0
Nataly

Who needs an AR-15???

Recommended Posts

turtlespeed

*** that suggests you've started this "discussion" simply to be argumentative.



She did, and she stated as much.

Try not to be so angry about people looking for explanations.

Asking questions to become informed, and having a discussion is a far cry from being argumentative and confrontational.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it seems that you do have a dog in this fight. No one is required to defend a need to anyone. Percieved needs are entirely personal; there is no correct answer, and there is no answer that you are entitled to judge.

Most misery comes from minding someone else's business.[:/]
"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kennedy

***Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.


Agree totally.

Thats why there should be 0 guns.

Not just no AR-15s.

Well said Kennedy. It would be a lot harder to hurt 71 people with a pointy stick or nunchucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly



It's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these?
Thoughts?



The answer is irrelevant.

Apply this same question to a million other things that people want but do not strictly need and the answers will change. Guaranteed.

Why would anyone need alcohol? Why would someone need to jump out of an airplane?

Our rights are governed by more than what we "need" to live.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
-Karl Marx

Do people realize what kind of society they are pushing for with this kind of reasoning?
__

My mighty steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

******Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.


Agree totally.

Thats why there should be 0 guns.

Not just no AR-15s.

Well said Kennedy. It would be a lot harder to hurt 71 people with a pointy stick or nunchucks.

Until some crazy mofo goes MS-13 style with dual machetes or katanas (AFTER setting off IEDs)... could easily kill a shit load of people at close range in a dark theater; and with enough distance not to be tackled.

But you're a Delusional-ist... oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kennedy

***Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.

I think all of those involved several weapons... And yes, you can have several magazines ready and take the time to inflict a lot of wounds... You can also have terrible spray patterns and hit one person in the head and fire the rest of your rounds progressively up to the ceiling - or hit no one at all... There is also theoretically no limit to the number of times you can stab someone (or many people) with a knife... But a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage.

As for "minding my own business"... I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Who the hell would listen anyway??!!! :D:D Asking a question is not simply stirring up shit - it's a discussion. Now if someone brings up ridiculous arguments to the table, why shouldn't I point out its irrelevance, if only to keep the discussion on track??

And to all of you who assume (wrongly) to know my position you should refer to what my Sgt used to always say: "assume makes an ass out of u and me"!! I am merely bringing up food for thought. No more, no less.

Finally, I don't give a rats ass about semantics. Useless details (unless you're a lawyer, in which case the devil is in the detail...). Function over form, people. Do you understand my point? Good. So stop fussing over whether I should have used the word "federal law" instead of "rule" or "illegal" as opposed to "banned"... Stop nit-picking on the irrelevant boring stuff and get to the core of the matter - it makes for more intelligent discussions (as opposed to wasting 1000 words on explaining grammar... Sheesh... :S:|)
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage.



How do you know that?

None of the mass murders were done with a fully automatic weapon.

Do you have any experience with firearms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

******Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.


Agree totally.

Thats why there should be 0 guns.

Not just no AR-15s.

Well said Kennedy. It would be a lot harder to hurt 71 people with a pointy stick or nunchucks.

HAHAHAHAA

My liberal GF just said you were an extremist.:)
I agree.

With her.:o

Shit.:|

Well it was bound to happen eventually.:)
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ill take that label.

"I know this guy who thinks the USA would be better off with 0 guns, what a fuckin extremist"

I can wear that hat.

On a second note, BEER. I do believe that you admit it was the F word. I am now a part of your relationship with your gf forever.

I hope shes cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

Ill take that label.

"I know this guy who thinks the USA would be better off with 0 guns, what a fuckin extremist"

I can wear that hat.

On a second note, BEER. I do believe that you admit it was the F word. I am now a part of your relationship with your gf forever.

I hope shes cute.



As far as liberals can be . . . but the typical Hippie Funk surrounds her most of the time, so I sent her out to hug the trees for a while. I needed a break.

She also told me to add that it is, in fact, a bit more expensive having to get 4 hairdos every month, instead of just 1.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bignugget

***I like rainbows.




Only heartless gun loving homicidal maniacs dislike rainbows.

My favorite is a rainbow getting danced on by a unicorn. (unicorn is unarmed obviously except for his pointy stick)

I don't like rainbows. And I am not a maniac!!
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage.



Are we talking about crimes in the US committed with legally owned fully automatic firearms? Which one? There was one in 1988 where a police officer shot an informant, and the other one was in 1992 in Ohio though there is some discrepancy over the details of that firearm being a legally purchased automatic weapon.


so you didn't mean to say fully automatic.... ok then.


("world of pain")
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

******Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.

I think all of those involved several weapons... And yes, you can have several magazines ready and take the time to inflict a lot of wounds... You can also have terrible spray patterns and hit one person in the head and fire the rest of your rounds progressively up to the ceiling - or hit no one at all... There is also theoretically no limit to the number of times you can stab someone (or many people) with a knife... But a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage.

As to your first sentence, all four involved only two handguns. Three out of four had more injured and dead than your example. Fort Hood (13 dead, 32 wounded) was one pistol and a revolver. Luby's (24 dead, 20 wounded) was two pistols. VaTech (32 dead, 17 injured) was two pistols, and I think it's still the worst mass shooting in US history.
If you want to talk about mass casualties by any means, you need to look at the worst school massacre (Bath), the worst domestic attack (OKC), or the single worst attack (twin towers). None of them were firearms.

Quote

As for "minding my own business"... I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Who the hell would listen anyway??!!! :D:D Asking a question is not simply stirring up shit - it's a discussion. Now if someone brings up ridiculous arguments to the table, why shouldn't I point out its irrelevance, if only to keep the discussion on track??



I don't know who that was aimed at, but I assume it wasn't me. Just be careful about your own ridiculous points.

Quote

And to all of you who assume (wrongly) to know my position you should refer to what my Sgt used to always say: "assume makes an ass out of u and me"!! I am merely bringing up food for thought. No more, no less.



You asked a question, but based on your replies, you do seem to have some very strong feelings. Have you considered actually stating your position? Then folks might not need to guess.

Quote

Finally, I don't give a rats ass about semantics. Useless details (unless you're a lawyer, in which case the devil is in the detail...). Function over form, people. Do you understand my point? Good. So stop fussing over whether I should have used the word "federal law" instead of "rule" or "illegal" as opposed to "banned"... Stop nit-picking on the irrelevant boring stuff and get to the core of the matter - it makes for more intelligent discussions (as opposed to wasting 1000 words on explaining grammar... Sheesh... :S:|)



Facts and accuracy matter for clear communication. My SGT had a saying too: "say what you mean and mean what you say."
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

******Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really?

Don't think so.



Tell that to the people in Luby's Diner. Or the students at VaTech. Or the folks at Hartford Dostributors in Mass. Or the victims of Fort Hood. Educate yourself. It'll save you embarassment.

I think all of those involved several weapons... And yes, you can have several magazines ready and take the time to inflict a lot of wounds... You can also have terrible spray patterns and hit one person in the head and fire the rest of your rounds progressively up to the ceiling - or hit no one at all... There is also theoretically no limit to the number of times you can stab someone (or many people) with a knife... But a high-capacity semi or fully-automatic weapon is still far easier to use if your aim is to cause mass damage.

As for "minding my own business"... I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Who the hell would listen anyway??!!! :D:D Asking a question is not simply stirring up shit - it's a discussion. Now if someone brings up ridiculous arguments to the table, why shouldn't I point out its irrelevance, if only to keep the discussion on track??

And to all of you who assume (wrongly) to know my position you should refer to what my Sgt used to always say: "assume makes an ass out of u and me"!! I am merely bringing up food for thought. No more, no less.

Finally, I don't give a rats ass about semantics. Useless details (unless you're a lawyer, in which case the devil is in the detail...). Function over form, people. Do you understand my point? Good. So stop fussing over whether I should have used the word "federal law" instead of "rule" or "illegal" as opposed to "banned"... Stop nit-picking on the irrelevant boring stuff and get to the core of the matter - it makes for more intelligent discussions (as opposed to wasting 1000 words on explaining grammar... Sheesh... :S:|)

The FBI murder statistics do not differentiate between types of rifles. There are about 100 million rifles in the United States. In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kennedy

You asked a question, but based on your replies, you do seem to have some very strong feelings.



Nope. I just can't stand people bringing up bogus or irrelevant arguments and I expect some people to be capable of using better reasoning. Some people live in la-la land and there is little point in arguing with those people. They get enough bashing on here and don't "learn" anything new if I just add to it. Some people I just don't care to hear from - I leave them and their arguments alone.
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly


Nope. I just can't stand people bringing up bogus or irrelevant arguments and I expect some people to be capable of using better reasoning. Some people live in la-la land and there is little point in arguing with those people.



Personally I hate it more when people create threads but don't want to share their actual opinion, leaving us to guess and then just tell us we're wrong. Seems pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Finally, I don't give a rats ass about semantics. Useless details (unless you're a lawyer, in which case the devil is in the detail...). Function over form, people. Do you understand my point? Good. So stop fussing over whether I should have used the word "federal law" instead of "rule" or "illegal" as opposed to "banned"... Stop nit-picking on the irrelevant boring stuff and get to the core of the matter - it makes for more intelligent discussions (as opposed to wasting 1000 words on explaining grammar... Sheesh... :S:|)



You seem to have lost your way. Let me help. You have entered Speakers Corner (creepy music begins to play). There is no hair so fine it can not be split. Where semantics and different possible interpretations rule the day. Where winning an argument is the goal and what someone actually meant, be damned.
Yes, I was once "fresh" like you but the years of repetitive talking points and memes will wear you down to a sarcastic troll. Run young one, run like the wind. Away from this poisoned land. And don't you even dare to look back. :ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0