“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Having DECADES of martial arts training, I can testify that a 100lb woman CANNOT with her bare hands disable a 250lb meat head. Even if she kicks the shit out of his ball sack, he will still be able to control and subdue her in seconds. She has a 0% chance of fighting off the attacker.

A knife or a baseball bat would be much more effective, but she will need to be quick and accurate with either. She CANNOT afford to miss. I estimate that, in such a scenario, a woman with a bat or a knife has a 20% chance of fighting off the attacker.

With a gun, I estimate that the odds of fighting off the meat head goes to at least 70%.

Why would we EVER deprive her of a chance to survive?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bullshit you have no clue and anyone can find that out with ten minutes of looking into it. The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, as a military weapons from day one , it was made to compete for the major Government contract. It was then advise that they wanted to move to the 5.56 version because the military saw that as the direction they wanted , so Armulite to get the contract converted the AR-10 to the smaller shell and ultimately it was designed as the AR-15. As requested by the military . When it was the AR-15 4000 were ordered by the air force , and they must of likes it so they ordered 45, 000 more all during that time it was the AR-15. So point bein, don't ever believe what this gun expert has to say about any gun, he has no clue, which I've shown in literally every one of my responses to him. There is no group that I have dealt with that know less about their subject of choice as these Gun Bubbas.
By the way Stoners family said after he had died and the AR-15 came under pressure , that this gun was never designed to be used by the public , it was designed for the military from day one. and he would roll over in his grave to find out these stupid gun Bubbas like to make hamburger out of anything they shoot with it.

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

By way of example, you get a call from your daughter that she just fought off a rapist who told her that he was going to kill her after (details not appropriate for this forum) and dump her body somewhere where no one would ever find her. She continued the description by telling you how she fought him off and that the reason she was able to escape was by the use of a weapon.

Which, of the many weapons that she might tell you she used to save her life, would you find unacceptable to have used?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing the weapon she choose to fight off the attack was registered?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing she had no license for it?

Would you find it unacceptable that she completed no government mandated training with it?

Would you find it unacceptable that the weapon she used had a rail on it?

Would you find it unacceptable that it was Military grade?

I think the truth is that you probably wouldn't care. And maybe, most important is that nobody really would care, except perhaps the murderous rapist.

Look forward to your response.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker.

The hope being that the attacker might not be equally trained, in such a case, a gun becomes the equalizer.

Wrong, the gun can become problematic in close quarters. any hesitance by the daughter in your scenario can result in having the gun used on her.

You may own guns, but its clear you've never been trained to do anything but point and shoot, and assume a gun is always loaded. Even LE, well trained on the use of guns in stressful situations make mistakes. To state this daughter in the scenario, in a very stressful situation,would be able to defend herself, is wishful thinking.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong, the gun can become problematic in close quarters. any hesitance by the daughter in your scenario can result in having the gun used on her.

So, she may die by her own gun, or by strangulation, knifing, or whatever other means the rapists chooses, so, why is that a reason to not be armed?

George Zimmerman proved that a firearm is effective at close range to fight off an attacker.

You may own guns, but its clear you've never been trained to do anything but point and shoot, and assume a gun is always loaded. Even LE, well trained on the use of guns in stressful situations make mistakes. To state this daughter in the scenario, in a very stressful situation,would be able to defend herself, is wishful thinking.

So, why do you want to limit her magazine capacity?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I mean I should reply to everyone of Gun Bubbas lies and wacko comment from every gun Bubba mental case. NOT

There is not one single model of assault rifle that is available on the civilian market

I suppose you think my Ruger Mini 14 is an assault rifle too right?

Ya it accepts the NATO round. By the way I don't give a dam whether it shoots one bullet at a time or 1000 at a time, to call it a assault weapon, every company that produce the AR-15 called them assault weapons as did Ruger. Before the pressure was put on them by the public so these company's where brought together by a Weapons support organization who suggested not calling them assault weapons and small minds that make up the Gun Bubbas world , think they were never called assault weapons. Bullshitting by changing the name only worked for the micro minds.

So what?

I have rifles that accept 6.8 and 7.62 NATO rounds as well

the 5.56 is far less powerful

And the fact is that a semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle.

It's just a rifle like any other semiautomatic rifle that has been available on the civilian market for over 100 years

 

[Pop23]

AR15s are not assault weapons, they are sporting rifles...
Bathtubs kill more Americans than people using ar15’s...
Progressives don’t get to pick which firearms are legal and which ones are not... Because they are incredibly ignorant on the subject...

One must consider Rustic's conclusion on ignorance, since his entire body of work on this message board is built on his personal biases and alternate facts.

Consideration, however, does not become acceptance. Only others whose sense of reality is formed by their biases accept his judgments; others who observe reality with an open mind, empathy and able to see issues sagaciously before making a judgment.

In this matter only the gun is factored into the thinking of those who believe the 2nd A. is an absolute right, and under no conditions can it be infringed. This is an example of an alternate fact belied by reality, and supported by the ignorance of others.

Lets check your sense of reality and see where your biases lay. So if you would please answer the following:

By way of example, you get a call from your daughter that she just fought off a rapist who told her that he was going to kill her after (details not appropriate for this forum) and dump her body somewhere where no one would ever find her. She continued the description by telling you how she fought him off and that the reason she was able to escape was by the use of a weapon.

Which, of the many weapons that she might tell you she used to save her life, would you find unacceptable to have used?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing the weapon she choose to fight off the attack was registered?

Would you find it unacceptable knowing she had no license for it?

Would you find it unacceptable that she completed no government mandated training with it?

Would you find it unacceptable that the weapon she used had a rail on it?

Would you find it unacceptable that it was Military grade?

I think the truth is that you probably wouldn't care. And maybe, most important is that nobody really would care, except perhaps the murderous rapist.

Look forward to your response.

I was trained in the management of assaultive behavior. The basic rule was to survive. Thus, in the above scenario, all of the above are acceptable, when one's life is at risk.

And yet, the use of a gun to kill masses of people for "sport", or when the outcome of killing massive #'s of people - suicide by one's own hand, or cop - has no relationship to your scenario.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker. A pen or pencil used to enter the brain via an eye, can blind, incapacitate or kill an attacker; a blunt instrument used with enough force to the throat or the temple can kill or incapacitate an attacker and one's teeth can be used to maim or cause enough pain to thwart the attacker so as to allow the victim to run, or to become the attacker, using a thumb to the eye is always effective.

A violent attack, by a more powerful person requires techniques which may cause death or permanent injury to the attacker.

The hope being that the attacker might not be equally trained, in such a case, a gun becomes the equalizer.

Wrong, the gun can become problematic in close quarters. any hesitance by the daughter in your scenario can result in having the gun used on her.

You may own guns, but its clear you've never been trained to do anything but point and shoot, and assume a gun is always loaded. Even LE, well trained on the use of guns in stressful situations make mistakes. To state this daughter in the scenario, in a very stressful situation,would be able to defend herself, is wishful thinking.

Your making things up to suit the needs of the argument. 1. You are assuming a close quarters confrontation, which is not stated. 2.) You forget she made the call, so obviously she survived the attack and was able to repel the attack.

Simple enough to say, no, I cannot find that the use of any weapon necessary that my daughter used would meet with my ire.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anti-Gun Premise 1:
Making a would-be mass shooter have lower-capacity magazines, requiring to reload more frequently, gives an opportunity for victims to rush the shooter and stop the attack, or gives the opportunity for the shooter to fail to reload a fresh magazine property, causing the gun to fail. Thus, we should limit the magazine capacity to perhaps save 1 more life a year in the extremely rare event of a mass shooting.


Anti-Gun Premise 2:
A person who is stressed out in a self-defense/home invasion situation is more likely to make mistakes when using a firearm, including being inaccurate (which requires more ammunition) and failed magazine reloads. But, magazine capacity should be limited, because the attacker will probably just take the gun away from the defender anyway. So, people just shouldn't have guns to defend themselves.

What am I missing here?

 

[Rustic]

The federal government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives, there is nothing more personal than firearm ownership...

 

[hadit]

It is when something makes them irrational.

If they happen to choose AR15s to conduct mass shootings, it should not be a basis for a gun ban. It is irrelevant.

The way to understand this clearly is to do a thought experiment.

Let's say they get their wish, and we ban the scary looking black gun. There's no more arguing about it, they're magically just gone. No one has one. Are children any safer in schools, or do they continue getting shot? When it becomes obvious that they have accomplished precisely zero to make anyone safer, what will they do?

Yes, we know. It's on to the next scary looking gun.

Let me see , what would happen if you took the weapon of choice for any mass murderer, either in or out ofschool.

Exactly. They switch to another weapon and you're back to square one and have to ban another. It never ends.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly. They switch to another weapon and you're back to square one and have to ban another. It never ends.

Which I assume rational people would come to the conclusion that the ultimate result would be a complete ban on all firearms. I also assume that proponents of an AR ban understand the likely end result, and can conclude that they intend that end result.

They want a total ban.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. They switch to another weapon and you're back to square one and have to ban another. It never ends.

Which I assume rational people would come to the conclusion that the ultimate result would be a complete ban on all firearms. I also assume that proponents of an AR ban understand the likely end result, and can conclude that they intend that end result.

They want a total ban.

That is the correct motorcycle. If the safety of the children was really paramount, banning a scary looking gun wouldn't be the first (and only) agenda item.

 

[Rustic]

Exactly. They switch to another weapon and you're back to square one and have to ban another. It never ends.

Which I assume rational people would come to the conclusion that the ultimate result would be a complete ban on all firearms. I also assume that proponents of an AR ban understand the likely end result, and can conclude that they intend that end result.

They want a total ban.

Yep, the goal is to have total control over people progressives disagree with, that can’t happen without an absolute ban on all firearms.
And without the second amendment the the first amendment will disappear without even a whimper...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is the correct motorcycle. If the safety of the children was really paramount, banning a scary looking gun wouldn't be the first (and only) agenda item.

Clearly they want the total ban. That is indisputable at this point.

The remaining disputable issue is their motive.

We know the motive is not public safety. That has already been decisively refuted.

What could that motive be?

 

[Pop23]

Anti-Gun Premise 1:
Making a would-be mass shooter have lower-capacity magazines, requiring to reload more frequently, gives an opportunity for victims to rush the shooter and stop the attack, or gives the opportunity for the shooter to fail to reload a fresh magazine property, causing the gun to fail. Thus, we should limit the magazine capacity to perhaps save 1 more life a year in the extremely rare event of a mass shooting.


Anti-Gun Premise 2:
A person who is stressed out in a self-defense/home invasion situation is more likely to make mistakes when using a firearm, including being inaccurate (which requires more ammunition) and failed magazine reloads. But, magazine capacity should be limited, because the attacker will probably just take the gun away from the defender anyway. So, people just shouldn't have guns to defend themselves.

What am I missing here?

And the lefts arguments are all based on incredible speculation that banning semi automatic, AR style rifles will stop a criminally minded individual from his other options. Somehow 17 dead in a school hallway from semi-automatic handgun wounds is somehow better. Or 17 dead being run down on the street is somehow better than being shot in a hallway? Those arguments are absurd.

As far as self defense goes, I asked the question before, if your daughter fought off a rapist, would you really care if the weapon she used was legal to own?

I don't get it. Enacting bans or restrictions that are reliant on criminals agreeing on them is the height of Naivety.

Do they really want to be taken that way?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yep, the goal is to have total control over people progressives disagree with, that can’t happen without an absolute ban on all firearms.
And without the second amendment the the first amendment will disappear without even a whimper...

And, what do you believe is the end goal of all that?

 

[hadit]

At some point, we have to stop the hysteria and think. Freedom is messy, chaotic, sometimes dangerous and requires responsibility. It's also vastly preferable to the alternative.

We should be extremely reluctant to trade any freedom for an illusion of safety.

 

[jbander]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

What a bunch crazy's, your might run into another dead end on this one like all your other gun expert gun bubbas foolishness. I never said the AR-15 wasn't ever converted to a M-16 , Confused much big guy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

It's funny how the focus is always about definitions, and not the consequences of guns used in committing mass murders. Both sides argue about the type of guns, and on one seems to focus on the fact that guns of all kinds are easy to obtain, and all are lethal weapons.

 

[jbander]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

Ya as a matter of fact I did.

 

[Auld Phart]

I love this , I know very little about these guns and they know nothing about these guns, they make up all the bullshit , then share it with each other then it becomes fact. Only in the ding dong gun Bubbas world.

I know very little about these guns

as you've proven

they know nothing about these guns,

unproven.

Toyota and Astin Martin use the same chassis for their cars.

does that make them the same at?

Same with the AR-15

It shares the same frame as the M-16

ARs were converted into the M-16.

but, they aren't the same firearm

What a bunch crazy's, your might run into another dead end on this one like all your other gun expert gun bubbas foolishness. I never said the AR-15 wasn't ever converted to a M-16 , Confused much big guy.

The AR was not used in combat, until it was converted into an M-17.

 

[Auld Phart]

Ever find out how many of those 'assault weapons' have been used in mass shootings in say...the last 40 years?

Ya as a matter of fact I did.

Care to share the results?