• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why you “need” and AR15 (or want) for self/home defense

Rucker61 said:
So from 2007 to 2015, when the worse slaughter was with handguns, did you want those banned? After the Norway shooting, did you want Mini-14 style carbines banned? If it's purely a numbers game with you, then logically you would have switched as the high score firearm changed.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Rucker61 said:
The unsurprising lack of ability to address the points listed is noted.
Click to expand...

Do you expect him to admit his anti gun agenda is based on what he can and cannot own in California?
 
TurtleDude said:
Do you expect him to admit his anti gun agenda is based on what he can and cannot own in California?
Click to expand...

He's already done that. I'm just trying to see how he dances around the obvious flaw in his logic around the numbers of victim shot by an firearm.
 
Rucker61 said:
The unsurprising lack of ability to address the points listed is noted.
Click to expand...

Norway shooting?? :roll: Your posts are getting more and more desperate dude. You're just regurgitating old arguments and hoping for different answers. You guys can't hack the AR15 proofs so you keep turning around and going backwards.

Stick to the subject: nobody NEEDS an AR15. They just want them because they're cooool.
 
Rucker61 said:
He's already done that. I'm just trying to see how he dances around the obvious flaw in his logic around the numbers of victim shot by an firearm.
Click to expand...

what is funny is his absolute inability to honestly handle the fact that AR 15s are magazine fed semi auto intermediate cartridge rifles as is a MI carbines. the AR 15 cartridges are higher energy but the MI carbine is generally a bit more compact and the recoil is less. legislation that would ban AR 15s past the silly cosmetic nonsense that the
AWB did, would have to ban the MI carbine too

and the bannerrhoid politicians would have to explain why they are banning a carbine that the federal movement sold by the hundreds of thousands to US Civilians
 
jet57 said:
Did I say 80 deaths, or use 80 as a number of shooting victims? Don't project.

I've answered your "question" as fully as I could. The results of shootings makes the case. You can parse it down to the atomic level if you like, but that's not going to change the results. There has already been a federal ban on assault weapons and we need one again in order to reverse the tide on these things.
Click to expand...

YES YOU DID...I am not projecting you are lying for your own bias statement.....SEE BELOW IN CAPS IN RED EXACTLY WHAT YOU TYPED...

jet57 said:
So, I should tell you that everything you said has been argued here ad nauseum. We will never solve the root of the problem as such, we can only take steps to ensure that such people cannot murder 80 people at a time with what are military combat weapons: it's been done before and we didn't have 500 people getting shot at a time.

Heroine just sitting on the table doesn't do anything either... neither does a hand grenade, but you can't just walk into pretty much any store and buy either of those; they are banned from public sale for a reason.

I should also remind you that during the age of prohibition, the fledgling FBI was forced to arm itself with Thompson sub machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles; why did they have to do that? Can you walk into any store and buy either of those just over the counter in a lot of states? I'm sorry to say that your argument just does not hold water against the dangers of letting such weapons get out on the streets.
Click to expand...


Why do yo think it was reversed in the first place? because there was no Facts that back the claim up the less gun deaths occured during the ban......

LOL..... still no case.... just bias opinion NO FACTS>
 
Exactice said:
YES YOU DID...I am not projecting you are lying for your own bias statement.....SEE BELOW IN CAPS IN RED EXACTLY WHAT YOU TYPED...




Why do yo think it was reversed in the first place? because there was no Facts that back the claim up the less gun deaths occured during the ban......

LOL..... still no case.... just bias opinion NO FACTS>
Click to expand...

Petard. Own. Hoisted.
 
Rucker61 said:
Petard. Own. Hoisted.
Click to expand...

Is he really that off? That he doesnt remember what he typed and funny he keeps putting up the LV shooting, as we keep saying it was not 80 people that died...... I think Jet is gone.... hes not there.....


For Firearms activist like Jet if thats the best you got.... OMG........
 
jet57 said:
Norway shooting?? :roll: Your posts are getting more and more desperate dude. You're just regurgitating old arguments and hoping for different answers. You guys can't hack the AR15 proofs so you keep turning around and going backwards.

Stick to the subject: nobody NEEDS an AR15. They just want them because they're cooool.
Click to expand...

no one needs anything other than oxygen, water, shelter and food. But just because you cannot own one does not have any relevance to what others want.

why are you so confused about the constitution to interject "need" into this conversation?
 
Exactice said:
YES YOU DID...I am not projecting you are lying for your own bias statement.....SEE BELOW IN CAPS IN RED EXACTLY WHAT YOU TYPED...




Why do yo think it was reversed in the first place? because there was no Facts that back the claim up the less gun deaths occured during the ban......

LOL..... still no case.... just bias opinion NO FACTS>
Click to expand...



Still waiting...... *crickets*.......
 
TurtleDude said:
no one needs anything other than oxygen, water, shelter and food. But just because you cannot own one does not have any relevance to what others want.

why are you so confused about the constitution to interject "need" into this conversation?
Click to expand...



Actually, I got a horrible answer... but it is legitimate...


"Nobody needs an AR15, they just want them to be cool"


Well if you want to ban them, Why do criminals "need" them or USE them as well. Because of the efficiency and the commonality.

What I mean is Sure WHAT then if not an AR is the best home/self defense item? A bat, Golf Club, Knife, Taser, Baton etc? honestly, to stop someone with a firearm, would be much faster and more efficient? If not I would have to hack someone up with a knife, Or beat on them multiple times with a bat, club, baton etc? Can we carrier tasers but if you are being held by the person and you taser them, you will get it too?

So a "Firearm" would be efficient for defense?
 
Exactice said:
Actually, I got a horrible answer... but it is legitimate...


"Nobody needs an AR15, they just want them to be cool"


Well if you want to ban them, Why do criminals "need" them or USE them as well. Because of the efficiency and the commonality.

What I mean is Sure WHAT then if not an AR is the best home/self defense item? A bat, Golf Club, Knife, Taser, Baton etc? honestly, to stop someone with a firearm, would be much faster and more efficient? If not I would have to hack someone up with a knife, Or beat on them multiple times with a bat, club, baton etc? Can we carrier tasers but if you are being held by the person and you taser them, you will get it too?

So a "Firearm" would be efficient for defense?
Click to expand...

the guy who says no one needs them is not allowed to own them. Hence he doesn't want anyone else to be able to own them either.
 
TurtleDude said:
the guy who says no one needs them is not allowed to own them. Hence he doesn't want anyone else to be able to own them either.
Click to expand...

Again... just trying to drive some points...... for his bias thoughts.

1) called me a liar, and I highlighted, bolded and red colorized his EXACT post LOL Thats really gotta burn
2) Just provided an answer as to WHY someone might NEED not just because its cool....


I know for a fact, as an instructor (taught many courses one of which was NON lethal Force. this included, Baton, Taser and Mk4 Pepper Gel) The point of the class was to let the LEO's know that just because you use NON lethal force an individual can still be a threat. Meaning some people are NOT affected by Taser, Same with the Pepper Spray/Gel. OR they can still FIGHT through being sprayed or tasered.


With baton, especially with intent. If I swung at someones leg, it doesn't STOP them in their track nor in their arms or meaty parts of their body. More so If I hit them in the HEAD.... thats intent.... and NOW I m going to jail.


With a firearm, once you have escalated to presentation of a firearm and a person continues to endanger your life..... and you have to use deadly force if it was justified.... you will be exonerated by a panel of 12 of your peers If not you are going to Jail

Pretty simple... But usually a Firearm Presentation is a really GOOD initial way to deescalate a threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom