• 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!

Have you ever shot an AR15?

Have you shot an AR15?

  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 30 62.5%

  • No - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • No - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 11 22.9%

  • Yes - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Total voters
    48
Bucky said:
Wrong, completely wrong.

Zealot gun supporters want their guns and want zero restriction.

3-day wait for a background check? Gun zealots say why even have a background check to begin with?

Preventing those charged with domestic violence or mental illness from obtaining guns? A violation of their constitutional rights.

Preventing felons or criminals from obtaining firearms? Why? They are just going to get them anyway, why have a law.

Any commone sense support of gun control will be met with fierce irrational resistance from the gun supporters.
Click to expand...
Is it your claim that these “gun zealots)” believe that these measures would protect others and just don’t care?

In my experience people are opposed to those measures because they consider them ineffective in stopping gun crimes.
 
pinqy said:
Is it your claim that these “gun zealots)” believe that these measures would protect others and just don’t care?

In my experience people are opposed to those measures because they consider them ineffective in stopping gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Not that they dont care. They want them to increase
 
pinqy said:
And I wasn’t stating an opinion, I was stating direct observation. Which does not support your opinion.
Click to expand...

You have an opinion on that observation. Nothing more
 
Bucky said:
I think it is a bit sociopathic to care more about shooting a firearm than the well being and life of innocent men and women.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Well BB Bucky if I understand correctly anyone that likes to shoot firearms is a sociopath that doesn't care about life? Is that really what you mean?
 
vegas giants said:
You have an opinion on that observation. Nothing more
Click to expand...

What opinion is that? My observation is that everyone opposed to the measures in question states their opposition based on lack of effectiveness. I have never heard anyone claim those measures were effective but should not be used.

There is no opinion on my part there.
 
joko104 said:
One of the annoyances of debating gun control is that those who want to ignore 2A are usually incredibly ignorant about firearms, so sound like idiots when they rant, particularly politicians.

So to pro-gun rights people who are experienced with firearms it never goes beyond the sense that the anti-gun rights person is just an idiot having no clue what they are talking about.

It would be like debating someone over legalizing marijuana, they oppose it - saying it is because thousands of people die from overdoses every year, causes birth defects, permanent blindness and impotency plus all of a person's hair falls out. How do you debate someone THAT wrong factually? Thus, you never actually get to real issues at all.

People who have no experience with firearms think anyone can just buy a gun and then go out and shoot to death gobs of people. After all, that is how Hollywood says it works. Everyone - except maybe the good guy - who is shot instantly flies back against a wall, dead before they hit the ground. Just point the gun pulling the trigger as fast as you can and everyone around is instantly killed.

Anyone who is experienced with firearms knows how truly ignorant/lack that is. Anyone can test this. There are gun shops and gun ranges that rent firearms for use. A few even full automatic machine guns. Go rent-a-gun and shoot at stationary targets at only 30 feet with any pistol or rifles over a 22LR. Big 8 inch diameter targets or human outline. Do it with an AR15 with a big magazine. Do it with a handgun 9mm or larger in caliber. Shoot FAST like a mass shooter would. Remember, these targets aren't moving - like people who will be running.

See how many times you hit within 4 inches of the center of the target - an 8 inch diameter. Then see how many people - people who stood their frozen like statues, squarely facing you - that you would have killed. Again, SHOOT FAST! You will quickly see that anyone who isn't a highly practiced shooter can't hit targets in the kill-zone if they are firing fast even if the target isn't moving. It is VERY difficult for a new shooter. Even for an experienced one.

To the response "the proof is how many are killed by mass shooters with such a "military assault rifle" (it's not), the answer is unless denied medical care (as the Obama FBI did to the LGBTs wounded in the Pulse nightclub allowed to bleed to death for 2 hours), the AR15 usually mostly only wounded those shot - and nearly everyone at the location got away unharmed. MANY other methods used for mass murder have vastly higher death rates - and usually allow the murderer to both escape and be unknown. Mass shooters are always killed, suicide, or surrender quickly.

So... have you shot an AR15? Do you have a CLUE what you are talking about? Or is it only what you have heard and just figure what they are like to shoot?
Click to expand...
I wonder how many men who want to ban abortion, have ever had an abortion themselves.

Do you see how asinine your question is now?
 
Wayne Jr said:
I wonder how many men who want to ban abortion, have ever had an abortion themselves.

Do you see how asinine your question is now?
Click to expand...

I think most men who want to ban abortion have a far better understanding of abortion than the gun banners do of the stuff they want to ban. However, many of those who want to ban abortion are dishonest as to their reasons-just as most gun banners are dishonest as to their motivations
 
TurtleDude said:
I think most men who want to ban abortion have a far better understanding of abortion than the gun banners do of the stuff they want to ban. However, many of those who want to ban abortion are dishonest as to their reasons-just as most gun banners are dishonest as to their motivations
Click to expand...

But, but, if you like guns then you must also hate women and want them all to have babies from rape. And you must also hate all brown people and immigrants, and Mooslims, and gays, and cling to a Bible you’ve never read.

Didn’t you know all that from the handbook?
 
pinqy said:
But, but, if you like guns then you must also hate women and want them all to have babies from rape. And you must also hate all brown people and immigrants, and Mooslims, and gays, and cling to a Bible you’ve never read.

Didn’t you know all that from the handbook?
Click to expand...

I must have misplaced my copy of the "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Bannerhoid" but it does sound familiar
 
pinqy said:
But, but, if you like guns then you must also hate women and want them all to have babies from rape. And you must also hate all brown people and immigrants, and Mooslims, and gays, and cling to a Bible you’ve never read.

Didn’t you know all that from the handbook?
Click to expand...

And if you support gun control you cant possibly have served your country on active duty and also own guns and use them frequently
 
vegas giants said:
And if you support gun control you cant possibly have served your country on active duty and also own guns and use them frequently
Click to expand...

Who said that?

Some people believe ex-military are the most dangerous of all to have firearms having been trained in using them well and some have serious psychological disorders from having been taught to and maybe actually did kill people, which really does mess up some people - so they are known capable of shooting people. Many, if not most, people could not bring themselves to shoot someone even in self defense - and likely would miss or their shots not be fatal if they do. A disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders have been military or ex military personnel going back to the University of Texas Tower shooter.

It is possible that you know something about yourself that leads you to wanting gun restrictions, sensing there needs to be restrictions on you - and then projecting that on to everyone else? Not an accusation, just thinking out loud. Do you believe more gun restriction laws are needed to restrict you?

Do you think an AR15 .223 is more dangerous because it is similar to an M16 than something like a DPMS .308 semi-auto? What about a 1950s Remington semi-auto 30.06 - definitely a hunting rifle?
 
joko104 said:
A disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders have been military or ex military personnel going back to the University of Texas Tower shooter.
Click to expand...
Other than Charles Whitman and Timothy McVeigh name another mass murder who was trained by the US military. You can't because they don't exist and you simply made up a completely bogus statistic and pulled it out of your posterior. Two military-trained mass murderers in the last 50 years (one of which didn't even use firearms) does not make "[a] disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders."

You are clearly clueless on the subject of mass murderers in the US.
 
Glitch said:
Other than Charles Whitman and Timothy McVeigh name another mass murder who was trained by the US military. You can't because they don't exist and you simply made up a completely bogus statistic and pulled it out of your posterior. Two military-trained mass murderers in the last 50 years (one of which didn't even use firearms) does not make "[a] disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders."

You are clearly clueless on the subject of mass murderers in the US.
Click to expand...
11 of the 114 documented mass murderers had military experience. But that doesnt equate to "the military is training mass murderers". Something people often forget is that the military is populated by society...and we are all members of society. There are 16 teen school shooters...but I doubt anyone would make the claim that the schools are training mass shooters.
 
VanceMack said:
11 of the 114 documented mass murderers had military experience. But that doesnt equate to "the military is training mass murderers". Something people often forget is that the military is populated by society...and we are all members of society. There are 16 teen school shooters...but I doubt anyone would make the claim that the schools are training mass shooters.
Click to expand...

Cite those other nine then. If you can't name them specifically, so it can be verified, then it is just another bogus statistic. The only two I am aware are Charles Whitman and Timothy McVeigh.
 
Glitch said:
Other than Charles Whitman and Timothy McVeigh name another mass murder who was trained by the US military. You can't because they don't exist and you simply made up a completely bogus statistic and pulled it out of your posterior. Two military-trained mass murderers in the last 50 years (one of which didn't even use firearms) does not make "[a] disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders."

You are clearly clueless on the subject of mass murderers in the US.
Click to expand...

First, I do not think military/ex military should be barred from firearms at all. I was making the statement many anti 2Aers want about veterans - demanding any veteran who seeks counseling should be banned from having any firearms.

Second, I ONLY count mass murder as mass murder when it is a terrorist act - not someone who shoots his wife, kids and mother-in-law, meaning far less mass shooting than is claimed.

Three of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history were at the hands of veterans: the Sutherland Springs shooting in 2017 that left 26 people dead, the shooting at Luby’s Cafeteria in California in 1991 where 23 people were killed, and the U.T.-Austin tower shooting during which a former U.S. marine sniper killed 14 people.
Why the link between veterans and mass shootings is more complicated than you think - ABC News

This does not count Fort Bragg shooter who shot 19, but killed only one. Then again the question isn't really "mass" murder, but murder in general.
 
Glitch said:
Cite those other nine then. If you can't name them specifically, so it can be verified, then it is just another bogus statistic. The only two I am aware are Charles Whitman and Timothy McVeigh.
Click to expand...
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2019: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

Devin Kelly, Gavin Long, Micah Johnson, Ivan Lopez, Aaron Alexis, Wade Page, Nadal Hassan, Dean Mellberg, Kenneth French.

"You are clearly clueless on the subject of mass murderers in the US."
 
VanceMack said:
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2019: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

Devin Kelly, Gavin Long, Micah Johnson, Ivan Lopez, Aaron Alexis, Wade Page, Nadal Hassan, Dean Mellberg, Kenneth French.

"You are clearly clueless on the subject of mass murderers in the US."
Click to expand...

I figured you would use something like Mother Jones. Which has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Notice how you had to stretch the definition of "mass murder" to any killings involving more than two people and include reservists who have virtually no military training at all beyond boot camp. An incredibly dishonest source, but expected from your ilk.
 
joko104 said:
First, I do not think military/ex military should be barred from firearms at all. I was making the statement many anti 2Aers want about veterans - demanding any veteran who seeks counseling should be banned from having any firearms.

Second, I ONLY count mass murder as mass murder when it is a terrorist act - not someone who shoots his wife, kids and mother-in-law, meaning far less mass shooting than is claimed.

Three of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history were at the hands of veterans: the Sutherland Springs shooting in 2017 that left 26 people dead, the shooting at Luby’s Cafeteria in California in 1991 where 23 people were killed, and the U.T.-Austin tower shooting during which a former U.S. marine sniper killed 14 people.
Why the link between veterans and mass shootings is more complicated than you think - ABC News

This does not count Fort Bragg shooter who shot 19, but killed only one. Then again the question isn't really "mass" murder, but murder in general.
Click to expand...

Then explain how 3 out of 10, or 30%, is a "[a] disproportionate number of terrorist or crazy type mass murders." If it is suppose to be disproportionate, shouldn't they be the majority instead of the minority of mass murderers? You want to blame the military for "disproportionately" churning out mass murderers, but then admit that military-trained mass murderers are in the minority. You can't have it both ways, they are contradictory claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom