Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[chikenwing]

Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.

Either you continue to adamantly support the sale of assault weapons to maniacs....weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time...........OR

You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed so that you can "idealize' some stupid scenario that you must defend yourself from government troops......

If you have a conscience (and since most of you call yourselves "good Christians") you have a choice to make....Be tacitly complicit in mass murders....or change your attitude toward the sale of such lethal weapons,[/QU

Bwahahah your freaking crazy,dishonest and ignorent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and committing the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

Sure.

 

[bripat9643]

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Yes, I always enjoy the argument that our rights are only rights if we can prove we need them.

So any kid can get pot, and it's illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? I started one of the longest threads in the political section on that, and no actual ideas from leftists other than to end freedom and become a totalitarian State, they had nothing else. Until you figure that out, why ask stupid questions like that?

If you have an actual plan, let's hear it. But you don't, do you. Your plan is to pass a law and then say WTF, why didn't it work? Also, psst, murder is illegal, so making guns illegal may not work ...

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

You're not going to keep guns from criminals. Not entirely, just like because murder is illegal you're not going to end murder.

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

 

[chikenwing]

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Not really. You're just making up a hypothetical scenario, which is completely irrelevant. Simply because if he used a revolver, liberals would still be calling for gun control. It doesn't matter what he used, Joy.

If he had used a pump shotgun and 00 buck shot same results if not worse.or a IED

 

[Iceweasel]

By using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.

Killed 50 people with it....THAT is some assault weapon

That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

 

[HappyJoy]

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

Deflection noted

Sorry, clarifying my point is in no way a deflection.

Where did you people go to school?

Not so much with a revolver?
Lol

Is that even a serious reply?

You want to compare a guy going for a world record with someone who bought his assault style weapon mere days ago? Jesus, can you guys put a coherent thought together?

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

 

[HappyJoy]

Killed 50 people with it....THAT is some assault weapon

That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

Kind of gives you a hint as their purpose, no?

 

[HappyJoy]

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Not really. You're just making up a hypothetical scenario, which is completely irrelevant. Simply because if he used a revolver, liberals would still be calling for gun control. It doesn't matter what he used, Joy.

If he had used a pump shotgun and 00 buck shot same results if not worse.or a IED

How legal are IEDs?

 

[chikenwing]

Fifty people lost their lives and you have the gall to preach gun control? You sick freak.

A GUN DIDN'T KILL 50 PEOPLE, A TERRORIST DID.

People like this one have zip for morals.

 

[Iceweasel]

That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

Kind of gives you a hint as their purpose, no?

No. I'm not expecting that kind of trouble, but I am prepared for it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Yes, I always enjoy the argument that our rights are only rights if we can prove we need them.

So any kid can get pot, and it's illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? I started one of the longest threads in the political section on that, and no actual ideas from leftists other than to end freedom and become a totalitarian State, they had nothing else. Until you figure that out, why ask stupid questions like that?

If you have an actual plan, let's hear it. But you don't, do you. Your plan is to pass a law and then say WTF, why didn't it work? Also, psst, murder is illegal, so making guns illegal may not work ...

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

You're not going to keep guns from criminals. Not entirely, just like because murder is illegal you're not going to end murder.

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and committing the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

Sure.

Because that's so common.

 

[bripat9643]

That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

A quite noteworthy deflection.

It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/​

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:

• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13​

 

[blackhawk]

The following awarded for starting this thread.

 

[HappyJoy]

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

Kind of gives you a hint as their purpose, no?

No. I'm not expecting that kind of trouble, but I am prepared for it.

That's an interesting way of saying nothing at all but pretending you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Yes, I always enjoy the argument that our rights are only rights if we can prove we need them.

So any kid can get pot, and it's illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? I started one of the longest threads in the political section on that, and no actual ideas from leftists other than to end freedom and become a totalitarian State, they had nothing else. Until you figure that out, why ask stupid questions like that?

If you have an actual plan, let's hear it. But you don't, do you. Your plan is to pass a law and then say WTF, why didn't it work? Also, psst, murder is illegal, so making guns illegal may not work ...

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

You're not going to keep guns from criminals. Not entirely, just like because murder is illegal you're not going to end murder.

Exactly, your gun laws only restrict the right of citizens who follow the law, that's why they are not only ineffective but leave us defenseless when a gun could protect us. For example, look at all the people who owned guns and were trained to use them and were killed in the Washington Navy Yard because they weren't allowed to have them. That is the only thing gun laws accomplish

There are also the victims when Nidal Hassan went berzerk at Fort Hood. Nobody was armed because they weren't allowed to be armed.

Trump will end that nonsense.

Trump wouldn't do shit about it.

Sure he would. He can repeal that rule the day he is inaugurated with an Executive Order.

 

[Rustic]

Deflection noted

Sorry, clarifying my point is in no way a deflection.

Where did you people go to school?

Not so much with a revolver?
Lol

Is that even a serious reply?

You want to compare a guy going for a world record with someone who bought his assault style weapon mere days ago? Jesus, can you guys put a coherent thought together?

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

You obviously have not been to any shooting competitions… LOL
There's one up your next week in deadwood South Dakota, and what separates the worst from the best… Milliseconds
So no, you don't need 20, 50 or 100 round magazines and called "assault weapon"(which is really a sporting rifle) to kill people. You just need hate...

 

[Iceweasel]

Imagine if Europe only had tough gun laws how safe they would be.

Remind me, how many assault style weapons have been used to prevent mass shootings in the US that were not in the hands of law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conceal one walking around, assuming you happen to luck out and stumble across a slaughter. That's not why I own mine.

Kind of gives you a hint as their purpose, no?

No. I'm not expecting that kind of trouble, but I am prepared for it.

That's an interesting way of saying nothing at all but pretending you are.

I didn't pretend anything, you are too stupid to grasp simple concepts.

 

[HappyJoy]

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.

A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.

A quite noteworthy deflection.

It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?

No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.

Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/assault-weapons/​

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 17 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%.4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:

• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
• Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13​

Which part here specifically covers anything I've said? Let's start there.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sorry, clarifying my point is in no way a deflection.

Where did you people go to school?

Not so much with a revolver?
Lol

Is that even a serious reply?

You want to compare a guy going for a world record with someone who bought his assault style weapon mere days ago? Jesus, can you guys put a coherent thought together?

Just the fact you don't need so called "big" magazines/ so called assault weapons to pull off a lot of shots. dumb fuck

You're demonstrating someone who is a rare, rare example who is proficient with a revolver. If you're argument is that you give somebody 20 years they may be just as much a danger as anyone with an assault style weapon then I'd agree with you, but there wouldn't be much of a point.

You obviously have not been to any shooting competitions… LOL
There's one up your next week in deadwood South Dakota, and what separates the worst from the best… Milliseconds
So no, you don't need 20, 50 or 100 round magazines and called "assault weapon"(which is really a sporting rifle) to kill people. You just need hate...

Maybe do me a favor and leave the fantasy world of speed shooting and document the worst mass shooting that involved only a revolver. Hell, give me the 10 worst.

Or, fuck it, let's pretend the weapon of choice is of zero consequence.