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

[jbander]

Mass murder account for about 1% of all murders

Rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of all murders

99% of all murders do not occur in mass shootings

Even if you could stop mass shootings by banning a rifle ( you can't but let's pretend) there would be no significant drop in the murder rate.

You don't give a shit about gun deaths or the murder rate because you are fixated on something that is statistically meaningless.

Honestly, no one will stop all mass killings, but we know how to stop most and that takes nothing more than banning the use of SSRI antidepressants.

and a medical expert also. What a laugh, The assault weapon is the weapons of choice by all mass murderers.

Do you understand that we can actually check you claims on the internet....and that that claim is completely false? The hand gun is the weapon of choice, because it is easy to conceal and transport....you doofus.....

The handgun is used in arguments and family matter, and is seen all over the lower end of the killing spectrom , I don't see that as being anything to do with mass murders. 3 and 4 were arbitrary numbers for perspective. OK you threatened to go to the internet and prove me wrong , Ok do that. My comment is mass killings above 10. And leans to the latest number because in the earlier times they didn't exist or were in such small numbers they couldn't make a impact. So give us your internet research. You won't because you will go into it just a bit to find out that I'm right and that's were you will stop.give her hell buddy.

And yet the VA tech shooter killed 32 using two handguns.

So what , what nonsense, because some used a handgun then it is OK to kill with a Assault weapon , or let's not look at a assault weapons because someone got killed by some other means. Total crap. Vegas killed 58, that's just as stupid but if your 32 makes some air head point my 58 makes a bigger air head point.

 

[jbander]

Well this was a good day I humbled 2aguy to a point that he only attacks me and doesn't argue the point of this thread. Actually I look forward to that when it happens , I know that I have them in the corner and if the person I put there is someone that I don't like , I get much satisfaction out of it.

^^^^ so says our local rape bubba.

Well this was a good day I humbled 2aguy to a point that he only attacks me and doesn't argue the point of this thread. Actually I look forward to that when it happens , I know that I have them in the corner and if the person I put there is someone that I don't like , I get much satisfaction out of it.

 

[jbander]

Honestly, no one will stop all mass killings, but we know how to stop most and that takes nothing more than banning the use of SSRI antidepressants.

and a medical expert also. What a laugh, The assault weapon is the weapons of choice by all mass murderers.

Do you understand that we can actually check you claims on the internet....and that that claim is completely false? The hand gun is the weapon of choice, because it is easy to conceal and transport....you doofus.....

The handgun is used in arguments and family matter, and is seen all over the lower end of the killing spectrom , I don't see that as being anything to do with mass murders. 3 and 4 were arbitrary numbers for perspective. OK you threatened to go to the internet and prove me wrong , Ok do that. My comment is mass killings above 10. And leans to the latest number because in the earlier times they didn't exist or were in such small numbers they couldn't make a impact. So give us your internet research. You won't because you will go into it just a bit to find out that I'm right and that's were you will stop.give her hell buddy.

And yet the VA tech shooter killed 32 using two handguns.

Never let facts get in the way of dumbfuckery. Jbender never will

Do you actually think that there is some point in the fact that people get killed in other ways also. Not impressed gun Bubbas

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you actually think that there is some point in the fact that people get killed in other ways also. Not impressed gun Bubbas

The fact that you DON'T get the point reminds me how stupid you are. Thankfully, your old ass will take the dirt nap soon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is your group that stupid , this is at a level of stupidity that I never realized, all this time I knew we had a total advantage over gun Bubbas red necks , their bulb has always been a little dimmer then most. but this tops the point . I think we will have to use a lot smaller words , then I thought if we want anything to get through to them. So the fact that someone gets killed another way means what to the air heads here.

I guess I qualify as a "gun bubba." Wanna compare sheep skins, you ******* ignorant asshole?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

And all require you to allow the attacker to get within arms length. Not the best choice, but better than nothing.


.

hammers seem to be twice as effective as Arms.

If your daughter used an AR-15, instead of a hammer, to fight off a rapist, would you care?

***** won’t answer the question, they are pussies after all.

she is more likely to be closer to a hammer.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; you have nothing but a fallacy of false Cause, by confusing natural rights with express, civil rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

What?

Can ANYONE explain what this tool is talking about?

Where am I trying to establish a false causal connection?

Don't just drop that bomb and run away. Explain it.

there are no individual rights in our Second Amendment. every dictionary proves my point.

We've dealt with this before. Your position leaves you as an individual unprotected by the 1st Amendment.

Specifically and expressly declared civil rights, cover individuals; but are not, individual rights nor arise from the concept of natural rights.

 

[jbander]

Of the mass murders over 10 people 275 0f 368 that were killed in total, were by assault weapons. Like I said the gun of choice by a long shot for mass murderers is the assault weapon, you want the big kill numbers you bring a assault weapon. They buy them for the same reasons as all of these men buy them , their wife told them they didn't have enough. So they buy assault weapon in the hopes that other people won't find out what the wife said , by the big duck gun choice.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And all require you to allow the attacker to get within arms length. Not the best choice, but better than nothing.


.

hammers seem to be twice as effective as Arms.

If your daughter used an AR-15, instead of a hammer, to fight off a rapist, would you care?

***** won’t answer the question, they are pussies after all.

she is more likely to be closer to a hammer.

Now that’s funny!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Specifically and expressly declared civil rights, cover individuals; but are not, individual rights nor arise from the concept of natural rights

Says who?

Making shit up to fit your anti-freedom, communist agenda?

 

[danielpalos]

Specifically and expressly declared civil rights, cover individuals; but are not, individual rights nor arise from the concept of natural rights

Says who?

Making shit up to fit your anti-freedom, communist agenda?

the actual and express terms, silly. there are no implied terms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the actual and express terms, silly. there are no implied terms.

What express terms? Quit making shit up.

 

[danielpalos]

the actual and express terms, silly. there are no implied terms.

What express terms? Quit making shit up.

thanks for ceding the point and the argument; by having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

thanks for ceding the point and the argument; by having nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttal.

Thanks for ceding the argument by failing to produce the alleged express terms to which you refer. Fail!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

dan palos has no real arguments. He can only attempt to point to mysterios express terms that he will not state, or identify fallacies without expressung a counter argument in rebuttal.

All arguments are fallacious.

Identifying fallacy is not a rebuttal. It only offers the opportunity to find and expose weaknesses with counter argument and rebuttal.

You don't know how to argue your case, dan. You covince no one.

 

[Pop23]

dan palos has no real arguments. He can only attempt to point to mysterios express terms that he will not state, or identify fallacies without expressung a counter argument in rebuttal.

All arguments are fallacious.

Identifying fallacy is not a rebuttal. It only offers the opportunity to find and expose weaknesses with counter argument and rebuttal.

You don't know how to argue your case, dan. You covince no one.

Dan is nothing more than comic relief at this point.

 

[danielpalos]

the actual and express terms, silly. there are no implied terms.

What express terms? Quit making shit up.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are no implied terms in our Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There are no implied terms in our Second Amendment.

So, quit implying terms, dan.

Because X, we shall not do Y.

Not, unless X, shall do Y

English is not your first language, so why don't you leave it it us.

 

[danielpalos]

There are no implied terms in our Second Amendment.

So, quit implying terms, dan.

Because X, we shall not do Y.

Not, unless X, shall do Y

English is not your first language, so why don't you leave it it us.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Pop23]

There are no implied terms in our Second Amendment.

So, quit implying terms, dan.

Because X, we shall not do Y.

Not, unless X, shall do Y

English is not your first language, so why don't you leave it it us.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

If that was all, it would not exist in tha Bill of Rights.