

Sure they would.
A couple of guys on the roof with firearms could easily keep Molotov tossers out of range.

They did exactly that during the Detroit riots back in the 60s.

 

[320 Years of History]

And 0 examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense. Sure are lots of mass killers using them though.

Tell that to folks defending a business against riots.

Non-lethal tools for defending a business against rioters:

​

Of course, the security devices pictured above are not going to 100% effective against supremely determined rioters who aim to invade a business; however, if there are that many of them who are committed to assaulting the shop owner or employee, a gun, or many guns, isn't going to stop them either. The rioters that took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran showed us that much is so.

A far more reliable and far less deadly means for dissuading people from rioting is not to do things and implement policies that are bound to piss off a sh*tload of people. Collaboration is far more effective than is confrontation, which does little but give rise to the motivation for escalation.

​

So they then burn your place to the ground instead.

Red:
Maybe they do, but guns aren't going to stop that from happening.

Sure they would.
A couple of guys on the roof with firearms could easily keep Molotov tossers out of range.

It's apparently escaped your purview that one or several rioters may too have guns they can use to suppress the defenders' fire. Beyond that, sorry, but I'm not going to discuss riot tactics and strategy, and I'm not going to engage in a discussion that derives from and depends upon myriad and ceaseless "what ifs." Suffice to say, you don't know what you are taking about.

• Significant Incidents of Political Violence Against Americans 1991
  
• Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Protesters throw stones, firecrackers, Molotov cocktail at Russian embassy in Kiev
  
• The Marine Corps and the State Department: Enduring Partners in United States Foreign Policy
  
• Indonesia: 1000 enraged Muslims attack U.S. embassy with sticks, stones and Molotov cocktails
  
• Riots Erupt by U.S. Embassy in Egypt and Yemen

You clearly have no idea just how powerful a force of hundreds or thousands of determined rioters actually is, particularly in the face of one or two shooters who at best have semi-automatic weapons.

 

[JoeMoma]

Some guns and accessories are more efficient killing tools than others. Can everyone agree on that point?

The question is where to draw the line with what should be available to the public. Some people will not be satisfied with anything less than a total gun ban. The second ammendment prevents that of course. Others will not be satisfied with any type of gun ban........full automatic baby!
And then there is the question of what's next if certain guns are banned. Each level of gun ban is a hit on on the second ammendment.

 

[Brain357]

It is funny you think guns are the answer. How about insurance?

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

 

[320 Years of History]

My CHL instructor said if a cop asked why you shot the guy 5 times. Your answer should be, because 4 wasn't enough and 6 would have been too many. Cops are trained to shoot until the suspect goes down, CHLs are taught to fire until there is no longer a threat. Neutralizing the threat is what it's all about.

And there is no determined set amount of rounds fired before the threat is neutralized like BrainDead seems to think

And 0 examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense. Sure are lots of mass killers using them though.

Tell that to folks defending a business against riots.

Non-lethal tools for defending a business against rioters:

​

Of course, the security devices pictured above are not going to 100% effective against supremely determined rioters who aim to invade a business; however, if there are that many of them who are committed to assaulting the shop owner or employee, a gun, or many guns, isn't going to stop them either. The rioters that took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran showed us that much is so.

A far more reliable and far less deadly means for dissuading people from rioting is not to do things and implement policies that are bound to piss off a sh*tload of people. Collaboration is far more effective than is confrontation, which does little but give rise to the motivation for escalation.

​

Any of those could be defeated in under 4 minutes by two people, with a tire iron, vehicle and a chain. Locks and barriers only keep honest people and lazy crooks honest. Non rioters break into stores in Houston all the time with vehicles to steal ATMs.

That may be, but while a gun will likely be successful against a pair or quartet of thieves, it's not going to do much good against a throng of hundreds of committed rioters.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Tell that to folks defending a business against riots.

Non-lethal tools for defending a business against rioters:

​

Of course, the security devices pictured above are not going to 100% effective against supremely determined rioters who aim to invade a business; however, if there are that many of them who are committed to assaulting the shop owner or employee, a gun, or many guns, isn't going to stop them either. The rioters that took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran showed us that much is so.

A far more reliable and far less deadly means for dissuading people from rioting is not to do things and implement policies that are bound to piss off a sh*tload of people. Collaboration is far more effective than is confrontation, which does little but give rise to the motivation for escalation.

​

So they then burn your place to the ground instead.

Red:
Maybe they do, but guns aren't going to stop that from happening.

Sure they would.
A couple of guys on the roof with firearms could easily keep Molotov tossers out of range.

It's apparently escaped your purview that one or several rioters may too have guns they can use to suppress the defenders' fire. Beyond that, sorry, but I'm not going to discuss riot tactics and strategy, and I'm not going to engage in a discussion that derives from and depends upon myriad and ceaseless "what ifs." Suffice to say, you don't know what you are taking about.

• Significant Incidents of Political Violence Against Americans 1991
  
• Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Protesters throw stones, firecrackers, Molotov cocktail at Russian embassy in Kiev
  
• The Marine Corps and the State Department: Enduring Partners in United States Foreign Policy
  
• Indonesia: 1000 enraged Muslims attack U.S. embassy with sticks, stones and Molotov cocktails
  
• Riots Erupt by U.S. Embassy in Egypt and Yemen

You clearly have no idea just how powerful a force of hundreds or thousands of determined rioters actually is, particularly in the face of one or two shooters who at best have semi-automatic weapons.

Two Businesses in Ferguson Riots Escaped Looting. Why They Did...

It isnt uncommon for store owners to protect their businesses.
And looters dont want to get into a gunfight they want free shit.
And some gangster with a Keltec that he never shoots is hardly a match for a rifle from a rooftop.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You going to pay for the loss of business and increase in insurance premiums for the whole area?
Yeah....thats what I thought.

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

You ever hear of a camera?

 

[there4eyeM]

Shooting people is pretty heavy duty, even to survive. In situations where it could otherwise be avoided, it takes a heavy toll on the 'soul'.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

None of your business.
You lefties have the same attitude toward money. "What the hell does anyone need all that money for"...."The government should tax them and take it away"....

 

[Brain357]

Sure beats shooting people.

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

You ever hear of a camera?

Everyone you shoot better be a danger to you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Shooting people is pretty heavy duty, even to survive. In situations where it could otherwise be avoided, it takes a heavy toll on the 'soul'.

Looters aren't going to want to get shot for some free shit and they'll go for more easy pickings down the street.
But if they decide they're going to firebomb a building i'm in i'm going to shoot em.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the real question is

why are libtards so ignorant about firearms

These people think the cops are there to "take care" of them. And with this belief, think that no one should have the right to use a weapon to defend their life liberty or property.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not in my book.
You want to act like a savage and destroy my lively hood expect to get shot.

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

You ever hear of a camera?

Everyone you shoot better be a danger to you.

Or my business.

 

[JoeMoma]

And there is no determined set amount of rounds fired before the threat is neutralized like BrainDead seems to think

And 0 examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag for defense. Sure are lots of mass killers using them though.

Tell that to folks defending a business against riots.

Non-lethal tools for defending a business against rioters:

​

Of course, the security devices pictured above are not going to 100% effective against supremely determined rioters who aim to invade a business; however, if there are that many of them who are committed to assaulting the shop owner or employee, a gun, or many guns, isn't going to stop them either. The rioters that took over the U.S. Embassy in Iran showed us that much is so.

A far more reliable and far less deadly means for dissuading people from rioting is not to do things and implement policies that are bound to piss off a sh*tload of people. Collaboration is far more effective than is confrontation, which does little but give rise to the motivation for escalation.

​

Any of those could be defeated in under 4 minutes by two people, with a tire iron, vehicle and a chain. Locks and barriers only keep honest people and lazy crooks honest. Non rioters break into stores in Houston all the time with vehicles to steal ATMs.

That may be, but while a gun will likely be successful against a pair or quartet of thieves, it's not going to do much good against a throng of hundreds of committed rioters.

A well placed sniper can persuade the hundreds of rioters to move onto a safer target.
Of course, a hypethetical situation can be argued back and forth forever, since the outcome depends on who writes the story.

 

[Brain357]

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

You ever hear of a camera?

Everyone you shoot better be a danger to you.

Or my business.

Good luck with that.

 

[Brain357]

Sure. And then deal with courts and civil cases. Better be able to prove it was defense sitting on a roof shooting unarmed people.

If someone is trying to burn down the building you're in that is attempted murder.

Better be able to prove it.

You ever hear of a camera?

Everyone you shoot better be a danger to you.

Or my business.

Don't be surprised if you find yourself in jail. Many in jail who thought they had a lawful dgu. Is just collect insurance.