Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

[ludin]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I understand your argument... but the problem I have with it is that having access to assault-style weapons makes these mass shooting incidents significantly more deadly than they otherwise would have been. That's not the case with the 30 pairs of shoes. Maybe a Camaro is less safe than a typical sedan... but I suspect if it was shown to be significantly less safe, there would be similar calls to address their design as well.

This is what gets me about mass shootings... if one of these incidents were an airplane crash, we'd investigate the hell out of it, learn the lessons and implement changes so that air safety is improved going forward. Why can't we take this kind of approach with gun safety? Why do we have to keep re-learning the same grim lessons over and over again?

stop blaming inanimate objects that have nothing to do with it and start blaming the people that commit it.
You ban will not stop anything. They will find another way to get what they need or they will come up with something else.

If you need a point austin tx right now is having a major problem with exploding packages.

so please tell us how your gun ban stops that. it doesn't.
all you gun ban does is affect legal citizens that do nothing wrong.

why you guys don't understand this is beyond me.

YOu want to stop mass shootings then you have to stop them before they start.

 

[ludin]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Why does a person need a Camaro SS rather than a sedan?

Why does a woman need 30 pairs of shoes rather than three?

It isn't a matter of need. It's a matter of personal choice. Any time someone tries to limit gun rights, they are attacking people's choices.

why not limit the 1st amendment.
the 4th amendment
due process wth do you need that.

the erosion of 1 right leads to the erosion of others.

 

[Fraggle Rock]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The second amendment does not guarantee assault weapons or a person using them for target practice....if you love target practice so much get a f-ing dart board. In fact President Ronnie banned them for ten years. Don't recall a Constitutional crisis then. Ban them permanently. Heck if it was good for Ronnie your political Jesus it 's gotta be right.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The second amendment does not guarantee assault weapons or a person using them for target practice....if you love target practice so much get a f-ing dart board. In fact President Ronnie banned them for ten years. Don't recall a Constitutional crisis then. Ban them permanently. Heck if it was good for Ronnie your political Jesus it 's gotta be right.

Ronnie wasn't president in 1994, nor did the AWB actually ban any firearms. You should do a little more research.

 

[danielpalos]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

What a pile of crap

We have a Second Amendment. Anyone who wants to have an AR15, is welcome to muster and become well regulated. We should not have security problems.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

We have a Second Amendment. Anyone who wants to have an AR15, is welcome to muster and become well regulated. We should not have security problems.

Everyone 18-45 should be forced to muster, whether they own a gun or want to be in the militia or not.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The second amendment does not guarantee assault weapons or a person using them for target practice....if you love target practice so much get a f-ing dart board. In fact President Ronnie banned them for ten years. Don't recall a Constitutional crisis then. Ban them permanently. Heck if it was good for Ronnie your political Jesus it 's gotta be right.

the idiocy of the gun banner position is highlighted here. Reagan didn't ban "assault weapons" that Bill was signed by Clinton in 1994. How can we take your silly arguments seriously when your knowledge of the facts is patently deficient.

 

[danielpalos]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Everyone 18-45 should be forced to muster, whether they own a gun or want to be in the militia or not.

that seems to about, "the trouble making punk" age range.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Ronnie wasn't president in 1994, nor did the AWB actually ban any firearms. You should do a little more research.

and people give me grief for being hard on posters who want to piss on my rights and are completely clueless about what they are talking about.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Everyone 18-45 should be forced to muster, whether they own a gun or want to be in the militia or not.

I thought that is what active shooter and fire drills are-field expedient musters?

 

[BreadConqueror]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You don't. No one does.

People who feel insecure and live in fear feel they need them to have a sense of safety. But they are typically not really in real danger, and have only been convinced to be fearful by social engineering.

 

[Cordelier]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Yes. Thast's the fault of your argument.

You think that banning certain types of weapons will reduce the violence with those weapons. Guess what. It will not do squat. There are already decades of sales of those types of weapons to start with. Criminal's don't follow legal sales laws. They will buy or steal what is already out there.

Besides, anyone planning to perpetrate such a crime will still have the next best thing. You have to pass laws that go past constitutional meanings to stop all a significant number of gun problems. Why not just make it less likely someone will commit such crimes?

Absolutely we should do more on the prevention side... but it's not a one-sided coin. People are still going to commit mass murders regardless of whether or not they can get their hands on an assault-style rifle, just like they will whether or not their mental health issues are addressed. That's not the point. The point is not to find a perfect solution... it's to find a more perfect one. The way I figure it, as hard as banning assault rifles would be, it's infinitely easier to accomplish than trying to figure out what's going on in someone's head.

It's a trade-off... on one side, we've got easy access to assault-rifles - so we can blast away at tin cans faster and more efficiently. But that's about all they're good for... they're not much good for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, they're not much good for self-defense. But the price we pay for being able to blast away at those tin cans is that there is always the possibility they can be used for the purpose for which they were designed - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time. Let's say - for argument's sake - the use of an assault-style rifle makes a mass shooting 25% worse than it otherwise would have been. That's 4 kids at Stoneman Douglas who might not have been killed. How many blasted away tin cans were their lives worth?

You make a valid point... there are already plenty of assault-style rifles already out there on the streets, and banning their future sales aren't going to change that. But you've got to start somewhere, do you not? The late, great Senator Pat Moynihan used to be fond of telling a story he once heard from JFK... it goes something like this. There was this old French Colonial General walking out in his garden and he saw a gardener digging a hole to plant a flower... and pretty much taking his sweet time about it. When the General asked why he was being so lackadaisical, the gardener said, "No worries, Mon General... this flower will not bloom for another 18 years." To which the General replied, "Then we don't have a moment to lose!"

 

[Bullseye]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You don't. No one does.

People who feel insecure and live in fear feel they need them to have a sense of safety. But they are typically not really in real danger, and have only been convinced to be fearful by social engineering.

I don't think it's an issue of need. It's a right. IF we want a gun and are willing to abide by the rules to own one it's nobody else's business. That said, as with all other rights, owning a gun carries certain responsibilities. Safe operations and storage come to mind.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

It's a trade-off... on one side, we've got easy access to assault-rifles - so we can blast away at tin cans faster and more efficiently. But that's about all they're good for... they're not much good for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, they're not much good for self-defense.

Wrong on both accounts. ARs in small calibers are excellent varmint and predator rifles, and in larger calibers with 5 round magazines make perfectly fine big game rifles. An AR in 5.56mm will have less overpenetration than a shotgun with buckshot or a handgun with JHPs, is more accurate than either and with significantly less recoil than a shotgun.

But the price we pay for being able to blast away at those tin cans is that there is always the possibility they can be used for the purpose for which they were designed - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

They were not designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time. The AR-15 was designed to meet military specifications, and the M16 was designed to meet tactical and doctrinal needs. There is no military mission where a single soldier is going to be attacking unarmed civilians or killing scores of the enemy with his/her service weapon. It wasn't a design requirement of the M1 Carbine, either, and that firearm has been around since the 1940s.

Let's say - for argument's sake - the use of an assault-style rifle makes a mass shooting 25% worse than it otherwise would have been. That's 4 kids at Stoneman Douglas who might not have been killed. How many blasted away tin cans were their lives worth?

We know that a single shooter armed with a handgun with ten round magazines killed 32 people in about ten minutes. The shooter at Pulse had hours before he was stopped. The shooter at Vegas could have simply flown one of his light planes full of full and explosives into the crowd.

False premise.

You make a valid point... there are already plenty of assault-style rifles already out there on the streets, and banning their future sales aren't going to change that. But you've got to start somewhere, do you not? The late, great Senator Pat Moynihan used to be fond of telling a story he once heard from JFK... it goes something like this. There was this old French Colonial General walking out in his garden and he saw a gardener digging a hole to plant a flower... and pretty much taking his sweet time about it. When the General asked why he was being so lackadaisical, the gardener said, "No worries, Mon General... this flower will not bloom for another 18 years." To which the General replied, "Then we don't have a moment to lose!"

The very moment that any current AWB bill is passed perfectly functional, if ugly, semiautomatic rifles will go on sale that aren't banned by the language of the AWB.

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Sorry, but you don't add credibility to his post.

(chuckle)

He's right dude, you are not.

 

[VanceMack]

Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]

Absolutely we should do more on the prevention side... but it's not a one-sided coin. People are still going to commit mass murders regardless of whether or not they can get their hands on an assault-style rifle, just like they will whether or not their mental health issues are addressed. That's not the point. The point is not to find a perfect solution... it's to find a more perfect one. The way I figure it, as hard as banning assault rifles would be, it's infinitely easier to accomplish than trying to figure out what's going on in someone's head.

It's a trade-off... on one side, we've got easy access to assault-rifles - so we can blast away at tin cans faster and more efficiently. But that's about all they're good for... they're not much good for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, they're not much good for self-defense. But the price we pay for being able to blast away at those tin cans is that there is always the possibility they can be used for the purpose for which they were designed - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time. Let's say - for argument's sake - the use of an assault-style rifle makes a mass shooting 25% worse than it otherwise would have been. That's 4 kids at Stoneman Douglas who might not have been killed. How many blasted away tin cans were their lives worth?

You make a valid point... there are already plenty of assault-style rifles already out there on the streets, and banning their future sales aren't going to change that. But you've got to start somewhere, do you not? The late, great Senator Pat Moynihan used to be fond of telling a story he once heard from JFK... it goes something like this. There was this old French Colonial General walking out in his garden and he saw a gardener digging a hole to plant a flower... and pretty much taking his sweet time about it. When the General asked why he was being so lackadaisical, the gardener said, "No worries, Mon General... this flower will not bloom for another 18 years." To which the General replied, "Then we don't have a moment to lose!"

but you don’t see how ridiculous it is to make this argument about ARs in the first place? Of the 98 recorded mass shootings since 1982 the vast majority of mass shootings did not involve ARs. The vast majority involved handguns and the most common (and lethal) weapon used was the 9mm handgun. The second most commonly used weapon was a .45 cal handgun. Third was shotguns. 4th...22lr weapons.

When New York seized on the Sandy Hook shooting to force an AR ban, the chief of the NYPD stated that of the 1300 fired rounds recorded by the NYPD in a given year, only 3 came from a rifle of any type and NONE could be shown to have come from an AR style rifle. And that is from someone that is VERY pro gun control.

The AR is a great home defense weapon. It is a solid hunting weapon used by many for hunting deer, coyotes, hogs, etc. it’s a great sports shooting weapon. It is also a great weapon of last resort and fills the role specifically cited in the 2nd Amendment...as an arm that citizens should own, operate, keep in good working order, and have adequate a store of ammunition to ensure the free state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jbander]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

We have a Second Amendment. Anyone who wants to have an AR15, is welcome to muster and become well regulated. We should not have security problems.

Depends on what you think the 2nd means in total, only the courts decide and of course it can be dumped by congress, thrown out rewritten. the court who has regulated guns before,may choose to just include the M16 as illegal.

 

[CLAX1911]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You don't. No one does.

you didn't watch the video did you? Ownership of property isn't based on need.

People who feel insecure and live in fear feel they need them to have a sense of safety.

An AR 15? I doubt that. It's a glorified varment gun. People buy them and like them because they are a versatile platform.

But they are typically not really in real danger, and have only been convinced to be fearful by social engineering.

Nobody that I know that has an AR 15 owns it because they are afraid. If you ask them which gin they would go for in the case of a home invasion they typically say the shot gun. That is a wise choice.

 

[VanceMack]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Depends on what you think the 2nd means in total, only the courts decide and of course it can be dumped by congress, thrown out rewritten. the court who has regulated guns before,may choose to just include the M16 as illegal.

I truly doubt ANYONE is literally stupid enough to believe that they wrote the Bill of Rights to protect a government entity. Well Regulated means kept in good working order, serviced, capable, trained in use, and with adequate amounts of munitions. The intent has been clearly written and stated by those that actually wrote it and stated it. So we agree...congress (and the ratification of the states) can ‘change’ the 2nd, but you can’t change the meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jbander]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

What did Australia do to completely get rid of mass shootings (but only by their definitions}? Why do you completely ignore US Constitutional protections for firearm ownership?

[/QUOTE]no one is ignoring it but you don't get to define it, I've been a supporter of the second all my life but if its between what you gun bubbas want or getting rid of the second . i would choose to get rid of the second and i know the consequences of doing it. the biggest threat to the second is the all or nothing gun bubbas,

 

[jaeger19]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You don't. No one does.

People who feel insecure and live in fear feel they need them to have a sense of safety. But they are typically not really in real danger, and have only been convinced to be fearful by social engineering.

You have just summed up the anti gun movement in two sentences.

 

[jaeger19]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

no one is ignoring it but you don't get to define it, I've been a supporter of the second all my life but if its between what you gun bubbas want or getting rid of the second . i would choose to get rid of the second and i know the consequences of doing it. the biggest threat to the second is the all or nothing gun bubbas,[/QUOTE]

there is no such thing as an "all or nothing" gun bubba.

 

[jaeger19]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Absolutely we should do more on the prevention side... but it's not a one-sided coin. People are still going to commit mass murders regardless of whether or not they can get their hands on an assault-style rifle, just like they will whether or not their mental health issues are addressed. That's not the point. The point is not to find a perfect solution... it's to find a more perfect one. The way I figure it, as hard as banning assault rifles would be, it's infinitely easier to accomplish than trying to figure out what's going on in someone's head.

It's a trade-off... on one side, we've got easy access to assault-rifles - so we can blast away at tin cans faster and more efficiently. But that's about all they're good for... they're not much good for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, they're not much good for self-defense. But the price we pay for being able to blast away at those tin cans is that there is always the possibility they can be used for the purpose for which they were designed - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time. "

that's not what they are designed for.. nor is it what they are being used for.

Let's say - for argument's sake - the use of an assault-style rifle makes a mass shooting 25% worse than it otherwise would have been

Except it doesn't

You make a valid point... there are already plenty of assault-style rifles already out there on the streets, and banning their future sales aren't going to change that. But you've got to start somewhere, do you not?

Hmmm.. I would argue that starting with diverting resources to things. like banning futures sales of assault weapons (which was already done once to no effect), that have no possibility of any real effect.. makes things worse.. not better.

 

[CLAX1911]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Absolutely we should do more on the prevention side... but it's not a one-sided coin. People are still going to commit mass murders regardless of whether or not they can get their hands on an assault-style rifle, just like they will whether or not their mental health issues are addressed. That's not the point. The point is not to find a perfect solution... it's to find a more perfect one. The way I figure it, as hard as banning assault rifles would be, it's infinitely easier to accomplish than trying to figure out what's going on in someone's head.

That won't accomplish anything.

It's a trade-off... on one side, we've got easy access to assault-rifles - so we can blast away at tin cans faster and more efficiently. But that's about all they're good for... they're not much good for hunting, and unless your house is being attacked by a squad of North Korean sappers, they're not much good for self-defense.

So called "assault rifles" ate just like any other rifle. Banning them will do little more than pay lip service to people who don't know any better.

But the price we pay for being able to blast away at those tin cans is that there is always the possibility they can be used for the purpose for which they were designed - to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

You can do that with any semi automatic fire arm.

Let's say - for argument's sake - the use of an assault-style rifle makes a mass shooting 25% worse than it otherwise would have been.

Because of the way it looks? How would aesthetics cause a rifle to be 25% more deadly dangerous or lethal?

That's 4 kids at Stoneman Douglas who might not have been killed.

Because of the looks of a rifle?

How many blasted away tin cans were their lives worth?

That's a false dichotomy. Not letting purple tat want to shoot targets habe the guns they want has Absolutly no effect on criminals getting guns.

You make a valid point... there are already plenty of assault-style rifles already out there on the streets, and banning their future sales aren't going to change that.

Style has no real effect on a guns performance.

But you've got to start somewhere, do you not?

Start somewhere that makes sense.

 

[BreadConqueror]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You have just summed up the anti gun movement in two sentences.

The "I'm rubber you're glue" argument is the lowest form of projection.