Only 1 shooting this week so far

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

BSmith1068 said:
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle?

No, it is just a semi-auto (civilian version that you can buy) rifle. There is nothing special about it beyond that.

The only difference between that and any other rifle commonly used for hunting is it doesn't have a polished walnut butt and stock to fit into a pastoral setting painting.

Which gets us back to how knee-jerk anti gun types want to approach gun regulation, specifically "does it look scary!!!!" What a great way to do this issue justice, I am sure it will be effective.

BSmith1068 · Dec 17, 2012

A semi-auto rifle with a shorter barrel for easier handling, and an ability to hold magazines that can be changed quickly and can hold 30+ rounds of ammunition. Regardless of the semantic nomenclature, this weapon is designed for one thing: killing as many people as quickly as possible, yet fitting into the arbitrary laws of the day that limit full auto fire.

You are blind if you do not see the real purpose of this weapon. It is not for hunting squirrels.

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

Unfortunately for you most of what you just said does not apply to the AR-15, and thus it was not banned during the time that law was in affect. There are accessories you can add to it ( which made it look scary, thus the change) but a stock AR15 is not classified as an assault rifle.

One of it's many purposes is to kill people, a perfectly acceptable reason to own one. That's why I Own my 9mm pistol.

BSmith1068 · Dec 17, 2012

Yet the accessories are easy to get... all you need is cash, am I right?

Regardless you are getting hung up on the assault rifle term. Clearly this type of weapon is not needed for anything other than killing people, and it's access should be limited to law enforcement and the military. Or do you have some other pedantic or narrow interpretation of what I am saying that allows you to miss the point entirely?

hobbsyoyo · Dec 17, 2012

kochman said:
Having a cop at a school is hardly "turning all schools into fortresses"... let's cut the melodrama.

The hell are you talking about? We have cops in schools. I'm talking about using metal detectors, transparent backpacks, barring all the windows and keeping the kidos locked inside during recess. That follows from your statements on the matter, not putting cops in schools, because we already have that.

Wah wah wah melodrama. I can't hear you when you aren't RAGESHOUTING.

Almost never used in these terrible crimes... too hard to conceal...

These are just emotional responses to "scary" things.

'Almost never used', except when they are and a bunch of children die.

Farm Boy · Dec 17, 2012

BSmith1068 said:
Yet the accessories are easy to get... all you need is cash, am I right?

Regardless you are getting hung up on the assault rifle term. Clearly this type of weapon is not needed for anything other than killing people, and it's access should be limited to law enforcement and the military. Or do you have some other pedantic or narrow interpretation of what I am saying that allows you to miss the point entirely?

It's a bit weird to me that we're debating whether or not guns are designed to kill people. Even the sport and hunting versions are purpose built to inflict harm which is readily used to kill humans. If you are any good with your tool, even modest guns can kill large amounts of helpless children in close quarters.

The reason we let people own guns is not only so they can shoot deer and squirrels. We let people own guns because they can kill people.

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

BSmith1068 said:
Yet the accessories are easy to get... all you need is cash, am I right?

I guess we should outlaw the Prius incase someone spends his cash to add accessories that make it no longer street legal...

Regardless you are getting hung up on the assault rifle term. Clearly this type of weapon is not needed for anything other than killing people, and it's access should be limited to law enforcement and the military.

If I were personally to buy this weapon killing people would be the reason. That is a good reason and one I should be ablr to fulfill.

Or do you have some other pedantic or narrow interpretation of what I am saying that allows you to miss the point entirely?

I have proven the capabilities of this weapon are no different than any number of other hunting rifles you have not advocated banning.

Your objection to them is mere semantics, thus not helpful to solving the problem at hand, thus nothing not something to be taken seriously.

hobbsyoyo said:
'Almost never used', except when they are and a bunch of children die.

Except these weapons weren't used to kill these children. You even bringing them up is a giant straw man, as well as despicable opportunism at the expense of finding an actual solution to the problem at hand.

These weapons were not used at Columbine either. The Chardon High School shooting earlier this year was nothing more than a .22 target shooting pistol. The Oikos Univeristy shooting In April was a .45 pistol, no rifles.

BSmith1068 · Dec 17, 2012

Farm Boy said:
It's a bit weird to me that we're debating whether or not guns are designed to kill people. Even the sport and hunting versions are purpose built to inflict harm which is readily used to kill humans. If you are any good with your tool, even modest guns can kill large amounts of helpless children in close quarters.

The reason we let people own guns is not only so they can shoot deer and squirrels. We let people own guns because they can kill people.

Again, the solution is not binary. We don’t need guns in the hands of private citizens that can kill extremely efficiently. Guns that can essentially shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger for as long as you have ammo (let’s face it, it doesn’t take much time to change a clip).

I am not advocating a complete ban of guns. Just the ones that serve no other purpose than to kill people – and to kill them extremely efficiently. If this kid had a bolt action rifle, he may well have succeeded in killing a few people. But I seriously doubt he would have been able to kill almost 30 people in 10 minutes and take out two people attempting to tackle him in the process.

BSmith1068 · Dec 17, 2012

Patroklos said:
I guess we should outlaw the Prius incase someone spends his cash to add accessories that make it no longer street legal...

Now you are being ridiculous. But to bring this example back to reality, we do legislate seat belt use, and it is mandatory that cars have air bags and crumple zones. Because we have learned what does kill people and how to mitigate that. No such discussion is happening with guns.

Patroklos said:
If I were personally to buy this weapon killing people would be the reason. That is a good reason and one I should be ablr to fulfill.

I would argue that this is not a good reason, and no, you shouldn’t be able to fulfill it.

Patroklos said:
I have proven the capabilities of this weapon are no different than any number of other hunting rifles you have not advocated banning.

Your objection to them is mere semantics, thus not helpful to solving the problem at hand, thus nothing not something to be taken seriously.

Open your eyes and read what I am saying. You are missing the point entirely.

Core Imposter · Dec 17, 2012

We live in an age and time where technology makes the implausible real. We need weapons. Zombie like humans might appear in large numbers. Lets be realistic. We are going to have to live with the truth.

Farm Boy · Dec 17, 2012

BSmith1068 said:
Again, the solution is not binary. We don’t need guns in the hands of private citizens that can kill extremely efficiently. Guns that can essentially shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger for as long as you have ammo (let’s face it, it doesn’t take much time to change a clip).

I am not advocating a complete ban of guns. Just the ones that serve no other purpose than to kill people – and to kill them extremely efficiently. If this kid had a bolt action rifle, he may well have succeeded in killing a few people. But I seriously doubt he would have been able to kill almost 30 people in 10 minutes and take out two people attempting to tackle him in the process.

I agree it's not binary. I'm not so sure about your assessment of bolt action rifles. They worked pretty darn well during WWII, they still work pretty darn well now. You just need to have practiced some. Pump shotguns are remarkably similar in this regard, perhaps a bit more cumbersome to reload, but that's why you strap backups to your leg.

hobbsyoyo · Dec 17, 2012

Patroklos said:
Except these weapons weren't used to kill these children. You even bringing them up is a giant straw man, as well as despicable opportunism at the expense of finding an actual solution to the problem at hand.

These weapons were not used at Columbine either. The Chardon High School shooting earlier this year was nothing more than a .22 target shooting pistol. The Oikos Univeristy shooting In April was a .45 pistol, no rifles.

That changes their inherently dangerous nature and their singular purpose for killing human beings how?

Farm Boy · Dec 17, 2012

hobbsyoyo said:
That changes their inherently dangerous nature and their singular purpose for killing human beings how?

They're guns. That's what guns do!

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

hobbsyoyo said:
That changes their inherently dangerous nature and their singular purpose for killing human beings how?

You have a solution in search of a problem. When you are serious about solving school shootings instead of shoehorning you already established anti gun crusade upon the headline of the day get back to us.

In the mean time I would prefer to discuss gun issues actually relevant to the topic at hand, as I actual care about children as things other than a vehicle to crow about unrelated political goals.
Unlike the Fienstiens of the world.

Formaldehyde · Dec 17, 2012

Patroklos said:
No, it is just a semi-auto (civilian version that you can buy) rifle. There is nothing special about it beyond that.

The only difference between that and any other rifle commonly used for hunting is it doesn't have a polished walnut butt and stock to fit into a pastoral setting painting.

Which gets us back to how knee-jerk anti gun types want to approach gun regulation, specifically "does it look scary!!!!" What a great way to do this issue justice, I am sure it will be effective.

You mean besides the facts that it has a standard 30 shot magazine that can easily be changed to have an even larger capacity? It fires exactly the same ammo with exactly the same effects as the military version as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger? That it can be equipped with ammo that is even more deadly, as was the latest case? That it is the favored assault weapon of choice for many recent mass killings? That it was banned from 1994 to 2004 because it is considered to be an assault weapon by the US government? That the only real difference between the AR-15 and its variants and the military assault rifle versions is that it doesn't have an auto or burst mode unless it is modified?

Link to video.

Is there anything you won't try to rationalize and defend through the use of disingenuous remarks and personal attacks against those who merely disagree with your own personal opinions?

"What a great way to do this issue justice".

hobbsyoyo · Dec 17, 2012

Patroklos said:
You have a solution in search of a problem. When you are serious about solving school shootings instead of shoehorning you already established anti gun crusade upon the headline of the day get back to us.

In the mean time I would prefer to discuss gun issues actually relevant to the topic at hand, as I actual care about children as things other than a vehicle to crow about unrelated political goals.
Unlike the Fienstiens of the world.

1) I am not an anti-gun crusader just because I support gun control
2) You didn't adress what I said
3) Ad Hominem
4) Shove your shoehorn
5) I am discussing the issue, or are you butthurt I don't agree with you? If so, remove shoehorn.
6) Be careful, shoehorns are prone to splintering.

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

I'm sorry, correction, the Fienstiens and Forma's of the world.

hobbsyoyo · Dec 17, 2012

Patroklos said:
I'm sorry, correction, the Fienstiens and Forma's of the world.

More ad hominem, eagleface.

Patroklos · Dec 17, 2012

hobbsyoyo said:
1) I am not an anti-gun crusader just because I support gun control
2) You didn't adress what I said
3) Ad Hominem
4) Shove your shoehorn
5) I am discussing the issue, or are you butthurt I don't agree with you? If so, remove shoehorn

1.) so do I, the difference between me and you is my position uses defendable logic and yours something else
2.) I did, to devastating effect
3.) Hardly, or are you denying you are talking about weapons not used?
4.) the issue is school shootings, you are talking about weapons not used in said school shootings. You are off topic.

hobbsyoyo said:
More ad hominem, eagleface.

You seem confused as to what that term means. Let me help you out with an example

Spoiler :

Skwink · Dec 17, 2012

hobbsyoyo said:
More ad hominem, eagleface.

Oh boy, it's getting personal in here!

Only 1 shooting this week so far

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

run boy run

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

run boy run

Deity

run boy run

Deity

Both Fair And Balanced

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

FRIIIIIIIIIITZ

Similar threads