|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
I consider the semiautomatic centerfire rifle chambered in .223/5.56 to be the ideal home defense firearm, as mentioned above. What are your thoughts on this? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good?
"Because it makes me feel bad" isn't really a good enough reason to ban something. Pistols are responsible for far more deaths than rifles are for a whole host of different reasons, but you're actually arguing for the use of them over something that causes objectively less deaths.
|
On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
I consider the semiautomatic centerfire rifle chambered in .223/5.56 to be the ideal home defense firearm, as mentioned above. What are your thoughts on this? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good?
Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire.
The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire.
A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you.
|
On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons.
I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing.
Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy.
"The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha.
But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you.
So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place?
Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle.
Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it.
A lot of people question my gun-knowledge based on my "characterization" of this assault-rifle. And you guys can't even answer this question.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
|
On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:
[quote]
Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does.
The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns.
In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols.
In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm.
And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways.
I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance.
It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman.
|
On February 22 2018 12:01 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
you hit the nail on the head.
you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have.
this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely.
Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder?
Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing.
What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance. It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman.
The Vegas shooting is not a strawman. Asking you to provide an example to something, instead of pretending, is not a strawman.
And if you had an example to show me, to prove me wrong, you'd show it. You'd rub my face in it.
|
On February 22 2018 12:05 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:01 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people.
Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse.
[quote]
What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance. It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman. The Vegas shooting is not a strawman. And if you had an example to show me, to prove me wrong, you'd show it.
0/10
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 22 2018 12:06 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:05 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:01 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine.
I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance. It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman. The Vegas shooting is not a strawman. And if you had an example to show me, to prove me wrong, you'd show it. 0/10
What was my strawman? Why can't you just give me an example, or at least say you don't have one?
I'm really actually disgusted. I try to answer people's questions, even if they're rude to me. "You don't know anything."
Well, okay. IDC. But show me, then. I've tried to get honest answers to my questions, but when I ask for something specific, this is where it ends up.
It's no wonder we have a President who thinks we should "arm the teachers". We're just getting dumber and dumber.
We don't allow ourselves to confront this stupidity. Like I'm supposed to politely let you indulge in violent fantasy and ignore reality. There's plenty who will, but I'm not. So run away, little worm.
|
On February 22 2018 12:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:06 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 12:05 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:01 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:
[quote]
Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance. It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman. The Vegas shooting is not a strawman. And if you had an example to show me, to prove me wrong, you'd show it. 0/10 What was my strawman? Why can't you just give me an example, or at least say you don't have one? I'm really actually disgusted. I try to answer people's questions, even if they're rude to me. "You don't know anything." Well, okay. IDC. But show me, then. I've tried to get honest answers to my questions, but when I ask for something specific, this is where it ends up. It's no wonder we have a President who thinks we should "arm the teachers". We don't allow ourselves to confront this stupidity. I'm supposed to politely let you indulge in violent fantasy and ignore reality. There's plenty who will, but I'm not. So run away, little worm.
If you could only ban one, would you ban assault rifles or pistols? Why?
|
On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:
[quote]
Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does.
The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns.
In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols.
In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm.
And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways.
I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. A lot of people question my gun-knowledge based on my "characterization" of this assault-rifle. And you guys can't even answer this question. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
I hope you realize that Gary Kleck, a life long liberal and one of the few scientists that has rigorously studied gun control and was awarded for his studies by his own peers, has advocated that guns are used consistently as a self defense mechanism.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91da/afbf92d021f06426764e800a4e639a1c1116.pdf
He estimates that number to be about 2 million uses a year.
As far as I know he's also the only person to have ever won the award for gun control studies, so the guy clearly isn't an idiot on that topic.
|
On February 22 2018 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:17 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:06 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 12:05 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:01 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:51 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:44 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 11:32 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
At this point, it's not sounding like defense.
But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter?
The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined. I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time. Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't? Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have? I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol. A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. So where is the example of the good? Because in the event that you MUST absolutely open fire on an intruder, it is an absolute last stand situation where you should have taken every possible precaution possible in order to deescalate the situation. In such a situation, most civilians are not trained to to properly assess and hit their targets under pressure/high adrenaline; as such, you want a weapon that gives you rapid rate of fire, has enough stopping power to stop an intruder in their tracks, and has a high degree of accuracy to make up for the fact that very likely you will miss at least one or two shots (very likely more) if you are in a situation where you must open fire. The AR-15 has low recoil, is easy to use, has a high rapid rate of fire, and will have the least collateral damage out of most bullet types that have the stopping power to put down an intruder if you absolutely must open fire. A 9 mm pistol will not absolutely put down an intruder who has made it clear that their intent is to harm you at that point, and is no longer interested in robbing you. So we need to risk more Las Vegas shootings to ensure the supposed-yet-never-actually-happened situation you just described might take place? Again, the Las Vegas shooting could not have happened with any pistol or bolt-action rifle. Or shotgun. You can mod them all you like. It required an assault rifle. Stop giving me hypotheticals. We all know the real tragedies the AR-15 has inflicted. Give me an actual example of a civilian defending themselves in a situation where they needed an AR-15. They would've died without it. Go. Do it. Sometimes with a lot of knowledge, comes a lot of fucking ignorance. It's because no one wants to deal with your strawman. The Vegas shooting is not a strawman. And if you had an example to show me, to prove me wrong, you'd show it. 0/10 What was my strawman? Why can't you just give me an example, or at least say you don't have one? I'm really actually disgusted. I try to answer people's questions, even if they're rude to me. "You don't know anything." Well, okay. IDC. But show me, then. I've tried to get honest answers to my questions, but when I ask for something specific, this is where it ends up. It's no wonder we have a President who thinks we should "arm the teachers". We don't allow ourselves to confront this stupidity. I'm supposed to politely let you indulge in violent fantasy and ignore reality. There's plenty who will, but I'm not. So run away, little worm. If you could only ban one, would you ban assault rifles or pistols? Why?
As I say, I'm not specifically arguing for a ban, it kind of has made its way into that.
I think every gun purchase should come with a reason. That's just kind of my idea on the matter.
It could be that assault-rifles have a reason and purpose. Poking into the matter, it seems like a lot of "I want" rather than "I need". But if there is a case to be made for civilian assault-rifles, I'd want them made on a per-case basis.
That's the thing. Rather than convince me, I think everyone buying any gun, needs to make a case for that individual gun. To a court, or license-agency. Something.
And I suspect, if this were ever actually implemented (in what is my own fantasy) assault-rifle sales would plummet. As would most gun-sales. But there's really just no need for these guns. It's like we're arming potential terrorists. Like, I just want to repeat "Vegas shooting" until I'm blue in the face. These guns are a unique threat, and it doesn't encourage me that the "responsible gun-owners" try to pretend otherwise.
|
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the threat/usefulness ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups.
|
On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups.
No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee.
Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles?
The day one of you I'm arguing with answers this honestly, I will walk away happy. Not holding my breath.
|
On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles?
Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?
That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people.
Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15.
|
On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles?
What was I calling noob in the post where I used it? Who were the persons? Why did you think it was directed at you?
And would you stop calling the AR-15 an assault rifle?
|
On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles?
It's not an assault rifle though.
There's a few different problems with what you're suggesting but one of them would be even under a ban, there was still plenty of civilian access to AR-15's and the like (which I presume you're including when talking about AR-15's). So what you're really talking about is something even more restrictive than the previous ban.
Provided you're going to do something like that you would need some entity to determine the difference between "want" and "need" and it's been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated that something like that can't possibly come from the liberals who want it as they are incapable of even taking the time to learn accurate understandings of the devices they intend to regulate.
It's quite reminiscent of when the Senate wanted to regulate ATM fees but only a couple members even knew what they were or how they worked.
|
It’s a semiautomatic rifle with a 30+ round clip that will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, designed for urban combat. It is also rifle that is designed around the “assault rifle” restrictions. Quibbling over if it is a rifle that could be used for urban assault is a bit silly. Every rifle is a “sniper rifle” if you put a not complete garbage scope on it.
|
On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15.
Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to.
Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job.
And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No.
just: No.
See: I answer questions.
|
On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions.
What if he chose to drive a car through the crowd? What if he got a bomb into that crowd? You're assuming that he stays at the same range if he has a different tool. There are other tools that can be used to kill more people quickly. We saw that happened when someone ran through a crowd with a vehicle.
All evidence that I have seen points to the idea that an assault weapons ban/firearm ban in general does nothing to curtail the homicide rate within a country. Why people keep insisting on one makes no sense to me.
|
On February 22 2018 12:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 12:38 superstartran wrote:On February 22 2018 12:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 12:31 Danglars wrote:
I want to thank the people in the last three pages of posts for posting tons of gun facts to counter some assertions. Even with Leporello in the mix (and like three posts calling things assault rifles that aren’t), that kind of knowledgeable discussion should be ground zero before adding special wait times or licenses for AR-15s. More of an “despite their great performance in the home defense role alongside pistols, I suggest ...” rather than “my straw man says there’s no good reason to use it in the role” or “the usefulness/threat ratio is too damn high”
I’ve got too many vocal gun control advocates in my local SoCal area (even one official in a gun control group that protests) that don’t know the difference between a .50-cal and AR-15 ... and think only Rambo-wannabes would ever want an AR-15. But this is California, so naturally I get the crazier fringe of these groups. No one here has compared a 50 cal to an AR-15. Psht. Even I know that! LOL. Oh gee. Here's a question, for your database: do you think the Vegas shooting would've resulted in so many deaths if the man didn't have access to an AR-15 (which is an assault-rifle)? Would so many have died if the only guns he could buy were pistols, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles? Would the Vegas shooting happened if the person in question went through a rigorous mental health screening check every 6 months? Anyone can use that logic. Yes, the Vegas shooting happened. Yes, he utilized semi-automatic long rifle weapons converted with a bumpfire stock. Do you truly believe though that removing access to the AR-15 would have prevented him from committing that same kind of crime with another type of weapon/tool?That's the honest question we should be asking ourselves here. This guy meticulously planned his attack on those people, and made many efforts in order to conceal his effort to harm others. Just like the Florida shooter knew how to defeat standard school lockdown protocol by pulling the fire alarm to force students and staff out into the open, and he chose the perfect time to do it (towards the end of school) to cause mass confusion. These people planned these things out, and it's not like they just decided one day I'm going to pick up an AR-15 and just go kill some people. Not to mention, you conveniently leave out the fact that the Virgina Tech shooter utilized pistols to inflict 33 fatalities (including himself), and not an AR-15. Not only do I think that, the vast majority of law-enforcement thinks it to. Of course, it would have been different. He didn't choose the AR-15 because he likes the way it smells. He picked it because it was the best tool for the job. And the job was long-distance murder. Now, other things can murder. But at that range? That effectively? No. just: No. See: I answer questions.
We're all aware he had something like 20 different guns in his room? I don't think there's been any reports about what bullets actually struck people either. Seems people use "AR-15" to stand in for any large mag rifle. Or they know even less than I thought.
For me it makes way more sense to prioritize the source of the overwhelming number of gun deaths, rather than get rid of/restrict access to rifles with large mags so that we didn't have any more used in things like Vegas. If for no other reason than if all of the fervor is around these mass shootings and not the overwhelming number of gun deaths, then once the shootings stop happening with AR-15's and/or the body counts go down, so does the will to actually address the much larger and pervasive problem.
|
I gotta go, but last point I'll make is, we're at a point where the mainstream NRA response to school shootings is to arm the teachers.
20 years ago, that would be unthinkable.
Anywhere else in the world, that would be unthinkable.
It should be everywhere, unthinkable.
No one here advocates for it, my guess is they just don't dare.
Some of us look for middle-ground everywhere. Stop. There is no middle-ground with America's gun-culture. "Bump-stock" bans are not middle-ground -- they're a scapegoat. If we're ever going to get meaningful gun-control in this country, people need to start being honest, instead of being polite to people who are refusing to acknowledge the realities of our gun-epidemic. It's not okay, on any level. If you can't admit the impact of the AR-15 on the Vegas shooting, for example, that's not okay. I don't care how much "knowledge" you think you have, you're being fundamentally ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
