Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[2aguy]

An Assault Rifle -15. has less recoil, is more accurate, has a greater range, and has a larger magazine capacity than an shotgun.

and none of that matters at the distance of a mass public shooting.

The only one where it mattered was Las Vegas where he was shooting at 400 yards.........and only because his target was a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people.....who had limited ability to escape and spread and find cover once they finally realized they were under attack.......

You can also, feed the shotgun as you go, you don't have to even change a magazine to do that.....

 

[the other mike]

The fear of inanimate objects never has been rational or reasonable. Objects themselves pose no real danger to people, and they are projecting their internalized fears onto the objects, believing that they are the source of their anxiety. If their anxiety is that intense, I would recommend that they see a doctor and ask for a referral to mental health services or a psychiatrist.

Anyone who ever had a mental illness of any kind or as prescribed medication for any such symptoms of mental disorder should be marked in the computer and a red flag should come up the same way if you had a felony warrant and you tried to leave the country.

Pretty ironic that if you're a criminal from any other country you're free to come here anytime but if you're a criminal here good luck trying to leave.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone who ever had a mental illness of any kind or as prescribed medication for any such symptoms of mental disorder should be marked in the computer and a red flag should come up the same way if you had a felony warrant and you tried to leave the country.

5th Amendment. Due Process.
You want to take someone's rights away? You need to involve a court.

 

[the other mike]

5th Amendment. Due Process.
You want to take someone's rights away? You need to involve a court.

I'm on your side pal you won't see me moving to Illinois anytime soon

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

and none of that matters at the distance of a mass public shooting.

The only one where it mattered was Las Vegas where he was shooting at 400 yards.........and only because his target was a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people.....who had limited ability to escape and spread and find cover once they finally realized they were under attack.......

You can also, feed the shotgun as you go, you don't have to even change a magazine to do that.....

you are misleading people again and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

I'm on your side pal you won't see me moving to Illinois anytime soon

you from Colorado? you best think of moving

NRA-ILA | Colorado: Senate’s Anti-Gun Majority Unveil Gun Control Package

Colorado lawmakers are wasting little time going after lawful gun owners and gun industry members in 2023. Please contact your legislators now and ask them to OPPOSE ALL anti-gun measures that would place further burdens on law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen!

www.nraila.org

 

[ralfy]

The topic is, "There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s"

It was over in post eight. The great majority of gun deaths are not caused by them. That is the end of this argument.

The government wants to ban them, mostly because, they are the most effective guarantee of a people's liberty against tyranny. This sort of weapon is always used by a determined population, against any powerful invading force, or domestic tyrannical regime, trying to impose their will upon an unwilling greater majority of the population. With out them? No effective counter-revolution can be planned. Ask the Cubans and North Koreans about this.


These were used by the Afghans against both us and the Soviets. There were used by the Vietnamese.

They can be used to great effect, it is like the vote of the people against tyranny.

I don't know why you want to pick at little things, you can't win here. This is part of American heritage, going back over two centuries. If you want to change it, fund a movement to amend the constitution.

Apparently, there is an argument, and it's not based on the point that most gun deaths are not caused by them. More details in the video I shared.

 

[ralfy]

Wow, you're easy to distract. I dindo nuffin--it was his fault. Topic is debating the rational reasons for having an AR15--please stay on topic.

Not rational reasons for having an AR15 but no rational reasons for banning them.

 

[ralfy]

The shotgun at mass public shooting ranges does more damage than any 5.56 or .223 round...you doofus.....as the get tests show.........which is the excuse you guys will make when you come for shotguns...

You were talking about all firearms, you doofus.

And then you present a source that advocates using ballistics gel to determine extent of damage, which is precisely what was done in the video presented.

 

[cnm]

There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)​

True. After all, the experience and results of developed countries that have effectively banned both them and handguns are not rational reasoned arguments at all.

 

[Concerned American]

Not rational reasons for having an AR15

You see, that is where you fail. According to the 2nd Amendment, I don't have to explain to you or anyone else what my reason for having one is. Run along now, busybody.

 

[the other mike]

you from Colorado? you best think of moving

NRA-ILA | Colorado: Senate’s Anti-Gun Majority Unveil Gun Control Package

Colorado lawmakers are wasting little time going after lawful gun owners and gun industry members in 2023. Please contact your legislators now and ask them to OPPOSE ALL anti-gun measures that would place further burdens on law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen!

www.nraila.org

If you click on a member's name usually they're location and other information will come up so you don't have to ask them where they're from.

 

[the other mike]

So you'll see that I live in Arkansas but I'm actually from Ohio and born in New York

 

[M14 Shooter]

True. After all, the experience and results of developed countries that have effectively banned both them and handguns are not rational reasoned arguments at all.

Aw.
That's a -cute- post hoc fallacy you have there.
But not as cute as the fact you negated your own claim.
Well done.

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

If you click on a member's name usually they're location and other information will come up so you don't have to ask them where they're from.

I know how to navigate this site. If your Avatar is up to date, you are in for a surprise. I LOVE IT!

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

So you'll see that I live in Arkansas but I'm actually from Ohio and born in New York

Your avatar tells a different story......

 

[cnm]

Aw.
That's a -cute- post hoc fallacy you have there.
But not as cute as the fact you negated your own claim.
Well done.

Negated my claim? On the contrary, I affirmed your claim that you would never see rationality in an AR15 ban.

 

[the other mike]

Your avatar tells a different story......
View attachment 777841

Maybe you'll like my new one better but Trump still won the 2020 election either way

 

[MisterBeale]

Apparently, there is an argument, and it's not based on the point that most gun deaths are not caused by them. More details in the video I shared.

No, there isn't. I watched it, it was nothing but one big long fallacy, it did not counter the statistical evidentiary argument.

That is just fear propaganda, which hasn't included the actual statistics involved.

The point is the actual NUMBER of gun deaths, and what a ban would achieve. The proposition is, banning a particular type of gun, and what affect that would have on society?

The statistics posted, HAVE proven you wrong, and you are refusing to admit it, and then? You are just sticking your fingers in your ears, and referring members back to your dumb ass (60-minutes,) piece of establishment propaganda.

Maybe this is because you don't understand how the Constitution works, nor the great difficulty in Amending it? It has nothing to do with semi-automatic weapons, you have already been given the statistics. Maybe you need to consult with your handlers, or folks that have given you your operational agenda.

You are barking up the wrong tree here, even the comments on your video, see this, why don't you? If you are going to post some propaganda? Make sure the folks viewing it, at least agree with your agenda. All of the viewers in the comments, tore this piece of propaganda apart, and every last stupid statement they make in it. . .

 

[Rye Catcher]

The fear of inanimate objects never has been rational or reasonable. Objects themselves pose no real danger to people, and they are projecting their internalized fears onto the objects, believing that they are the source of their anxiety. If their anxiety is that intense, I would recommend that they see a doctor and ask for a referral to mental health services or a psychiatrist.

Yes. You should take the recommendation to see a psychiatrist.