Once Again a Person with a Gun Stopped a Mass Shooter

[2aguy]

State run protests against the US Constitution paid for the taxpayers should have every teacher involved in jail.

Why do you believe the March for Life is a "state run protest"? Or do you believe permissions for a protest or a school assembly reaches the threshold of "state run" protest?

You know I’m referring to the kids being used as pawns during school hours.

And I find it incredulous that you believe the kids don't have legitimate concerns born of their own experience. Does critical thinking and Life experience converge magically on one's eighteenth birthday? Were you just a dupe at 17 yet fully cogent at 18?

In 1973 I was a sophomore in high school, yet I was aware of Watergate. Hell! When I was five years old, I paid attention to the grown ups because they were worried the world was going to end in October of 1962!

You don't give kids enough credit for being aware of their own circumstances. And by not giving them credit, you find it easier to dismiss them to serve your own agenda. And that agenda is shutting down the first amendment only to support your interpretation of the second.

Unless it involves themselves or their cell phone kids don’t care.

And takes a total moron to think kindergarten kids organized a demonstration against the 2nd amendment.

Continue to dismiss the awareness of kids and make my point for me.

And kindergarten kids aren't aware of the second amendment and its ramifications. Kindergarten kids, however, were slaughtered by an AR-15 in Connecticut and are justifiably scared it will happen to them again.

And the 8,000,000 million AR-15 civilian rifles that weren't used that day are not a problem for anyone, including kindergarten kids.....and the police also knew about the Sandy Hook shooter before the shooting, and they failed...

And those kindergarten kids....were in a democrat gun free zone, targeted by the shooter because unlike the middle school and the highschool, the elementary school did not have a school resource officer.

And the 26 survivors at the Texas church shooting....are glad the NRA instructor had his privately owned, AR-15 civilian rifle since he used it to save their lives....because the police never showed up at the scene of the shooting....

 

[2aguy]

After school they do.

But the government forcing kids to march is another thing. State sanctioned protests against the Constitution shows how depraved the public school system is.

Are you opposed to school assemblies, or are you just opposed to school assemblies dealing with gun violence?

State run protests against the US Constitution paid for the taxpayers should have every teacher involved in jail.

Why do you believe the March for Life is a "state run protest"? Or do you believe permissions for a protest or a school assembly reaches the threshold of "state run" protest?

If they're using schoolbuses and taxpayer-bought fuel to get them there, you're damn right it's "State-sanctioned".

For those that oppose the whole thing, it's taxation without representation.

Imagine then how 97% of the American people feel as they watch congress and the president drag their heels over universal background checks. Our tax dollars pay their salaries, yet we get no representation from them that isn't approved by a lobbyist from the gun makers.

Those 97% don't understand the issue and how assholes like you are lying to them about universal background checks...if they knew the truth they wouldn't support the precursor to having to register their guns, which will later be banned and confiscated....

 

[2aguy]

Almost every person with a gun who intends to murder a lot of people is stopped by someone with a gun. The Maryland school today is no exception.

If the armed law enforcement officers in Parkland had acted as they should have, a lot of lives would have been saved.

You can’t keep criminals from obtaining guns, but you can defend people from criminals.

Maryland High School Shooting Leaves 3 Students in Critical Condition, Including Suspect

"A person"?

You mean an exmilitary, highly trained SWAT officer that was stationed at that school as an RSO?

Yeah, just your average "person" that just happened to be in the neighborhood.

These mass shooters were stopped by average citizens with little to no training in firearms....they are not complicated...even someone like you might be able to use them...

Deputies: Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense

According to deputies, Parangan pulled out a handgun and fired multiple shots at Pastor Terry Howell, who took out his own weapon and fired back, striking Parangan.

Howell was not injured, but Parangan was taken to Osceola Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

Deputies said several church employees witnessed the incident and gave similar statements.

this Psychiatrist was not an off duty cop.....

Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA

The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said.

Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.

After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.

Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.



This Uber driver is not a cop....

An Uber driver with a concealed handgun prevented a mass shooting in Chicago

A driver with the ride-hailing service Uber put a stop to a potential mass shooting in Chicago over the weekend.

Here's the Chicago Tribune, citing Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn:

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

The Orlando night club shooter....faced 300 unarmed people and killed 49...this shooter was shot by a concealed carry permit holder....at a night club two weeks after Orlando...

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...ss-shooting-night-club-media-remained-silent/

This past Sunday, exactly two weeks to the day after the Pulse attack, there was a mass shooting outside a night club in South Carolina. I’m sure you haven’t heard about it, and for two good reasons. The first reason is that the attempted murderer was unsuccessful in killing any of his victims. The second reason is because the attempted murderer was stopped by a concealed carrier at the club drawing his weapon and putting a bullet into the bad guy.

 

[2aguy]

State run protests against the US Constitution paid for the taxpayers should have every teacher involved in jail.

Why do you believe the March for Life is a "state run protest"? Or do you believe permissions for a protest or a school assembly reaches the threshold of "state run" protest?

If they're using schoolbuses and taxpayer-bought fuel to get them there, you're damn right it's "State-sanctioned".

For those that oppose the whole thing, it's taxation without representation.

Imagine then how 97% of the American people feel as they watch congress and the president drag their heels over universal background checks. Our tax dollars pay their salaries, yet we get no representation from them that isn't approved by a lobbyist from the gun makers.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms.

Adolf Hitler

Okay. When you use Hitler to bolster your argument, you really need to consider how strong your thinking skills are.

No....the national socialists used gun registration lists created in the 1920s to disarm the Jews and their political enemies and then sent them to gas chambers...you want to hide this truth because it shows what happens when people can't defend themselve from their government. Britain, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago....registered guns...confiscated guns....

 

[2aguy]

If they're using schoolbuses and taxpayer-bought fuel to get them there, you're damn right it's "State-sanctioned".

For those that oppose the whole thing, it's taxation without representation.

Imagine then how 97% of the American people feel as they watch congress and the president drag their heels over universal background checks. Our tax dollars pay their salaries, yet we get no representation from them that isn't approved by a lobbyist from the gun makers.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms.

Adolf Hitler

Okay. When you use Hitler to bolster your argument, you really need to consider how strong your thinking skills are.

Would you prefer Mao? Stalin? I know..Che Guevara and Castro, huh? It's all the same Modus Operandi: Get in power, disarm the people, kill anyone you want.

And universal background checks will inevitably lead to the slaughter of the American people.

What color is the sky n your world?

Well....it led to slaughter in Germany, Mexico, Russia, China, Cuba........law abiding gun owners don't drive the crime rate....governments murder people in the milllions.

 

[JGalt]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

Experts agree that a shotgun is the best home protection. You don't even have to aim the damn thing and it probably will not penetrate a wall and kill your daughter. BUT, unfortunately, it isn't sexy, or macho.

No...experts don't agree.....shotguns are often harder for women, especially small women to shoot well and to handle.....and since you said you don't have to aim the shotgun you reveal you have no clue what you are talking about, since the shot spread indoors within the range of a hallway or room is no bigger than a quarter..........

You're right. Most shotguns used for defense are loaded with 00 buck shot, and will penetrate walls, as most walls are made out of thin sheetrock.

As always, rule number 4: Be sure of your target and what's behind it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do you believe the March for Life is a "state run protest"? Or do you believe permissions for a protest or a school assembly reaches the threshold of "state run" protest?

You know I’m referring to the kids being used as pawns during school hours.

And I find it incredulous that you believe the kids don't have legitimate concerns born of their own experience. Does critical thinking and Life experience converge magically on one's eighteenth birthday? Were you just a dupe at 17 yet fully cogent at 18?

In 1973 I was a sophomore in high school, yet I was aware of Watergate. Hell! When I was five years old, I paid attention to the grown ups because they were worried the world was going to end in October of 1962!

You don't give kids enough credit for being aware of their own circumstances. And by not giving them credit, you find it easier to dismiss them to serve your own agenda. And that agenda is shutting down the first amendment only to support your interpretation of the second.

Unless it involves themselves or their cell phone kids don’t care.

And takes a total moron to think kindergarten kids organized a demonstration against the 2nd amendment.

Continue to dismiss the awareness of kids and make my point for me.

And kindergarten kids aren't aware of the second amendment and its ramifications. Kindergarten kids, however, were slaughtered by an AR-15 in Connecticut and are justifiably scared it will happen to them again.

And the 8,000,000 million AR-15 civilian rifles that weren't used that day are not a problem for anyone, including kindergarten kids.....and the police also knew about the Sandy Hook shooter before the shooting, and they failed...

And those kindergarten kids....were in a democrat gun free zone, targeted by the shooter because unlike the middle school and the highschool, the elementary school did not have a school resource officer.

And the 26 survivors at the Texas church shooting....are glad the NRA instructor had his privately owned, AR-15 civilian rifle since he used it to save their lives....because the police never showed up at the scene of the shooting....

So the real problem we have with gun violence is the police, the Democratic Party and a lack of readily available AR-15s.

Ah! The AR-15! Is there nothing they can't do?

 

[skye]

Almost every person with a gun who intends to murder a lot of people is stopped by someone with a gun. The Maryland school today is no exception.

If the armed law enforcement officers in Parkland had acted as they should have, a lot of lives would have been saved.

You can’t keep criminals from obtaining guns, but you can defend people from criminals.

Maryland High School Shooting Leaves 3 Students in Critical Condition, Including Suspect

Amazing!

Thank you for posting. Officers with guns MUST be put in all schools to protect students and teachers.

 

[skye]

A school shooting with the perfect body count. One. The gunman. Who is killed with an evil gun. Sorry Democrats. And even worse for you, this is going to deter future shooters.

Shooter dead, two injured after shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland

Democrats of course want honest citizens disarmed because they are the biggest threat to your totalitarian leftist government dream. School shootings are gold. Dead kids to exploit as propaganda to disarm a nation.



There there, lefties. Keep a stiff upper lip

 

[there4eyeM]

Despite irrational and sophomoric rantings, the proposition of 'militia' patrols is only logical. Given the intense interest in firearms of certain individuals, it is obvious that this is a situation where they could be put to some semblance of good use. Instead, all we see is obfuscation and personal attacks as attempts to divert attention from their lack of will.
Or, could it be they fear they might actually have to confront a 'bad guy with a gun'?

 

[kaz]

Despite irrational and sophomoric rantings, the proposition of 'militia' patrols is only logical. Given the intense interest in firearms of certain individuals, it is obvious that this is a situation where they could be put to some semblance of good use. Instead, all we see is obfuscation and personal attacks as attempts to divert attention from their lack of will.
Or, could it be they fear they might actually have to confront a 'bad guy with a gun'?

We want guns to defend ourselves because we're afraid we "might actually have to confront a 'bad guy with a gun'" Wow, ironic an idiot has "The Thinker" on his avatar ...

I'm afraid of guns! I'm a afraid of guns! Let me have a gun! I'm afraid of guns. Let me have a gun! Yeah, that's what we're saying

What a rhetorical genius

 

[there4eyeM]

Despite irrational and sophomoric rantings, the proposition of 'militia' patrols is only logical. Given the intense interest in firearms of certain individuals, it is obvious that this is a situation where they could be put to some semblance of good use. Instead, all we see is obfuscation and personal attacks as attempts to divert attention from their lack of will.
Or, could it be they fear they might actually have to confront a 'bad guy with a gun'?

Interesting to see how upsetting this is to certain individuals. Odd, too, because it is just the sort of thing they should like. After all, it justifies (somewhat) the obsession with possession.

 

[Flopper]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

 

[flacaltenn]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

How long ago was it that the govt decided how much firepower should be in the hands of ordinary citizens? Was it before or after the Congress wrote in the Marques of Reprisal clause to Constitution and PAID privateers to go after pirates in their "world class" (at the time) battleships?? 8 cannon on a cruiser seems perfectly legit in that context...

 

[there4eyeM]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

 

[there4eyeM]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

 

[2aguy]

No...we are really happy he didn't use a rental truck......

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle...it has never been used by the military and is popular with police....it is also the most popular rifle in the United States, putting it under the protection of the 2nd Amendment as per the Heller v. United States.....so you are okay with AR-15 civilian rifles ....and all rifles that are semi automatic vs. rifles that are fully automatic?

 

[JGalt]

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle...it has never been used by the military and is popular with police....it is also the most popular rifle in the United States, putting it under the protection of the 2nd Amendment as per the Heller v. United States.....so you are okay with AR-15 civilian rifles ....and all rifles that are semi automatic vs. rifles that are fully automatic?

You're wasting your time arguing with someone who thinks an AR-15 can shoot 10,000 rounds in a minute and can shoot through school buildings made of concrete blocks.

I have no idea why the left has a hard-on for the AR: There are plenty of other semi-auto copies of military rifles out there that can do just as much or more damage: The FN FAL, the M1 carbine, the Ruger Mini14 or Mini 30, the M1 Garand, the Hi-Point Carbine, the AK-47 in all it's variants, the SKS, the CETME, the H&K, the M-14, the commercially-available copies of the WW2 German StG 44 and MP-40 sub machineguns, and any number of other civilian version of military military rifles.

Maybe the left just hates the AR because their knowledge of firearms is limited and they have stuck in their minds that "AR" is supposed to represent "Assault Rifle."

 

[2aguy]

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

The AR-15 is a civilian rifle...it has never been used by the military and is popular with police....it is also the most popular rifle in the United States, putting it under the protection of the 2nd Amendment as per the Heller v. United States.....so you are okay with AR-15 civilian rifles ....and all rifles that are semi automatic vs. rifles that are fully automatic?

You're wasting your time arguing with someone who thinks an AR-15 can shoot 10,000 rounds in a minute and can shoot through school buildings made of concrete blocks.

I have no idea why the left has a hard-on for the AR: There are plenty of other semi-auto copies of military rifles out there that can do just as much or more damage: The FN FAL, the M1 carbine, the Ruger Mini14 or Mini 30, the M1 Garand, the Hi-Point Carbine, the AK-47 in all it's variants, the SKS, the CETME, the H&K, the M-14, the commercially-available copies of the WW2 German StG 44 and MP-40 sub machineguns, and any number of other civilian version of military military rifles.

Maybe the left just hates the AR because their knowledge of firearms is limited and they have stuck in their minds that "AR" is supposed to represent "Assault Rifle."

I have no idea why the left has a hard-on for the AR: There are plenty of other semi-auto copies of military rifles out there that can do just as much or more damage:

You have to understand how they work......that is the anti gunners.

They know that there are other semi auto rifles out there....the key for them is to get one, just one, completely banned and made illegal to own.

Then, when another mass shooting happens, they simply point out that all semi autos are just AR-15s and they get to ban all of them...the AR-15 is their gateway to banning all semi auto rifles.......

Did you see the CNN town hall where they all screamed that they wanted to ban all semi auto weapons....that is the end game.....until they go after bolt action, pump action an lever action rifles and shotguns....

 

[Flopper]

A rental truck would have been stupid to use in this case. An AR-15, designed for attacking people, would have been perfect. So thank goodness he didn't use one.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms is showing. The AR-15 rifle was not designed for "attacking people", nor is it an "assault rifle".

It is a defensive weapon and aside from using it for hunting or sport shooting, the majority of them are being used to defend people's lives, their families' lives, and their property..

You're confusing the benevolent AR-15 with true military assault rifles which are designed for attacking people. Those are full-auto or three-round burst, can fire up to 800 rounds per minute, have 200-round magazines, and sometimes have 40mm grenade launchers attached to them.

Does it really matter what the AR-15 was designed to do? The fact is it is an externally lethal weapon, 56 killed in Vegas, 17 in Parkland, 49 at the Orlando Nightclub shootings, all within minutes. The news media has made this firearm and it's emulators the weapon of choice for nuts that are planning on killing dozens of people, long before police can respond.

In defense of assault rifles, opponents point to the lives that were saved by these weapons which are few and far between. Do we really need weapons with this killing capacity to defend a home against a criminal? There are many firearms available that can do a fine job of protecting the home. It is incredibility rare for a home owner to have to defend his home against dozens of attackers and if that does happen, there is law enforcement, something most gun enthusiasts choose to ignore.

The reason this argument of yours never gets traction Flopper is it's clearly obvious that the person fixated on AR variations has NO IDEA of what firearms are truly dangerous. The SKS rifle that I'm "baby-sitting" for a friend in Cali (he can't have it there) is just as lethal. But since it has a wood stock and doesn't LOOK dangerous --- it doesn't get scape-goated. So you're essentially asking for REMOVING at least 27 different brands and styles of semi-auto weapons. And you don't even realize it.

Now -- you cant' stuff an SKS with a wooden stock into a smaller bag. But that's about it.

You mentioned Vegas.. The shooter DESTROYED (burned up) THREE ARs with his bump stock trick. Because the rifle is NOT designed for automatic rates of fire. How many mass shooters are gonna carry 4 ARs around on the ground with everything else they need? It's NOT a military weapon. In fact the BATF REQUIRES that no parts of AR variants are interchangeable with military models.

A semi-auto shotgun with a magazine is an awesome close quarter weapon. Not that hard to reload if you're in a Gun Free Zone with nobody to stop you..

When you REALIZE what you're asking for -- you see why nobody ever bites on your "suggestion" of blaming a single fearful LOOKING rifle.

I'm obviously not a firearms expert although I do own a gun and know how to use. People that know a lot more about firearms and public safety than me can make the decision as to just how much firepower the general public will be allowed, balancing 2nd amendment rights against pubic safety. It was decided long ago that handheld missiles and machine guns were too powerful to put in the hands of the public. As arms makers strive for more and more effective weapons, government needs to excise it's power to regulate ever more power weapons.

How long ago was it that the govt decided how much firepower should be in the hands of ordinary citizens? Was it before or after the Congress wrote in the Marques of Reprisal clause to Constitution and PAID privateers to go after pirates in their "world class" (at the time) battleships?? 8 cannon on a cruiser seems perfectly legit in that context...

And the context has changed quite a bit in last two hundred and fifty years. The primary reason for the second amendment was not to provide citizens the means to overthrow the government but rather to support the militias. The founders believed every able bodied man should be a member of a militia and when invading armies or hoards of Indians attacked, the militias would come to the defense of the people.

Today we look favorable on our armed forces and believe we could not survived without it. In colonial days, they believed just the opposite. Standing armies were abhorrent and were a danger to the freedom of people as well being costly to maintain. It was the militias that would defend the people and for that to happen, our citizen soldier would have to have guns.

To the colonialist a gun meant the musket, an imported item that cost the equivalent of two months pay. Without constant attention its iron rusted, and blacksmiths were ill equipped to repair it. The musket was not efficient for self-defense or hunting. It was not accurate beyond a few hundred feet (it had no sight, and soldiers were instructed not to aim, but fire in volleys. It frequently misfired and was cumbersome to reload, awkward qualities for individual self-defense; by the time you had put ball and powder back in, your foe would be upon you with knife, club or ax. About the only reason for owning a musket in those days was to join others in a militia to fight off attacking Indians or other hostel forces. This explains why only 14% of the men owned muskets and about half of them were not operational.

The founders believe every able bodied man should own a gun because the new nation would be depending on them for defense. To that end, gun ownership was encouraged and protected by the constitution. The context today is totally different.

Spiking the Gun Myth