Parkland Shooting

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Regarding mredskins post:





Sorry Moob, but you're wrong.

The "dumb shit" is you calling me out - putting me in a bucket (you, y'all, you're people..), and then balking when I return the favor.

BTW, an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle". Some want to label it as such, but that is not what it is.

Which one of those clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles need complete bans? I agree - nobody needs them unless you're planning on defending large territories by force. Are they useful for home defense? Perhaps you like to carry yours slung over your shoulder when you go shopping or when you pick up your kids from school - just in case fate aligns you with a mass shooter? Or maybe you don't like being inconvenienced by an extra day when your background check is being processed. Not sure - don't really care. All I care about is this faux "we care about people's mental health" bs you and other conservatives fall back on after the latest mass shooting - only to turn around and shit on Dems who actually want to do something about it next time the budget rolls around. And if it's not you specifically, it's your preferred elected leader.

The point is any one of us would settle for a compromise that doesn't involve banning a specific type of gun. But we can't even have that because the goddamn NRA and gun manufacturers have so much extra cash to spend from their beaucoup sales to scared rednecks that they can go around buying political votes.

Armalite Rifle 15 - for those who don't follow the snarky gun club terminology nerds.

[nonniey]

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by nonniey

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

My real answer is: E. None of the above

If I absolutely had to remove 1 of the 4, I'd pick shotguns. Not because I think they're bad, but that you can replace them with other great options for self-defense/protection. I'd say they are the most easily "replaceable" for a majority of Americans.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

A , no justifiable need for them, none.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by mooby

Which one of those clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles need complete bans? I agree - nobody needs them unless you're planning on defending large territories by force. Are they useful for home defense? Perhaps you like to carry yours slung over your shoulder when you go shopping or when you pick up your kids from school - just in case fate aligns you with a mass shooter? Or maybe you don't like being inconvenienced by an extra day when your background check is being processed. Not sure - don't really care. All I care about is this faux "we care about people's mental health" bs you and other conservatives fall back on after the latest mass shooting - only to turn around and shit on Dems who actually want to do something about it next time the budget rolls around. And if it's not you specifically, it's your preferred elected leader.

The point is any one of us would settle for a compromise that doesn't involve banning a specific type of gun. But we can't even have that because the goddamn NRA and gun manufacturers have so much extra cash to spend from their beaucoup sales to scared rednecks that they can go around buying political votes.

Armalite Rifle 15 - for those who don't follow the snarky gun club terminology nerds.

A few of those posts clearly said AR-15's or assault rifles should be complete banned, the others were suggestive of the same. Unlike G1 though, I am pretty sure you can read, so I won't go through them one-by-one.

LOL. No, I don't carry one around, and I don't think they are any more useful for home defense than a good hand gun.

I'm not against background checks - the more extensive the better. We shouldn't just be handing guns out to anyone.

I do care about mental health, especially of our youth. It's not BS to me.

I'm not sure I have a "preferred" elected leader these days. None of them seem to be working for us anymore. But, the Dems do have control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency - and have for over a year, so I'll be looking for them to get big things done in these two years...

I wasn't actually referring to the history of the AR-15, I was referring to the fact that the AR-15 and other AR style rifles aren't considered assault rifles, because they aren't fully automatic (i.e. they aren't a machine gun). While they look like military style weapons, they function like other semi-automatic sporting firearms, because you can only fire one round each time you pull the trigger.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by nonniey

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

E. None of the above.

How about making the large capacity magazine illegal rather than lumping the rifle into that option. 9 states have done that.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by nonniey

If you could snap your fingers and instantly eliminate one type of fire arm from public possession what kind would you pick?

A. Semi-Automatic Rifles capable of having a large magazine capacity.
B. Other types of rifles.
C. Shot Guns
D. Handguns.

E. Bite Deetz

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

E. Bite Deetz

It was a trap question to see which of the gun control advocates on this board knew what they were talking about - for them the correct answer would have been handguns but none of them responded.

[Giantone]

According to you.

[Chico23231]

Mass shooting occurred 5 miles away from me at a Graduation party Friday night. 50+ rounds shot by 4 different weapons. 1 killed, 5 others injured

[mredskins]

https://youtube.com/shorts/Iny2eFwwP9w?feature=share

This Interesting point, I wonder how he got the $$$

[Chico23231]

There was like 3-4 mass shootings at graduation parties over the weekend.

What kind of culture raises kids like this?

Anyone see the Philly video of the guys walking in daylight shooting a guy in the middle of the street with hundreds of witnesses? Philly is such a shithole…the Democrat District Attorney there doesn’t prosecute illegal gun crimes or violent offenders which encourages behaviors like this.

Go to the mass shooting archive link I’ve post here a couple time…they have had 4 mass shootings in Philly in the last month. 4 folks

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by nonniey

It was a trap question to see which of the gun control advocates on this board knew what they were talking about - for them the correct answer would have been handguns but none of them responded.

Shouldn’t we all be “gun control” advocates at this point? Clearly there isn’t enough control. I know that is a dirty oppressive word, but idc. I mean we control driving, alcohol, weed, etc etc for the most part. Why not guns?

Can I be pro gun control and pro second amendment, or has the NRA done their job? Anyone who would like guns to stay out of bad peoples hands (or at the very least harder to get ur hands on than a beer), is now someone who wants to take everyone’s guns away…..
It is a fuckin joke how easy it is for any jerk off to get their hands on a gun, and it is a fuckin joke that thinking that makes me anti guns, anti American, etc etc etc.

There is a lot of highway between me having a gun at home for safety and self defense purposes and the crazy 18 year old kid down the street buying an ar 15 and 100 rounds of ammo. No doubt changes are needed asap.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Sorry, I thought that was acceptable practice on here...jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, and lumping people into certain categories... Maybe only one side can do that...

Is it the style we are concerned about or the function. Because there is a distinct difference.

It's the function that makes a weapon an assault rifle/weapon, not the "style".

AR doesn't equal Assault Rifle or military style weapon. It's merely a semi-automatic rifle. Can it be modified to be more dangerous - to fit the category of an assault rifle? Yes...but that is illegal.

Technically no it is not an assault rifle in its unmodified state, BUT, it is clearly capable of killing more people faster with no need to be even remotely accurate- it is no doubt over kill for john q public who just wants protection at home. 45 rounds a minute is perfect for a mass shooter, and clearly over kill for a home invasion unless there is a small army invading.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Shouldn’t we all be “gun control” advocates at this point? Clearly there isn’t enough control. I know that is a dirty oppressive word, but idc. I mean we control driving, alcohol, weed, etc etc for the most part. Why not guns?

Can I be pro gun control and pro second amendment, or has the NRA done their job? Anyone who would like guns to stay out of bad peoples hands (or at the very least harder to get ur hands on than a beer), is now someone who wants to take everyone’s guns away…..
It is a fuckin joke how easy it is for any jerk off to get their hands on a gun, and it is a fuckin joke that thinking that makes me anti guns, anti American, etc etc etc.

There is a lot of highway between me having a gun at home for safety and self defense purposes and the crazy 18 year old kid down the street buying an ar 15 and 100 rounds of ammo. No doubt changes are needed asap.

I was a bit irritated when I posted this. I was just coming off a discussion with one of my coworkers who was convinced an outsized proportion of homicides were committed with "assault rifles" and wouldn't accept that approximately 90% were actually committed using handguns (close to 95% of firearm deaths overall). I think too much attention and energy is focused on trying to ban AR15s (I'd be all for raising the age to purchase and own them to 21/use requiring someone over 21 being present) but focus should be on how to reduce number deaths where handguns are used.

Still think my ideas of incentivizing the sale and development of smart weapons(which is essentially banned in this country), gun safes, better locks and training are good ones.