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

[White 6]

Most gun owners are peaceful. AR-15s are not used massively to commit murder and, of course, they can't kill anyone all by themselves. You'll never be able to stop would be murderers from murdering with inanimate objects. Best to be armed to protect yourself and your loved ones.

I am.

 

[badbob85037]

It is based on a military weapon. Just because the military does not use the AR-15 is a simplistic argument. The AR-15 is a military weapon because it copies the same features as military grade weapons thtat they are based onl The technology is not that difficult to copy. It just a matter of naming the civilian verson.

They are generally capable of firing far more bullets, far faster than manual-action hunting rifles. If your argument that AR-15 does not do that, then you have a point. Yet it does so you don't.

The name does no differentialte the charateristic of what a weapon can do.

Please try again

You guys better disarm and bow like President Joe says and I don't care how stupid he is. What kind of tyrant would we have if we could say 'HEA JOE CRAME IT UP YOUR BUTT THE WAY YOU LIKE IT!'

 

[ralfy]

. . . and none of the emotional hyperbole, is an argument for banning a particular type of gun. It is such a small number of incidents, you are still using an appeal to emotion as your argument.

Overruled.

If you want to Amend the Constitution? Feel free to start a petition. None of these arguments carry any statistical weight though.

The video doesn't use "emotional hyperbole" but ballistics tests adviced by, ironically, the source given by 2aguy. That's also why the video doesn't use statistics, or need it.

Also, you don't need 2A to have the right to bear arms as that's part of the natural right to self-defense.

 

[ralfy]

Au contraire, the topic is there is no rational reason -- I simply stated the obvious FACT of the matter. The premise is false because NO reason is called for. Run along junior.

That's what I said, junior. You didn't state any "obvious fact" except that you want to debate. Since that's the case, then you run along.

 

[ralfy]

The AR15 is most certainly different from any/every other firearm!!

The AR15 (typically) fires one of these rounds.
It does devastating damage to muscle and bone, liquefies organs, and reduces children to a puddle of goo, requiring authorities to use DNA to identify them.

The other is one of the most popular hunting rounds in North America.

Which is which?

Tell that to 2aguy.

 

[MisterBeale]

The video doesn't use "emotional hyperbole" but ballistics tests adviced by, ironically, the source given by 2aguy. That's also why the video doesn't use statistics, or need it.

Also, you don't need 2A to have the right to bear arms as that's part of the natural right to self-defense.

Of course you need statistics, that is part of debate and discussion.

You need to prove compelling harm, that is, a need to move the needle. Why should American society, a nation of some 330 million, be moved to infringe on the rights of legal gun owners, based on the statistical number of "X," number of incidents?

You? Are only comparing how different injuries in a few select number of shooting incidents, which may have occurred, (with out telling us why they have,) versus how they would have, if they had occured with another type of weapon.

You are not, then, demonstrating, comparative need for regulation, in a nation of 330 million, or, indeed, how many legal owners of these type of gun there are, in fact, possessing of this type of gun.

You need to do a statistical analysis in order to prove harm, not a comparative analysis of how these weapons do damage in a shooting incident. That information is irrelevant when considering whether to ban them.

No one cares about how these weapons do damage, this information is irrelevant when considering to ban them. All guns cause death and bodily harm.

We get it, all guns are scary, they are all deadly.




stahp already.

This is not a reason to violate the Constitution of the United States, or infringe upon legal gun owners.

 

[ralfy]

Of course you need statistics, that is part of debate and discussion.

You need to prove compelling harm, that is, a need to move the needle. Why should American society, a nation of some 330 million, be moved to infringe on the rights of legal gun owners, based on the statistical number of "X," number of incidents?

You? Are only comparing how different injuries in a few select number of shooting incidents, which may have occurred, (with out telling us why they have,) versus how they would have, if they had occured with another type of weapon.

You are not, then, demonstrating, comparative need for regulation, in a nation of 330 million, or, indeed, how many legal owners of these type of gun there are, in fact, possessing of this type of gun.

You need to do a statistical analysis in order to prove harm, not a comparative analysis of how these weapons do damage in a shooting incident. That information is irrelevant when considering whether to ban them.

No one cares about how these weapons do damage, this information is irrelevant when considering to ban them. All guns cause death and bodily harm.

We get it, all guns are scary, they are all deadly.




stahp already.

This is not a reason to violate the Constitution of the United States, or infringe upon legal gun owners.

You don't need statistics involving usage to look at potential damage from particular firearms. You can use ballistics gel tests, which is what one source by 2aguy ironically recommended.

The Constitution isn't being violated, and gun ownership may be abridged for painfully obvious reasons.

 

[MisterBeale]

You don't need statistics involving usage to look at potential damage from particular firearms. You can use ballistics gel tests, which is what one source by 2aguy ironically recommended.

The Constitution isn't being violated, and gun ownership may be abridged for painfully obvious reasons.

You're funny.

When logical argumentation falls on your deaf ears, and you don't understand American culture or law? Just ignore what the other person is telling you, and keeping repeating the same propaganda.

Of course the Constitution is being violated.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And as far as actionable harm? When you talk about moving the needle for creating legislation, or going to court to sue someone, you need to prove actionable harm. This is about the magnitude of the problem, which you are refusing to prove. By doing this, you are obviously evading the real issue, and refusing to engage in a meaningful debate on this, revealing yourself to more than probably be, a propagandist.

I sense an ulterior motive at this point. I am beginning to wonder, whether you even give a shit about anyone that has been killed or injured by a gun at all.

This is a threshold issue. This revolves around numbers harmed and killed, not the types injuries, or of damage done.

And unless you begin to cite those numbers? And why we should care? I am done with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a threshold issue. This revolves around numbers harmed and killed, not the types injuries, or of damage done.

Not any more.
The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment is not subject to means-end tests.

 

[ralfy]

You're funny.

When logical argumentation falls on your deaf ears, and you don't understand American culture or law? Just ignore what the other person is telling you, and keeping repeating the same propaganda.

Of course the Constitution is being violated.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And as far as actionable harm? When you talk about moving the needle for creating legislation, or going to court to sue someone, you need to prove actionable harm. This is about the magnitude of the problem, which you are refusing to prove. By doing this, you are obviously evading the real issue, and refusing to engage in a meaningful debate on this, revealing yourself to more than probably be, a propagandist.

I sense an ulterior motive at this point. I am beginning to wonder, whether you even give a shit about anyone that has been killed or injured by a gun at all.

This is a threshold issue. This revolves around numbers harmed and killed, not the types injuries, or of damage done.

And unless you begin to cite those numbers? And why we should care? I am done with you.

You're funny because you keep ignoring the fact that 2aguy went against himself: his source argued that in order to determine the damage caused by a firearm then one should use ballistics gel tests. Which is EXACTLY what was shown in the video. And yet his claim is that there is no difference between all firearms.

About the Constitution, keep in mind that there's a difference between infringement and abridgment. I'll let you figure that out by considering reasons why prison inmates don't have the right to bear arms, or in various states, minors.

Finally, about a threshold issue, what threshold did you have in mind?

 

[ralfy]

Not any more.
The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment is not subject to means-end tests.

2A had nothing to do with this issue in the first place. It's uses the natural right to bear arms to justify the formation of state and regulated militias. A natural right is something that takes place even without any Constitution or amendment.

The claim about usage is pointless if AR-15 style rifles are not allowed in some states. That leaves us with extent of damage that can be caused by them.

2aguy claims that there is no difference between firearms, and then cites a source that suggests ballistics gel tests to determine that difference in terms of damage. But that's precisely the tests that were presented in the video he rejects, and they show significant differences.

Later, you acknowledged the same, and by doing so countering the same forum member (2aguy) whom you're supposed to be defending!

So, given that, why can't a ban be based on the effects of firearms?

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, but for mass murders it has become the weapon of choice, though the problem is not the weapon, but the human factor. I live in a state where the idiot in the legislature want to make it legal to walk the streets of downtown, with an AR-15 in open carry or open slung, locked, loaded and packing more ammo than Rambo. This begs the human question, what kind of idiot, mental defective, or emotionally unstable asshole would want to walk the streets like that if told it was OK by their elected representatives? Basically two types, ones that want to make a point of rubbing in people faces that they are Big Men exercising their rights to show their firepower on the streets and nothing the unarmed masses can do about it, and nut balls, that will be able to walk about without being immediately recognized as the bad guy. And, it is for absolutely no benefit to society in the slightest.

So how did your "two types" apply during Summer 2020 when the Left-wingnut fanatic fascists in Seattle, and other cities in this nation, strolled their "Autonomous/Occupation Zones" openly packing ARs and AKs, etc. ???
When they weren't engaged in riots, looting, vandalism, arson, and assaults; along with general mayhem and insurrection.
FWIW, I prefer concealed carry. Don't see much sense in advertising as a target for the opening shots.

 

[2aguy]

You're funny because you keep ignoring the fact that 2aguy went against himself: his source argued that in order to determine the damage caused by a firearm then one should use ballistics gel tests. Which is EXACTLY what was shown in the video. And yet his claim is that there is no difference between all firearms.

About the Constitution, keep in mind that there's a difference between infringement and abridgment. I'll let you figure that out by considering reasons why prison inmates don't have the right to bear arms, or in various states, minors.

Finally, about a threshold issue, what threshold did you have in mind?

No...dipshit.....my claim is there is no difference between guns at the distances of a mass public shooting.........the only mass public shooting where a rifle actually mattered was Las Vegas where the range was out to 400 yards....and that was only successful because the attacker was shooting into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......with limited ability to spread out when they realized they were being attacked.....

 

[2aguy]

2A had nothing to do with this issue in the first place. It's uses the natural right to bear arms to justify the formation of state and regulated militias. A natural right is something that takes place even without any Constitution or amendment.

The claim about usage is pointless if AR-15 style rifles are not allowed in some states. That leaves us with extent of damage that can be caused by them.

2aguy claims that there is no difference between firearms, and then cites a source that suggests ballistics gel tests to determine that difference in terms of damage. But that's precisely the tests that were presented in the video he rejects, and they show significant differences.

Later, you acknowledged the same, and by doing so countering the same forum member (2aguy) whom you're supposed to be defending!

So, given that, why can't a ban be based on the effects of firearms?

No....again, the ballistic gel test shows that 30.06 and shotguns do more damage than the 5..56 or .223 of an AR-15......yet you claim the AR-15 is worse than they are.....you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[White 6]

So how did your "two types" apply during Summer 2020 when the Left-wingnut fanatic fascists in Seattle, and other cities in this nation, strolled their "Autonomous/Occupation Zones" openly packing ARs and AKs, etc. ???
When they weren't engaged in riots, looting, vandalism, arson, and assaults; along with general mayhem and insurrection.
FWIW, I prefer concealed carry. Don't see much sense in advertising as a target for the opening shots.

Irresponsible Washington State Governor's office, should have received a request from the worthless leadership of Seattle for support of the state's Department of Military, to have Washington Army National Guard, come in to subdue and disarm the autonomous zone protestors, protect the businesses and tax paying citizen, and restore order and civic control.

 

[Stryder50]

Irresponsible Washington State Governor's office, should have received a request from the worthless leadership of Seattle for support of the state's Department of Military, to have Washington Army National Guard, come in to subdue and disarm the autonomous zone protestors, protect the businesses and tax paying citizen, and restore order and civic control.

Agreed, they should have, BUT ...
Mayor of Seattle and Governor of Washington State are both Left-wing socialist/communists obsessed with powerr and control of the People and sanctioned and condoned the riots and other crimes of CHAZ/CHOAS. Could be basis for criminal charges against them, especially if political leaning of next administrations have the integrity needed.

 

[White 6]

Agreed, they should have, BUT ...
Mayor of Seattle and Governor of Washington State are both Left-wing socialist/communists obsessed with powerr and control of the People and sanctioned and condoned the riots and other crimes of CHAZ/CHOAS. Could be basis for criminal charges against them, especially if political leaning of next administrations have the integrity needed.

I don't know if you could get criminal charges, but there is no doubt, of their left winged permissive streak, allowing it to proceed, not in benefit and or support of the lawless over the taxpayers, business community and good of state and local governments and rule of law.

 

[ralfy]

No...dipshit.....my claim is there is no difference between guns at the distances of a mass public shooting.........the only mass public shooting where a rifle actually mattered was Las Vegas where the range was out to 400 yards....and that was only successful because the attacker was shooting into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......with limited ability to spread out when they realized they were being attacked.....

LOL, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I'll let you figure out why, genius.

 

[ralfy]

No....again, the ballistic gel test shows that 30.06 and shotguns do more damage than the 5..56 or .223 of an AR-15......yet you claim the AR-15 is worse than they are.....you don't know what you are talking about....

The video was was referring to an AR-15 compared to a pistol. Pay attention.

 

[badbob85037]

well your making a hypostatical argument now. Yet any shooting is going to be different based on the weapon used, location, ability to escape, response time by law enforcement.

Still it goes back to the number of rounds that the weapon will hold. Which brings in how long it takes to reload and the number of rounds. What shotguns can hold 6 to 10 shells and then reload in how many seconds. compared to an AR -15 which can hold up to 30 or more if modified. Reload is in like what 3 or 4 seconds.

how would a shot gun hold up to that

how would a pistol hold up to that. Yeah reloading would take longer. The longer time and limit number of rounds that the weapon holds is a favorable factor in more people not getting shot.

I bet the guy trying to hide behind the bathroom stall door would have gave his right arm and leg for a firearm, but relying on his own judgement got him killed. What kind of a fag goes to a queer bar with out a pistol with a couple spare magizines? What type of fool goes any place without a firearm. If the crazies can get them so easy then you better have one or 20.