Senator Lindsey Graham explains why he needs an AR-15 civilian rifle...

[RealDave]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?

Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.

Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.

Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

Wrong...guns were in every home before the revolution, it was the frontier, and colonies. The cost wasn't prohibitive since every farmer, and townsman had a rifle and likely a pistol too...

You don't know what you are talking about...

Most colonists lived in cities. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston.

Every gun was handmade. They were just too expensive to own.

 

[2aguy]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

No, moron....if you want to be honest then you need to be honest.....

All rifle murders in 2017... 403.

That is all rifles, not just semi-auto rifles, you dope.

Murder by knife.... 1,591....... so, dope....using actual numbers, and your screwed up logic....knives are deadlier than rifles, and therefore, need to be banned....knives kill over 1,500 people every single year.....

And in 2018...the total number of people killed in mass public shootings...with all guns, rifles, pistols and shotguns?

93.....

So you have no argument when you look at actual numbers.....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Rifles...still kill fewer people each year than knives... 403

Knives.....1,591

Hands and feet......696

Clubs.....467

 

[2aguy]

Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.

Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

Wrong...guns were in every home before the revolution, it was the frontier, and colonies. The cost wasn't prohibitive since every farmer, and townsman had a rifle and likely a pistol too...

You don't know what you are talking about...

Most colonists lived in cities. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston.

Every gun was handmade. They were just too expensive to own.

You are an idiot........you don't know what you are talking about.....just about every home had a rifle, likely a pistol too........where are you getting this crap?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What civilian firearm, in common use for traditionally legal purposes, is better suited for service in the militia than the AR15?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,
So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

M'kay...
Since its introduction into the US civilian market in 1963, AR15 type rifles have been used to murder 260 people in mass shootings.
How does this support the argument they should be banned and confiscated?

 

[M14 Shooter]

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings

"made to kill human beings"

 

[caddo kid]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

He is right. Just study the events that occurred in New Orleans after Katrina. Conditions quickly deteriorated into lawless chaos. Murders, rape, vandalism and theft were commonplace. Those unarmed were at the mercy of ruthless animals.

Several of those murders during the lawless chaos of post Katrina were attributed to law enforcement.

Danziger Bridge shootings - Wikipedia

Too bad those that law enforcement wounded & murdered were also not armed.

 

[OldLady]

Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?

Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.

Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.

Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

You don't know what you are talking about..... Are you getting this crap from Michael Bellisiles?

He was exposed as a fraud...do you understand that?

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Americans-get-their-weapons-for-the-revolutionary-war

Local laws required all free men of military age to buy and maintain their own guns. They needed these in the past for the frequent threats from Indians and the French.

Some private citizens even had their own cannon and swivel guns.

Guy, this is an interesting article. (It also slams Bellisle, btw). They reviewed a bunch of probate inventories to see how many folks had guns in colonial America. Over half, but if ALL men were required to own a gun, shouldn't that number be closer to 100%?
The study doesn't mention the militia, that I saw anyway.

54% of male wealthholders have guns, as do 19% of female wealthholders. We also provide the first weighted regional estimates of colonial gun ownership: 69% in the South, 50% in New England, and 41% in the Middle colonies. Given that these counts are based on incomplete probate inventories, unless nudity was also widely practiced,these gun counts are likely to be substantial underestimates.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

 

[2aguy]

Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.

Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

You don't know what you are talking about..... Are you getting this crap from Michael Bellisiles?

He was exposed as a fraud...do you understand that?

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Americans-get-their-weapons-for-the-revolutionary-war

Local laws required all free men of military age to buy and maintain their own guns. They needed these in the past for the frequent threats from Indians and the French.

Some private citizens even had their own cannon and swivel guns.

Guy, this is an interesting article. (It also slams Bellisle, btw). They reviewed a bunch of probate inventories to see how many folks had guns in colonial America. Over half, but if ALL men were required to own a gun, shouldn't that number be closer to 100%?
The study doesn't mention the militia, that I saw anyway.

54% of male wealthholders have guns, as do 19% of female wealthholders. We also provide the first weighted regional estimates of colonial gun ownership: 69% in the South, 50% in New England, and 41% in the Middle colonies. Given that these counts are based on incomplete probate inventories, unless nudity was also widely practiced,these gun counts are likely to be substantial underestimates.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Keep in mind.....it was colonial America, most people didn't keep written records..... so if they died, they didn't have a Will that would have gone through a court. Notice "Wealthholders," vs regular farmers..

 

[OldLady]

Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

You don't know what you are talking about..... Are you getting this crap from Michael Bellisiles?

He was exposed as a fraud...do you understand that?

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Americans-get-their-weapons-for-the-revolutionary-war

Local laws required all free men of military age to buy and maintain their own guns. They needed these in the past for the frequent threats from Indians and the French.

Some private citizens even had their own cannon and swivel guns.

Guy, this is an interesting article. (It also slams Bellisle, btw). They reviewed a bunch of probate inventories to see how many folks had guns in colonial America. Over half, but if ALL men were required to own a gun, shouldn't that number be closer to 100%?
The study doesn't mention the militia, that I saw anyway.

54% of male wealthholders have guns, as do 19% of female wealthholders. We also provide the first weighted regional estimates of colonial gun ownership: 69% in the South, 50% in New England, and 41% in the Middle colonies. Given that these counts are based on incomplete probate inventories, unless nudity was also widely practiced,these gun counts are likely to be substantial underestimates.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Keep in mind.....it was colonial America, most people didn't keep written records..... so if they died, they didn't have a Will that would have gone through a court. Notice "Wealthholders," vs regular farmers..

Yeah, I know. I do genealogy, so I'm aware that most farmers etc. didn't have wills recorded either testate or intestate. However, from the research, it looks as if guns did cost a good bit of money and although they were high on the "to buy" list, my guess is a lot of folks didn't have one. We know the locals here didn't come all toting guns to their one Revolutionary War battle--most of them didn't, and they were farmers, fishermen, lumbermen. Not "wealth holders."
I was just questioning your statement that ALL men of militia age own one. That is not actually the case, or if it is, it was not enforced. The probate records and the study I linked showed clear reasons for owning guns, but the militia requirement wasn't one of them.

 

[OldLady]

And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....

So?

The point is:

Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.

So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.

You don't know what you are talking about..... Are you getting this crap from Michael Bellisiles?

He was exposed as a fraud...do you understand that?

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Americans-get-their-weapons-for-the-revolutionary-war

Local laws required all free men of military age to buy and maintain their own guns. They needed these in the past for the frequent threats from Indians and the French.

Some private citizens even had their own cannon and swivel guns.

Guy, this is an interesting article. (It also slams Bellisle, btw). They reviewed a bunch of probate inventories to see how many folks had guns in colonial America. Over half, but if ALL men were required to own a gun, shouldn't that number be closer to 100%?
The study doesn't mention the militia, that I saw anyway.

54% of male wealthholders have guns, as do 19% of female wealthholders. We also provide the first weighted regional estimates of colonial gun ownership: 69% in the South, 50% in New England, and 41% in the Middle colonies. Given that these counts are based on incomplete probate inventories, unless nudity was also widely practiced,these gun counts are likely to be substantial underestimates.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Keep in mind.....it was colonial America, most people didn't keep written records..... so if they died, they didn't have a Will that would have gone through a court. Notice "Wealthholders," vs regular farmers..

Yeah, I know. I do genealogy, so I'm aware that most farmers etc. didn't have wills recorded either testate or intestate. However, from the research, it looks as if guns did cost a good bit of money and although they were high on the "to buy" list, my guess is a lot of folks didn't have one. We know the locals here didn't come all toting guns to their one Revolutionary War battle--most of them didn't, and they were farmers, fishermen, lumbermen. Not "wealth holders."
I was just questioning your statement that ALL men of militia age own one. That is not actually the case, or if it is, it was not enforced. The probate records and the study I linked showed clear reasons for owning guns, but the militia requirement wasn't one of them.

We're both kinda right.
Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied "public arms" and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

 

[Blues Man]

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.

Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder

That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500

Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.

And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%

Cops shooting criminals is not including in homicide figures.
Yes, I have read that 65% to 80% of the homicides in some cities are gang related. We have no gangs in Maine, so 0% are gang related here. I'm sure that is the case in many areas. And just for the record, to me those people count, too. A lot of those gang members get "recruited" very young, under threat.

It's included in the gun deaths numbers you people use all the time

Maine has one of the lowest murder rates in the country and guess what Maine does not require a permit to buy a gun does not have an "assault weapon" ban, no magazine size restrictions etc

So how do you explain that Maine has a murder rate that is less than half that of CA , a state that has all the gun laws and restrictions that you don't have in Maine?

Gun laws in Maine - Wikipedia

The homicide rates I am using -- the 10,000+ p/year -- is only homicides and does not include law enforcement.

I'm perfectly aware of the gun laws in Maine. Did it ever occur to you that states impose gun laws and restrictions BECAUSE there is gun violence? What has that got to do with the price of eggs?

But your entire premise is that all these restrictions will lower the murder rate

So explain how Maine which has virtually none of the restrictions you want to impose has one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

Could is be as I have said all along?

Guns are not the decisive factor in what drives societal violence.

25% of all murder where guns are used takes place in just 4 urban areas, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and Washington DC.

All these places have stricter gun laws than Maine yet all these cities have murder rates far in excess of many entire states.

Why is that if as you say gun laws reduce the murder rate ?

How is telling people like me that we can't own this or that type of gun or this or that type of magazine going to lower the murder rate in the cities listed above?

Or could it be that what I have been saying all along that a myriad of societal ills such as segregation, poverty, unemployment, underemployment, poor education, the breakdown of the family, trade in illicit drugs, that plague our inner cities is the actual driving force behind the vast majority of the violence in this country and that violence in these very small very well known areas of the country is in fact so bad that it skews the numbers for the entire country

 

[Blues Man]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

 

[Wry Catcher]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

There are liars, damn liars and statistics. The parent or spouse who loses a child or spouse by gun fire doesn't give a damn about your math.

 

[rightwinger]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

They need AR-15s so they can rob their neighbors at gunpoint

 

[rightwinger]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

Nothing to brag about

Most nations would be appalled at such carnage

 

[RealDave]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

Try some 5th grade logic.

The ban on assault rifles has to do with taking away access for mass shooters with high body counts.

Not all murders.

Not all guns

not all people.

The only question is what is the percentage in these types of mass shootings involved assault type rifles.

According to you, we should just do nothing because not enough children are slaughtered.

 

[Blues Man]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

Nothing to brag about

Most nations would be appalled at such carnage

IDGAF about other countries of what they think.

A 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a person with a gun is pretty ******* safe

 

[Blues Man]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

People who think a 99.997% chance of not being murdered by a gun means that they are not safe enough are the scared and paranoid ones

Every time you morons use all murders in the assault rifle debate, we know you are dishonest & trying to dupe people.,

So Let me know when you want an honest debate or STFU

What am I trying to hide?

11000 murdered annually by a person with a gun 330000000 people in the country

.003% pf the population murdered by a person using a gun

99.997% of the population not murdered annually by a person with a gun

That number includes mass shootings

This is 5th grade math

Try some 5th grade logic.

The ban on assault rifles has to do with taking away access for mass shooters with high body counts.

Not all murders.

Not all guns

not all people.

The only question is what is the percentage in these types of mass shootings involved assault type rifles.

According to you, we should just do nothing because not enough children are slaughtered.

MAss shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

it is not somehow worse to be murdered in a mass shooting than it is one at a time

I am speaking of the murder rate as a country because in all reality if you could ride in on your unicorn and wave you magic wand and poof stop all mass shootings the murder rate wouldn't budge