Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[cnm]

The context was at a closer range.
At 300 yds I wouldn't use a .223

Better than a .45 or .44 magnum as someone compared.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Many handguns hold 15-18 rounds. Handgun are much more mobile and concealable. The rounds they hold can be excessively deadly.

Yes, in some situations, but not as consistently as the AR. The AR's accuracy doesn't degrade any where near as quickly as any other commonly available gun, including pistols, and concealment isn't always an issue.

Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Is that why the military only issues handguns to our soldiers?

They also issue machine guns. Do you want everyone to have access to a Ma Deuce?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you think a round from an AR-15 has more killing power than other weapons?

Than calibres from pistols holding 15-18 rounds, at the same ranges, fer shure.

I'd rather be hit with a .223 than a .45 ACP or a .44 Mag

I'm pretty sure that would depend on the range.

Range has nothing to do with, you incredibly moronic simpleton. If someone shot you with a .223 you would be better off than a 45 and a 44 Mag at any range! Of course, with any of the three, you would be dead if the shooter was a decent shot!

 

[OKTexas]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Not really. Check out what guns Charles Whitman used. There is also Lee Harvy Oswald. Even for his times the fun he used to kill a presidant was about as shitty as they come. It's not the weapons it's the people behind them.

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

 

[cnm]

Sure, Handguns are more effective in some circumstances. Over all, they aren't as effective as an AR15 to kill large amounts of people in a short time.

If that were true, why do people use handguns more often in mass shootings, murders, and suicides?

Jesus. And you were a teacher?

 

[cnm]

Range has nothing to do with, you incredibly moronic simpleton. If someone shot you with a .223 you would be better off than a 45 and a 44 Mag at any range!

But fuck all people are going to be hit at long range with a .45 or .44 magnum. But congratulations, you've again managed to steer a policy debate into irrelevancies, the standard gun nut tactic.

Rejoice in the freedoms that provide your firearm homicide rate and mass killing rate.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

There are no standard sights for an AR.

I didn't say there were.

You said the AR sights don't suck like on the mini. How do you know the abilities of all the different sights available on the AR? Are you talking iron sights only?

The bullshit spewing from your brain is incessant!

 

[Slade3200]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

 

[OKTexas]

So it’s not the total number of people killed that you’re concerned about...it’s the total number killed in a single incident? Am I understanding you right?

When it comes to mass killings? Absolutely.

When it comes to the US firearm homicide rate, handguns should be severely restricted in order to lower it. Especially as around half of all US firearm homicides are committed with handguns.

You might want to check you stats, you're way off.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

The Handgun will NEVER hold the body count record. The Shotgun will NEVER hold the body count record. The Model 70 will NEVER hold the body count record. The AR does.

I am not saying that a handgun or handguns can't ever take that record but it's going to take a lot more skill than the Nerd Homicidal Maniac to do it. In the hands of a Combat Trained Marine, the best he could do was a body count of 12 (not counting himself) and about 50 total casualties. Two trained police tried to take him down and got shot to pieces. Finally, it was a Swat Team with superior Firepower. And their weapons of choice? You guessed it, the LE6920. Nice fancy name for a Civilian AR-15. That Marine was the exception to every rule. In order for a nerd homicidal maniac your kid to exceed that Marines body count and casualty rate, he will have to use an AR which is designed from the ground up to do that kind of job.

Some place the Mass Shootings at 4 or more. I place it a lot higher. And I also look at the potential. Had the Police not been Johnny on the Sport at the Walmart Shooting, the body count would have been in the excess of 50 easy. The shooter did some nasty business in about 45 seconds. But the Aurora Shooter had 90 seconds and had a much higher body count and much higher casualty rate. Same goes for the Nevada Shooter. Law Enforcement responses in seconds not hours to these shootings otherwise the AR could be in the hundred or more body count and hundreds of casualties. How do I know this? In combat, that's how it's used and one single AR or M-16 can inflict that kind of damage in a matter of minutes.

So you can use the 4 people rule if you want but a god shiv specialist can do that with a knife.

 

[cnm]

You might want to check you stats, you're way off.

You are as ignorant as you are uninformed. But I repeat myself.

edit...My apologies. You are right, I meant to say around half of all US homicides are committed with handguns. They should be severely restricted in order to lower that rate.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Not really. Check out what guns Charles Whitman used. There is also Lee Harvy Oswald. Even for his times the fun he used to kill a presidant was about as shitty as they come. It's not the weapons it's the people behind them.

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

Actually, he killed a police officer too, although it was not with his rifle.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

Haha...that’s a poor spin. They fire the same round, hold the same magazines and are equally affective at close range...Any AR-15 related incident we’ve seen could have easily been carried out with the mini-14

Only equal at close range, and the AR barrel doesn't deform as quickly under excessive use. Nice try though. I'll bet you have lots of guns you want to say are just the same as an AR, don't you? Why don't you list some of them?

My cheap but robust and awesome stainless barrel Ruger mini-14 is one of my favorite rifles. There’s no way it ‘fatigues’ as you claim...I’ve fired hundreds of rounds repetitively without any accuracy issues...You’ll need to try harder.

They don't use the same Mag at all. The Mini-14 is designed from the M-14 which is an extinction of the original M-1A-1 Garrand from WWII. When you go to drop the Mag, you hit the release and have to rotate the mag in a forward motion to extract it using your left hand. In order to get another mag into place, you have to release the empty mag then, using the left had, rotate another mag into the gun.

The M-16 or AR is a different breed. The Mag uses gravity to drop the mag. Therefore, you are reaching for a loaded mag while using the right hand to drop the mag. Then you slam the mag straight up until it sets. The Left hand isn't used to eject the empty mag. Making the AR much faster to reload. And that feature is because it's the absolute best design for battle there is. Even the AK isn't as good no matter what some Rexall Ranger will tell you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I’m thinking killers don’t really care much about the type of weapon they intend to use...I’m thinking they commit to carrying out the act first...I don’t see many backing out once they realize that an AR-15 isn’t readily available.

what you think about guns and killers isn’t really the topic here is it? The topic is what reasons people support banning AR-15s

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

 

[Slade3200]

what you think about guns and killers isn’t really the topic here is it? The topic is what reasons people support banning AR-15s

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

Yeah sure depends on what the plan is, I’m always open to smart ideas to help solve problems and make our world safer.

 

[Wyatt earp]

what you think about guns and killers isn’t really the topic here is it? The topic is what reasons people support banning AR-15s

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

2nd amendment fruit loops

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

Wow, you are still playing that same tired old BS tune over and over again. Just so you won't feel that you got away with anything, I'll respond to your post.

1. The AR looks the way it does because of it's design to do one job and one job alone. Not one ounce of design was wasted on anything else. That job was for a scared shitless 18 year old with little training to kill people in combat as quickly and for as long as necessary. And unless you haven't noticed, that same design is still the dominant design in ALL combat rifles. Yes, Combat Rifles, not piddly little 9mm short ranged guns not much more than automatic handguns. There is a reason I bring up the function of the AR. I once was one of those scared shitless teens in combat that owes his life to that weapon. And I have experience with the original AR-15 Model 601 all the way through the M-16A-4 and the Civilian AR-15. It's not scary looking. It's functional to a fault. And in a combat situation, even the M16A-4 fires semi auto. The 3 shot burst is worthless and is rarely used. That means that the Civilian AR and the M-16A-4 have exactly the same capability in combat. And it's not because it's scary. It's because it's functional. Take it from an old scared shitless teen.

2. If you make a rifle more powerful, you start losing the function of the AR. When you go from a light combat rifle to a Battle Rifle you lose some of the functions that makes the AR the best combat rifle ever made. Even if you try and keep the same features, the weight goes up, the number of available rounds goes down. Packing a 5 to a 7 lbs rifle versus a 10 to a 12 lb rifle and then the reduction of available rounds means your capability actually went down. There is a reason that almost every combat troop carries an AR derivative. And only a few carries a more powerful weapon like the M-240 or the M-249. Those two are heavy and a second support person has to carry the ammo. Try carrying one of the more powerful weapons in combat for 12 to 18 hours and it will become quite apparent why the M-14 was replaced. Just because the caliber has more power doesn't make the gun any more lethal. The AR has only the features to kill at a high rate and nothing is left over for anything else. You can say that "They" will next go after the more powerful weapons but you'll find that the more powerful weapons or war are already covered by the Class 3 FFL aren't readily available in the Civilian world. If you think they are, you watch way too many fictional movies.

Let's add a 3. Stop using the word "Ban". Firearms are not banned. Not a single one. And this includes full automatic machine guns. They are regulated. If you want a fully auto machine gun, you can buy one after you apply for a Class 3 FFL license. Those are not hard to obtain. Almost every law abiding citizen can easily obtain one. It's not much harder to pass one of those than it is to pass a standard Background Check. So you need to change your fear tactic from Ban to Regulate. the Lie is wearing thin.

I agree, I propose the following to all but eliminate the problem...
Completely forbid Blacks, Hispanics and Democrats from owning any firearm. TA-DA! Gun violence is a thing of the past.

And you say your aren't bigoted in any way, right? Your whole argument just went to the funny farm.

 

[Slade3200]

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

2nd amendment fruit loops

1st Amendment trix

 

[Slade3200]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

Wow, you are still playing that same tired old BS tune over and over again. Just so you won't feel that you got away with anything, I'll respond to your post.

1. The AR looks the way it does because of it's design to do one job and one job alone. Not one ounce of design was wasted on anything else. That job was for a scared shitless 18 year old with little training to kill people in combat as quickly and for as long as necessary. And unless you haven't noticed, that same design is still the dominant design in ALL combat rifles. Yes, Combat Rifles, not piddly little 9mm short ranged guns not much more than automatic handguns. There is a reason I bring up the function of the AR. I once was one of those scared shitless teens in combat that owes his life to that weapon. And I have experience with the original AR-15 Model 601 all the way through the M-16A-4 and the Civilian AR-15. It's not scary looking. It's functional to a fault. And in a combat situation, even the M16A-4 fires semi auto. The 3 shot burst is worthless and is rarely used. That means that the Civilian AR and the M-16A-4 have exactly the same capability in combat. And it's not because it's scary. It's because it's functional. Take it from an old scared shitless teen.

2. If you make a rifle more powerful, you start losing the function of the AR. When you go from a light combat rifle to a Battle Rifle you lose some of the functions that makes the AR the best combat rifle ever made. Even if you try and keep the same features, the weight goes up, the number of available rounds goes down. Packing a 5 to a 7 lbs rifle versus a 10 to a 12 lb rifle and then the reduction of available rounds means your capability actually went down. There is a reason that almost every combat troop carries an AR derivative. And only a few carries a more powerful weapon like the M-240 or the M-249. Those two are heavy and a second support person has to carry the ammo. Try carrying one of the more powerful weapons in combat for 12 to 18 hours and it will become quite apparent why the M-14 was replaced. Just because the caliber has more power doesn't make the gun any more lethal. The AR has only the features to kill at a high rate and nothing is left over for anything else. You can say that "They" will next go after the more powerful weapons but you'll find that the more powerful weapons or war are already covered by the Class 3 FFL aren't readily available in the Civilian world. If you think they are, you watch way too many fictional movies.

Let's add a 3. Stop using the word "Ban". Firearms are not banned. Not a single one. And this includes full automatic machine guns. They are regulated. If you want a fully auto machine gun, you can buy one after you apply for a Class 3 FFL license. Those are not hard to obtain. Almost every law abiding citizen can easily obtain one. It's not much harder to pass one of those than it is to pass a standard Background Check. So you need to change your fear tactic from Ban to Regulate. the Lie is wearing thin.

I agree, I propose the following to all but eliminate the problem...
Completely forbid Blacks, Hispanics and Democrats from owning any firearm. TA-DA! Gun violence is a thing of the past.

And you say your aren't bigoted in any way, right? Your whole argument just went to the funny farm.

He knows he’s bigoted... just thinks he’s justified for those beliefs. It’s quite sad.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

2nd amendment fruit loops

The 2nd amendment pretty well is against the banning but not the regulation as long as it's not done by the Feds. That pretty well agrees with the modern court rulings.