An honest question on assault rifles.

sear said:
That is an acrobatic falsification. It barely rises to the level of "half-truth".

How many school shootings have there been?
And of those shootings / massacres, how many of them were perpetrated with the AR-15?

How many other types of firearm are there?

I'll simplify and fictionalize the math, to illustrate the point.
If there are 9 other types of gun, and one of every 10 school massacres involves an AR
then I'd say the AR is not DISPROPORTIONATELY represented in school massacres.

BUT !!

If there are 9 other kinds of gun, but an AR is used in two, or even three of every ten school massacres,
then I'd say the AR IS disproportionately represented.

Your illogic is an embarrassment to logic.

Just because most humans aren't murders doesn't render innocent those few of us that are guilty of murder. Capisce ?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is astounding. Again... what percentage of AR's out there have been used to kill people?

Your rambling nonsense does not alter what I stated. I am directly refuting the nonsense that AR15's are only used for killing people. That is complete nonsense. Which is why you attempt to divert from what I said with your incoherent ramblings.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So with the supposition of what could have done a better job at Sandy Hook aside ( I deal with the historical fact, not what might have been) essentially, the AR-15 (style) weapons are indeed assault weapons by your descriptions...they are NOT hunting rifles, and as you point out a hand gun does the job of self defense (usually for the home) quite adequately. Your response is apropos to this:

https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/assault-weapons-faq/

Thanks for the honest response.
Click to expand...

Yet far more AR15's are used to HUNT than to murder people. Yet you cannot get your tiny mind around that FACT.
 
Cypress said:
I have handled firearms, but I am no weapons expert.
But this forum's self-appointed weapons experts really do not seem like they really know what they are talking about. An AR15 is a fair to middling self defense weapon. It is actually useless as a carry and conceal, and when you are in in your house a shotgun is the best weapon known to mankind for overwhelming close quarters firepower. And I know this shit without even being a true professional expert on firearms.

p.s., I commend you for starting this thread, because I have seen some overt and tacit admissions here of the actual reasons a lot of gun humpers actually want to have assault rifles -- nothing of which have to do with any of the traditional reasons for having a firearm. And I really do not think these Rambo wannabes are actually part of a "well regulated militia" tasked with defending the country. Really, their pea shooters would be inconsequential and utterly ineffective against an invading army with modern equipment. Wolverines!!
Click to expand...

Here we have the admission folks... the AR15 is a fair 'defense' weapon, but if you want to murder people it magically becomes the most deadly weapon known to man.

Typical liberal bullshit. Which is it? Is it an 'assault weapon' capable of mass destruction or is it just an average gun?
 
BodyDouble said:
An AR-15 is a civilian version of a "battlefield weapon" and it is perfect for self-defense like several other firearms are.
Click to expand...

This is something that has always tickled me. I always imagine some salty old gunnery sergeant at a firebase in Afghanistan under attack. He stands up and growls "okay maggots! Listen up! the dirt bags are assaulting the base so we gotta dig in! Only problem is, we all have assault rifles, so everybody haul ass back to the armory, turn in your assault rifles, draw your defend rifles and haul ass back up here!"
 
"Your ignorance is astounding. Again..." Sf #102
Click to expand...
And yet you have failed to quote one single alleged substantive error in fact or logic to prove your claim. And YOU pretend I'M ignorant ?!
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif

"what percentage of AR's out there have been used to kill people?" Sf
Click to expand...
You persist.
Why do you perceive that as relevant?

You are at extreme disadvantage Sf.

a) I have formal training in such matters, including decades of professional experience with applied statistics.

b) You labeling my valid point, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED !! "ignorant" is groundless name-calling.

That's what passes for substance in your comment.
"Your rambling nonsense " Sf
Click to expand...
I often get such comments from persons of unusually low intelligence: for them it may seem so.
"I am directly refuting the nonsense that AR15's are only used for killing people." Sf
Click to expand...
Then why are you addressing me?
I have NEVER suggested otherwise. And while I won't waste my time proving that, you'll verify it by failing the following challenge.

I challenge you Sf, or ANYone else, to quote any comment originated by me, posted under my pseud, that makes such ridiculous assertion.

There.
 
You flatter me sir! - sucka....numba eighty four.

hardly, I think you are a total dickhead who cannot handle the intricacies of a quote button.....
 
callinectes said:
This is something that has always tickled me. I always imagine some salty old gunnery sergeant at a firebase in Afghanistan under attack. He stands up and growls "okay maggots! Listen up! the dirt bags are assaulting the base so we gotta dig in! Only problem is, we all have assault rifles, so everybody haul ass back to the armory, turn in your assault rifles, draw your defend rifles and haul ass back up here!"
Click to expand...

Which begs the question... "Can an 'assault weapon' be a 'defense weapon' "?
 
BD #113

Most guns have both offensive, and defensive applications.

BUT !!
"A gun is a tool." actor Alan Ladd in the title character Shane
Click to expand...
A screwdriver, an axe, and a soldering iron are each tools.

But each can be considered a somewhat specialized tool. For example, the axe is an impact tool. The soldering iron is not.
These 3 tools are not considered interchangeable, even though they're each tools.

Suit the tool to the specific application.
Don't hunt elephants with a 9mm.

Though Sf & PP struggle mightily to obscure the fact, the class of arm after which the AR was made are particularly suited to assault in general,

and thus are particularly well suited to schoolroom massacres. The fool that attempts a Sandy Hook style massacre with a muzzle-loading flintlock is unlikely to succeed.
 
sear said:
BD #113

Most guns have both offensive, and defensive applications.

BUT !!

A screwdriver, an axe, and a soldering iron are each tools.

But each can be considered a somewhat specialized tool. For example, the axe is an impact tool. The soldering iron is not.
These 3 tools are not considered interchangeable, even though they're each tools.

Suit the tool to the specific application.
Don't hunt elephants with a 9mm.

Though Sf & PP struggle mightily to obscure the fact, the class of arm after which the AR was made are particularly suited to assault in general,

and thus are particularly well suited to schoolroom massacres. The fool that attempts a Sandy Hook style massacre with a muzzle-loading flintlock is unlikely to succeed.
Click to expand...
Va. Tech massacre was accomplished with a 15 round Glock 9mm and a 10 round Walther .22.
33 killed, 27 injured. And no one is even thinking of banning those two weapons.
 
"Va. Tech massacre was accomplished with a 15 round Glock 9mm and a 10 round Walther .22.
33 killed, 27 injured." BD #115
Click to expand...
Isn't that marvelous.
I never asserted or implied the AR-15 was the only weapon in the multiverse capable of such atrocity.
To the contrary. I've observed that a highly skilled martial artist could score the same corpse count with a samurai sword.
So far as I know, there's no major political pressure to ban or restrict the samurai sword. Your point?
"And no one is even thinking of banning those two weapons." BD #115
Click to expand...
Not so slow BD.
I'm a life-long New Yorker.
In New York there's a law on the books called the "SAFE Act".
United States Constitution Art.1 Sect.9-3 to the contrary notwithstanding,
for non-police:
magazine capacity is limited to 10 rnd @ range, and 7 rnd @ concealed carry (CC).
That applies to such firearms as the Glock 17, and others with mag. capacities exceeding these new statutory limits.

Therefore your:
"And no one is even thinking of banning those two weapons." BD #115
Click to expand...
rhetoric is misleading, and possibly ill-informed.

In New York State, which believe it or not is within United States jurisdiction, ALREADY restricts such weapons.

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, our United States federal government, our Republican lead government
treats the United States Constitution, and Art.1 Sect.9-3 and our 2nd Amendment as guidelines, as suggestions.

NOT as "the supreme law of the land" as Art.6 Sect.2 requires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top