• 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!

This Is Why Countless People Are Misinformed And Misguided About Gun Control...

G

gfm7175

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
5,695
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Madison, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I made this exact comment (here I start it off differently) in another thread a bit earlier, but I think this deserves it's own thread and discussion...

Countless people are grossly misinformed, and misguided in their intentions, when it comes to mass shootings and various proposed gun control measures, and I think it is pretty obvious why this is...

To show why this is, let's do a Google search (texas church shooting 2017) to bring up some "first page articles" about the fairly recent Texas church massacre (11/05/17) where Stephen Willeford STOPPED the mass shooter with his.........

wait for it gun grabbers.........

AR-15.


But wait a minute, they probably never knew about this fact because, if you take a close look at this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html , you would know the SHOOTER'S name, and that he used a Ruger AR-556 rifle, but you would NOT know the name of the citizen who CHASED DOWN the shooter, NOR the fact that this courageous upstanding citizen used an AR-15 "big black scary military style assault rifle" in a very positive way...

If you would have read this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-what-we-know/index.html , you would at least know that Steven Willeford was the courageous citizen who stopped the shooter, but you would only know that the shooter used a "Ruger AR "assault-type rifle"", without knowing that Willeford used an AR-15 to stop the shooter.

This New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html , lets you know the shooter's name and that he used a "military-style rifle", and later mentions that it was a "Ruger military-style rifle", says that it was the "deadliest mass shooting in the state's history", but it doesn't mention much of anything about Steven Willeford beyond "an armed neighbor exchanged gunfire with him" ... oh wait, but later on in the article, we get back to information about the shooter again... "The authorities said Mr. Kelley used an Ruger AR-15 variant — a knockoff of the standard service rifle carried by the American military for roughly half a century." It goes on to talk about AR-15's and their "variants", but NOWHERE is it mentioned that Steven Willeford (the guy who returned fire back at the shooter) was armed with an AR-15... NOWHERE...

This NBC article, https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/t...alties-reported-texas-church-shooting-n817751 , names the shooter, talks about it being the most deadly mass shooting in state history, states that the shooter was armed with a "Ruger AR assault-type rifle" (notice the very similar language between the mainstream media articles??), but all it says about Steven Willeford was this... "An unidentified resident confronted the gunman after the shooting began, "grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect," according to Martin." ... This article never mentioned his name, and never mentioned that he used an AR-15 to return fire back at the shooter.

This FOX News article, At least 26 killed in mass shooting at Texas church | Fox News , isn't much better... It names the shooter, says he used a "Ruger AR rifle", and says that the shooter was "confronted by an armed nearby resident who chased after him".

This Washington Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-shot-at-texas-church/?utm_term=.4a0e517551e2 , names the gunman and says that he "started shooting with an assault rifle" and said that he was "spraying bullets", but only says than an "armed civilian" took off after the shooter, and leaves out his name (Steven Willeford) and that he used an AR-15.


It was not until I dug deep and SPECIFICALLY SEARCHED for an article that THE FEDERALIST posted, http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/ , that I saw (and was linked to) anything of ANY depth about the upstanding citizen Steven Willeford and the fact that he used an AR-15 against the shooter.


So, in conclusion, When searching for information to become more informed about a topic/event, ESPECIALLY one as important as our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, make sure to search ALL websites of ALL different sizes/popularity and "biases".

Also, I dare ANY gun grabbing leftist reading this post to tell me that the mainstream media isn't biased in their reporting and that the mainstream media doesn't have an anti-gun agenda... I think I have provided solid evidence that mainstream media is quite biased and agenda driven in their reporting of events such as this one...
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
I made this exact comment (here I start it off differently) in another thread a bit earlier, but I think this deserves it's own thread and discussion...

Countless people are grossly misinformed, and misguided in their intentions, when it comes to mass shootings and various proposed gun control measures, and I think it is pretty obvious why this is...

To show why this is, let's do a Google search (texas church shooting 2017) to bring up some "first page articles" about the fairly recent Texas church massacre (11/05/17) where Stephen Willeford STOPPED the mass shooter with his.........

wait for it gun grabbers.........

AR-15.


But wait a minute, they probably never knew about this fact because, if you take a close look at this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html , you would know the SHOOTER'S name, and that he used a Ruger AR-556 rifle, but you would NOT know the name of the citizen who CHASED DOWN the shooter, NOR the fact that this courageous upstanding citizen used an AR-15 "big black scary military style assault rifle" in a very positive way...

If you would have read this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-what-we-know/index.html , you would at least know that Steven Willeford was the courageous citizen who stopped the shooter, but you would only know that the shooter used a "Ruger AR "assault-type rifle"", without knowing that Willeford used an AR-15 to stop the shooter.

This New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html , lets you know the shooter's name and that he used a "military-style rifle", and later mentions that it was a "Ruger military-style rifle", says that it was the "deadliest mass shooting in the state's history", but it doesn't mention much of anything about Steven Willeford beyond "an armed neighbor exchanged gunfire with him" ... oh wait, but later on in the article, we get back to information about the shooter again... "The authorities said Mr. Kelley used an Ruger AR-15 variant — a knockoff of the standard service rifle carried by the American military for roughly half a century." It goes on to talk about AR-15's and their "variants", but NOWHERE is it mentioned that Steven Willeford (the guy who returned fire back at the shooter) was armed with an AR-15... NOWHERE...

This NBC article, https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/t...alties-reported-texas-church-shooting-n817751 , names the shooter, talks about it being the most deadly mass shooting in state history, states that the shooter was armed with a "Ruger AR assault-type rifle" (notice the very similar language between the mainstream media articles??), but all it says about Steven Willeford was this... "An unidentified resident confronted the gunman after the shooting began, "grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect," according to Martin." ... This article never mentioned his name, and never mentioned that he used an AR-15 to return fire back at the shooter.

This FOX News article, At least 26 killed in mass shooting at Texas church | Fox News , isn't much better... It names the shooter, says he used a "Ruger AR rifle", and says that the shooter was "confronted by an armed nearby resident who chased after him".

This Washington Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-shot-at-texas-church/?utm_term=.4a0e517551e2 , names the gunman and says that he "started shooting with an assault rifle" and said that he was "spraying bullets", but only says than an "armed civilian" took off after the shooter, and leaves out his name (Steven Willeford) and that he used an AR-15.


It was not until I dug deep and SPECIFICALLY SEARCHED for an article that THE FEDERALIST posted, http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/ , that I saw (and was linked to) anything of ANY depth about the upstanding citizen Steven Willeford and the fact that he used an AR-15 against the shooter.


So, in conclusion, When searching for information to become more informed about a topic/event, ESPECIALLY one as important as our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, make sure to search ALL websites of ALL different sizes/popularity and "biases".

Also, I dare ANY gun grabbing leftist reading this post to tell me that the mainstream media isn't biased in their reporting and that the mainstream media doesn't have an anti-gun agenda... I think I have provided solid evidence that mainstream media is quite biased and agenda driven in their reporting of events such as this one...
Click to expand...
They also do not mention the he is an NRA instructor.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
I made this exact comment (here I start it off differently) in another thread a bit earlier, but I think this deserves it's own thread and discussion...

Countless people are grossly misinformed, and misguided in their intentions, when it comes to mass shootings and various proposed gun control measures, and I think it is pretty obvious why this is...

To show why this is, let's do a Google search (texas church shooting 2017) to bring up some "first page articles" about the fairly recent Texas church massacre (11/05/17) where Stephen Willeford STOPPED the mass shooter with his.........

wait for it gun grabbers.........

AR-15.

But wait a minute, they probably never knew about this fact because, if you take a close look at this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html , you would know the SHOOTER'S name, and that he used a Ruger AR-556 rifle, but you would NOT know the name of the citizen who CHASED DOWN the shooter, NOR the fact that this courageous upstanding citizen used an AR-15 "big black scary military style assault rifle" in a very positive way...
Click to expand...

Umm..... this shooter killed 26 people with his AR-556 rifle before anybody else with a rifle could get to him. Your hero was right across the street, and he still couldn't get there in time to save the people in that church because the shooter had such an awesome gun.

Now let's imagine your scenario in a world without these stupid weapons. Imagine a world where the original shooter only had a pump action shotgun that could hold 5 slugs at a time(which is all you should ever realistically need for hunting). How much you want to bet that a lot more of those church members would have been able to escape in the first place? Heck someone unarmed could have probably rushed the guy while he was reloading. Your hero wouldn't have needed his own AR-15 would he? He could have easily gotten his own shotgun, and it would have still been a fair fight.

Your ridiculous argument is that we need the AR-15 because someone else might have an AR-15. If you stop the manufacture of them alltogether then nobody gets one. The bad guy doesn't have one, and therefore the good guys won't need one either.
 
gfm7175 said:
I made this exact comment (here I start it off differently) in another thread a bit earlier, but I think this deserves it's own thread and discussion...

Countless people are grossly misinformed, and misguided in their intentions, when it comes to mass shootings and various proposed gun control measures, and I think it is pretty obvious why this is...

To show why this is, let's do a Google search (texas church shooting 2017) to bring up some "first page articles" about the fairly recent Texas church massacre (11/05/17) where Stephen Willeford STOPPED the mass shooter with his.........

wait for it gun grabbers.........

AR-15.


But wait a minute, they probably never knew about this fact because, if you take a close look at this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html , you would know the SHOOTER'S name, and that he used a Ruger AR-556 rifle, but you would NOT know the name of the citizen who CHASED DOWN the shooter, NOR the fact that this courageous upstanding citizen used an AR-15 "big black scary military style assault rifle" in a very positive way...

If you would have read this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-what-we-know/index.html , you would at least know that Steven Willeford was the courageous citizen who stopped the shooter, but you would only know that the shooter used a "Ruger AR "assault-type rifle"", without knowing that Willeford used an AR-15 to stop the shooter.

This New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html , lets you know the shooter's name and that he used a "military-style rifle", and later mentions that it was a "Ruger military-style rifle", says that it was the "deadliest mass shooting in the state's history", but it doesn't mention much of anything about Steven Willeford beyond "an armed neighbor exchanged gunfire with him" ... oh wait, but later on in the article, we get back to information about the shooter again... "The authorities said Mr. Kelley used an Ruger AR-15 variant — a knockoff of the standard service rifle carried by the American military for roughly half a century." It goes on to talk about AR-15's and their "variants", but NOWHERE is it mentioned that Steven Willeford (the guy who returned fire back at the shooter) was armed with an AR-15... NOWHERE...

This NBC article, https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/t...alties-reported-texas-church-shooting-n817751 , names the shooter, talks about it being the most deadly mass shooting in state history, states that the shooter was armed with a "Ruger AR assault-type rifle" (notice the very similar language between the mainstream media articles??), but all it says about Steven Willeford was this... "An unidentified resident confronted the gunman after the shooting began, "grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect," according to Martin." ... This article never mentioned his name, and never mentioned that he used an AR-15 to return fire back at the shooter.

This FOX News article, At least 26 killed in mass shooting at Texas church | Fox News , isn't much better... It names the shooter, says he used a "Ruger AR rifle", and says that the shooter was "confronted by an armed nearby resident who chased after him".
Click to expand...

>snipped<

Yeah yeah yeah. More hysteria.
Listen. There's two things that will always have lip service and no action- guns and illegal immigrants. Both are just opportunities to be heard, chances to declare which side you're on in high-sounding words but there's no political will to do anything on either subject.
So relax. Chill a bit. And try to be less tedious.
 
trouble13 said:
They also do not mention the he is an NRA instructor.
Click to expand...

You people remind me of religious nuts who want to praise God for saving them from cancer or helping them survive a car accident. You want to give your God all this credit for the solving the problem, you ignore the reality that if your God was capable of waiving a magic wand and saving you, then he could have waived his magic wand and not put you into that situation in the first place.

God gave you cancer, but you're only focused on the fact that he supposedly helped you survive it. God caused your car accident, but you're praising him for sparing your life. A nut job with an AR-15 murdered 26 people in a matter of minutes, and you are praising the NRA and the AR-15 for saving lives when in reality without the NRA and the AR-15 most of those lives would have never needed saving in the first place.

Given that it's largely the NRA's fault that these stupid ****ing weapons are still on the market in the first place I don't see this guy as a hero at all. People like him are partially responsible for the fact that those 26 people were being murdered in the first place. Risking his life to take down the shooter is the least this guy could do.
 
Last edited:
Yep, the fact that police or other "good guys" use these same guns must be downplayed - the important part of the story is that a (crazed?) criminal made the same selection from the guns available. Much like "we need more BGCs" stories when the shooter passed the identical existing BCG.

Media bias by omission is a wonderful tool - no lie was told and the "important" (for promoting the "proper" agenda?) facts were presented accurately. The New York Times slogan says it best with its "All the news that's fit to print" slogan - who, exactly, decides which news facts and events are "fit to print"?
 
MrWonka said:
Umm..... this shooter killed 26 people with his AR-556 rifle before anybody else with a rifle could get to him. Your hero was right across the street, and he still couldn't get there in time to save the people in that church because the shooter had such an awesome gun.

Now let's imagine your scenario in a world without these stupid weapons. Imagine a world where the original shooter only had a pump action shotgun that could hold 5 slugs at a time(which is all you should ever realistically need for hunting). How much you want to bet that a lot more of those church members would have been able to escape in the first place? Heck someone unarmed could have probably rushed the guy while he was reloading. Your hero wouldn't have needed his own AR-15 would he? He could have easily gotten his own shotgun, and it would have still been a fair fight.

Your ridiculous argument is that we need the AR-15 because someone else might have an AR-15. If you stop the manufacture of them alltogether then nobody gets one. The bad guy doesn't have one, and therefore the good guys won't need one either.
Click to expand...

Yep, that (bolded above) is exactly how we won the war on drugs. Placing a nationwide ban on them dried up the supply so completely that we rarely have any more ill effects from those tons of drugs, sold exclusively by criminals, that used to be available 24/7/365 before the nationwide ban was declared.
 
trouble13 said:
They also do not mention the he is an NRA instructor.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly... Reading those mainstream articles I linked, you would know A LOT more about the SHOOTER and his life/history than you would ever know about Steven Willeford and his life/history... Details about him got completely glossed over because those details contradict the mainstream anti-gun agenda... People getting behind the "gun control" movement need to realize this, and that they are being completely hoodwinked by the mainstream media that they watch and read...
 
gfm7175 said:
I made this exact comment (here I start it off differently) in another thread a bit earlier, but I think this deserves it's own thread and discussion...

Countless people are grossly misinformed, and misguided in their intentions, when it comes to mass shootings and various proposed gun control measures, and I think it is pretty obvious why this is...

To show why this is, let's do a Google search (texas church shooting 2017) to bring up some "first page articles" about the fairly recent Texas church massacre (11/05/17) where Stephen Willeford STOPPED the mass shooter with his.........

wait for it gun grabbers.........

AR-15.


But wait a minute, they probably never knew about this fact because, if you take a close look at this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html , you would know the SHOOTER'S name, and that he used a Ruger AR-556 rifle, but you would NOT know the name of the citizen who CHASED DOWN the shooter, NOR the fact that this courageous upstanding citizen used an AR-15 "big black scary military style assault rifle" in a very positive way...

If you would have read this CNN article, https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-what-we-know/index.html , you would at least know that Steven Willeford was the courageous citizen who stopped the shooter, but you would only know that the shooter used a "Ruger AR "assault-type rifle"", without knowing that Willeford used an AR-15 to stop the shooter.

This New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html , lets you know the shooter's name and that he used a "military-style rifle", and later mentions that it was a "Ruger military-style rifle", says that it was the "deadliest mass shooting in the state's history", but it doesn't mention much of anything about Steven Willeford beyond "an armed neighbor exchanged gunfire with him" ... oh wait, but later on in the article, we get back to information about the shooter again... "The authorities said Mr. Kelley used an Ruger AR-15 variant — a knockoff of the standard service rifle carried by the American military for roughly half a century." It goes on to talk about AR-15's and their "variants", but NOWHERE is it mentioned that Steven Willeford (the guy who returned fire back at the shooter) was armed with an AR-15... NOWHERE...

This NBC article, https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/t...alties-reported-texas-church-shooting-n817751 , names the shooter, talks about it being the most deadly mass shooting in state history, states that the shooter was armed with a "Ruger AR assault-type rifle" (notice the very similar language between the mainstream media articles??), but all it says about Steven Willeford was this... "An unidentified resident confronted the gunman after the shooting began, "grabbed his rifle and engaged that suspect," according to Martin." ... This article never mentioned his name, and never mentioned that he used an AR-15 to return fire back at the shooter.

This FOX News article, At least 26 killed in mass shooting at Texas church | Fox News , isn't much better... It names the shooter, says he used a "Ruger AR rifle", and says that the shooter was "confronted by an armed nearby resident who chased after him".

This Washington Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-shot-at-texas-church/?utm_term=.4a0e517551e2 , names the gunman and says that he "started shooting with an assault rifle" and said that he was "spraying bullets", but only says than an "armed civilian" took off after the shooter, and leaves out his name (Steven Willeford) and that he used an AR-15.


It was not until I dug deep and SPECIFICALLY SEARCHED for an article that THE FEDERALIST posted, http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/ , that I saw (and was linked to) anything of ANY depth about the upstanding citizen Steven Willeford and the fact that he used an AR-15 against the shooter.


So, in conclusion, When searching for information to become more informed about a topic/event, ESPECIALLY one as important as our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, make sure to search ALL websites of ALL different sizes/popularity and "biases".

Also, I dare ANY gun grabbing leftist reading this post to tell me that the mainstream media isn't biased in their reporting and that the mainstream media doesn't have an anti-gun agenda... I think I have provided solid evidence that mainstream media is quite biased and agenda driven in their reporting of events such as this one...
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just don't care about your gun obsession
 
MrWonka said:
Umm..... this shooter killed 26 people with his AR-556 rifle before anybody else with a rifle could get to him.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he would have killed many more "sitting ducks" had he not been chased off by Willeford and his AR-15.

MrWonka said:
Your hero was right across the street, and he still couldn't get there in time to save the people in that church because the shooter had such an awesome gun.
Click to expand...
Willeford arrived there a lot faster than law enforcement did, did he not?

MrWonka said:
Now let's imagine your scenario in a world without these stupid weapons.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's do that...

MrWonka said:
Imagine a world where the original shooter only had a pump action shotgun that could hold 5 slugs at a time(which is all you should ever realistically need for hunting).
Click to expand...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

But in all seriousness, your "imagination" here is not, and will never be, reality... except for a civil war and tyrannical overtaking of the USA...

MrWonka said:
How much you want to bet that a lot more of those church members would have been able to escape in the first place?
Click to expand...
Or if there was someone inside the church who was armed? That would be more realistic than imagining that all these guns weren't in existence...

MrWonka said:
Heck someone unarmed could have probably rushed the guy while he was reloading.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he'd then use multiple handguns and would still end up killing the same number of people anyway? But anyway, people only having pump actions with 5 slug limits just isn't reality...

MrWonka said:
Your hero wouldn't have needed his own AR-15 would he? He could have easily gotten his own shotgun, and it would have still been a fair fight.
He didn't need it in this case either...

MrWonka said:
Your ridiculous argument is that we need the AR-15 because someone else might have an AR-15.
Click to expand...
You are attacking a straight up strawman here; I said nothing of the sort in my post.

MrWonka said:
If you stop the manufacture of them alltogether then nobody gets one. The bad guy doesn't have one, and therefore the good guys won't need one either.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly how things work in the real world, but maybe in your Lennon-esque world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
Click to expand...
 
MrWonka said:
You people remind me of religious nuts who want to praise God for saving them from cancer or helping them survive a car accident. You want to give your God all this credit for the solving the problem, you ignore the reality that if your God was capable of waiving a magic wand and saving you, then he could have waived his magic wand and not put you into that situation in the first place.

God gave you cancer, but you're only focused on the fact that he supposedly helped you survive it. God caused your car accident, but you're praising him for sparing your life. A nut job with an AR-15 murdered 26 people in a matter of minutes, and you are praising the NRA and the AR-15 for saving lives when in reality without the NRA and the AR-15 most of those lives would have never needed saving in the first place.

Given that it's largely the NRA's fault that these stupid ****ing weapons are still on the market in the first place I don't see this guy as a hero at all. People like him are partially responsible for the fact that those 26 people were being murdered in the first place. Risking his life to take down the shooter is the least this guy could do.
Click to expand...

"You people" what kind of racist remark is that?

Where your completely go off track in your thinking is that you believe people would stop killing people if you take away their guns.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah yeah yeah. More hysteria.
Click to expand...
If you can't face reality when it smacks you right in the face, then we unfortunately can't have a fruitful discussion about this...

Grand Mal said:
Listen. There's two things that will always have lip service and no action- guns and illegal immigrants. Both are just opportunities to be heard, chances to declare which side you're on in high-sounding words but there's no political will to do anything on either subject.
Click to expand...
And?

Grand Mal said:
So relax. Chill a bit. And try to be less tedious.
Click to expand...
I really don't think I was that tedious, and I figured that a more in-depth post that included a few examples would be supportive and worthwhile instead of ignorantly stating a bunch of bull**** without any support behind it...
 
gfm7175 said:
Then they shouldn't be trying to take away my right to own guns based on ignorance and (skewed) misinformation...
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable that a mentally insane person should not have been able to get access to countless amounts of weapons... But that's just me and most of the country.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I think it's reasonable that a mentally insane person should not have been able to get access to countless amounts of weapons... But that's just me and most of the country.
Click to expand...

I think we can both agree on the position of not wanting mentally insane people getting access to countless amounts of weapons, so no need to use Leftist tactics by throwing that type of strawman in my direction...
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I think it's reasonable that a mentally insane person should not have been able to get access to countless amounts of weapons... But that's just me and most of the country.
Click to expand...

Then you should be mad at Sheriff Scott Israel, among others, who ignored all the numerous signs and evidence leading up to this horrific event...

THAT was the real problem in this specific case, NOT the fact that guns exist...
 
gfm7175 said:
I think we can both agree on the position of not wanting mentally insane people getting access to countless amounts of weapons, so no need to use Leftist tactics by throwing that type of strawman in my direction...
Click to expand...

huh? Since I'm not a leftist, I'm not sure what leftist tactics I was using.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
huh? Since I'm not a leftist, I'm not sure what leftist tactics I was using.
Click to expand...

Attacking a strawman by claiming that I am fine with mentally insane people having access to countless weapons...?
 
trouble13 said:
"You people" what kind of racist remark is that?
Click to expand...
I didn't realize being gun crazy was it's own race.

trouble13 said:
Where your completely go off track in your thinking is that you believe people would stop killing people if you take away their guns.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I believe that if you take away ridiculously unnecessary guns designed to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time. It would reduce the effectiveness of people trying to commit mass murder. Would some mass murders still happen? Sure, but the death toll would likely be significanly limitted.
 
gfm7175 said:
Attacking a strawman by claiming that I am fine with mentally insane people having access to countless weapons...?
Click to expand...

Well yes, your assumption that people want to take your guns away certainly is a strawman.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, but he would have killed many more "sitting ducks" had he not been chased off by Willeford and his AR-15.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. He would have killed many fewer if AR-15s didn't exist in the first place.

gfm7175 said:
Willeford arrived there a lot faster than law enforcement did, did he not?
Click to expand...
Sure, but it still wasn't fast enough to save the 26 people who had already been killed in the time it took him to get his gun out of a locker, load it and run across the street. Why? Because the killer had himself a AR.

gfm7175 said:
"imagination" here is not, and will never be, reality... except for a civil war and tyrannical overtaking of the USA...
Click to expand...
No, actually it's pretty simple. The vast majority of guns comparable to the AR-15 are manufactured here in America. Shut down their manufacturing and sale here, and you'd put a massive massive dent in the ability of **** heads like this to get their hands on them.

gfm7175 said:
Or if there was someone inside the church who was armed? That would be more realistic than imagining that all these guns weren't in existence...
Click to expand...
That's your ****ing solution? Everyone in America has to have the best gun available on the Market on their person at all times. 26 people were all supposed to show up to church in their sunday best with locked and loaded AR-15s strapped to their backs just in case their in the 1 out of a million churches that gets attacked by some nut?

Even your hero with the NRA knows better than that. He keeps his rifle locked up and unloaded so kids can't get to it. Keeping a loaded weapon on your person at all times is dangerous. People accidentally shoot themselves or loved ones all the damn time. If ever American in the country had a loaded and holstered weapon waiting to draw in the event of a mass shooting the number of accidental shootings would increase so dramatically they would easily cover the deaths from mass shootings.

Can you imagine being in church, and having a gun accidentally go off in a room filled with a hundred other people carrying guns with itchy trigger fingers?

gfm7175 said:
Or maybe he'd then use multiple handguns and would still end up killing the same number of people anyway?
Click to expand...
Less accurate, less powerful, less deadly, harder to find large clips for......

gfm7175 said:
But anyway, people only having pump actions with 5 slug limits just isn't reality...
Click to expand...
No valid reason it couldn't be. At a minimum, we could radically reduce the number that has them.

gfm7175 said:
You are attacking a straight up strawman here; I said nothing of the sort in my post.
Click to expand...

Bull****. That's exactly what you're arguing. You're trying to claim that we're ignoring something good that an NRA member did with an AR-15, and only focusing on the bad. But you seem to forget that the only reason your NRA boy needed to do something good with an AR-15 is because someone else was doing something evil with an AR-15. Well sense the NRA and the AR-15 are largely responsible for the first 26 people that were murdered, you don't get to claim the NRA and the AR-15 are here's for saving the 27th.

That's like claiming that because a drunk driver hit and killed another drunk driver before that drunk driver could plow through a crowd that we should some how cheer drunk driving.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, that (bolded above) is exactly how we won the war on drugs. Placing a nationwide ban on them dried up the supply so completely that we rarely have any more ill effects from those tons of drugs, sold exclusively by criminals, that used to be available 24/7/365 before the nationwide ban was declared.
Click to expand...

Do you not grasp the complexity involved in building a high powered rifle as compared to...growing a plant like Marijuana? Weed grows naturally in the wild for Christ sake. So does opium. Even something like Meth or LSD is significanly easier to make from scratch than an AR-15. The materials necessary to build it alone are expensive as ****.

Not to mention the fact that most illegal drugs are terrible quality when compared to drugs made legally. Moonshine was **** compared to Jack Daniels. The same would be true of any black market assault rifle.

Even if you thought you could buy a well-made AR on the black market what do you think it's going to cost? They already run upwards of a grand. If you're having to import them from Russia and it's a crime to sell them here all of a sudden you're looking at them being 20 times that price. You think the typical school shooter has that kind of money laying around?

America is the single biggest manufacturer of these weapons. If we stopped production on them entirely or at minimum restricted access to just our military you would see a huge drop in the sheer number in circulation. They are a fun luxury that almost nobody needs, and if you couldn't buy one in a store the vast majority of people would simple settle for the next best thing and that would be fine.
 
MrWonka said:
Do you not grasp the complexity involved in building a high powered rifle as compared to...growing a plant like Marijuana? Weed grows naturally in the wild for Christ sake. So does opium. Even something like Meth or LSD is significanly easier to make from scratch than an AR-15. The materials necessary to build it alone are expensive as ****.

Not to mention the fact that most illegal drugs are terrible quality when compared to drugs made legally. Moonshine was **** compared to Jack Daniels. The same would be true of any black market assault rifle.

Even if you thought you could buy a well-made AR on the black market what do you think it's going to cost? They already run upwards of a grand. If you're having to import them from Russia and it's a crime to sell them here all of a sudden you're looking at them being 20 times that price. You think the typical school shooter has that kind of money laying around?

America is the single biggest manufacturer of these weapons. If we stopped production on them entirely or at minimum restricted access to just our military you would see a huge drop in the sheer number in circulation. They are a fun luxury that almost nobody needs, and if you couldn't buy one in a store the vast majority of people would simple settle for the next best thing and that would be fine.
Click to expand...

need has nothing to do with a constitutional right and you would be clamoring for banning the 'next best thing'
 
MrWonka said:
Do you not grasp the complexity involved in building a high powered rifle as compared to...growing a plant like Marijuana? Weed grows naturally in the wild for Christ sake. So does opium. Even something like Meth or LSD is significanly easier to make from scratch than an AR-15. The materials necessary to build it alone are expensive as ****.

Not to mention the fact that most illegal drugs are terrible quality when compared to drugs made legally. Moonshine was **** compared to Jack Daniels. The same would be true of any black market assault rifle.

Even if you thought you could buy a well-made AR on the black market what do you think it's going to cost? They already run upwards of a grand. If you're having to import them from Russia and it's a crime to sell them here all of a sudden you're looking at them being 20 times that price. You think the typical school shooter has that kind of money laying around?

America is the single biggest manufacturer of these weapons. If we stopped production on them entirely or at minimum restricted access to just our military you would see a huge drop in the sheer number in circulation. They are a fun luxury that almost nobody needs, and if you couldn't buy one in a store the vast majority of people would simple settle for the next best thing[ and that would be fine.
Click to expand...


One doesn't need a "well made AR" to blast away at densely packed, unarmed folks in a school building given the typical 5 to 8 minutes until the "heroic" police arrive.

The incident reignited the gun politics debate in the United States, with proponents of gun control legislation arguing that guns are too accessible, citing that Cho, a mentally unsound individual, was able to purchase two semi-automatic pistols despite state laws which should have prevented such purchase.[202] Opponents of gun control argued that Virginia Tech's gun-free "safe zone" policy ensured that none of the other students or faculty would be armed and that as a result they were unable to stop Cho.[203]
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
 
TurtleDude said:
need has nothing to do with a constitutional right and you would be clamoring for banning the 'next best thing'
Click to expand...

No, actually I wouldn't. There are valid reasons to want to own a gun. Hunting and personal protection are among them, and that's fine. But the reality is that neither of those activities could ever really require you to fire more than 100 rounds at a distance with accuracy in less than a minute. The only realistic use case for such a weapon is war, and mass murder.

I personally own a shotgun that I used to deer hunt with. It's a 20 gauge Remington pump action. It holds 5 slugs. I feel confident that my odds of getting struck by lightning are better than my odds of ever needing anything more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom