If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Let's talk about who really buys the AR-15   (slate.com) divider line 1354
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34422 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1354 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 01:13:04 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.


Oooooooooooo.........
 
2013-01-03 01:13:11 PM  

Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?


See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:12 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Says the "guy" in Vermont. Did you and your wife take the Subaru Outback down to Massachusetts to get married yet or did Moonbeam down at the courthouse do it for you? It's really great that you can wear your flannels and mullets and enjoy the leaves and maple syrup of Vermontistan together now that the SC allows scissor sisters to get married.


I LOL'd.
 
2013-01-03 01:13:19 PM  

drewogatory: It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".


drewogatory: It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

Yeah, except "well-regulated" doesn't mean "subject to regulation" in this context. It means "fully equipped".



Citation?
 
2013-01-03 01:13:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."


Maybe they all think they're John Wayne, just about to go down in a hail of bullets and testosterone.

www.glendonswarthout.com
 
2013-01-03 01:13:46 PM  

stuffy: I like how the writer glosses over the fact that William Spengler was an ex-con, and band from having any gun. But lets not let that stop our derp.


I'm confused here. Is the "derp" you're arguing against that current gun laws are too weak, or that they shouldn't exist at all?
 
2013-01-03 01:14:04 PM  

Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.


Yep. Because only NRA-member redneck Republicans own guns.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-01-03 01:14:18 PM  

Spade: LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."

I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.

You're still wrong in some of those cases - Feinstein, for example, is not trying to ban all semi-automatics.

Pretty close to all of them.


No? AFAIK, there are lots of semi-auto handguns out there for your perusal.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:22 PM  

LasersHurt: gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?

Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."


I suspect your opinion is that we should have a complete ban on any kind of firearm. Just based on the few comments you have made.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:22 PM  

Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.


I'm getting really into 1970s Israeli arms. Yisrael Galil's inspired designs have stoked the creative fires of countless gunsmiths.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:33 PM  

LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?

Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.

I don't know if anyone can seriously define "military-style" besides "looks kind of like something I saw on a war movie".

I suspect the military could, since they designed many of them.


The military hasn't designed a small arm in well over one hundred years.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:34 PM  

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:34 PM  

The_Sponge: cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?


Nope, not me. I'll have to take a look now...
 
2013-01-03 01:14:45 PM  

H31N0US: Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person..


That argument makes no sense. Civilians have had the right to own rifles from the time the first pilgrim set foot on this continent. If the 2nd Amendment only pertained to the militia, why did literally every house have a rifle in it?

And contrary to popular belief, civilian gun ownership has always been roughly on par with the military firearms of the day. Back in the early days, flint lock rifles were the best technology in the world and that's what armies used and that's what they used to hunt deer. Today, gun control advocates hold up the bolt action, center fire rifle as the quintessential "hunting rifle" that embodies the practical spirit of the 2nd Amendment, but during WWI and the beginning of WWII, the ability to quickly fire 4 or 5 rounds was the bleeding edge of military lethality, and men returning from war took them into the woods for hunting and self defense almost immediately.

What is that old saying about being wary of any legislation named after a tragedy? These current talks of gun bans are nothing more than emotional knee jerk reactions and they will do nothing to affect crime or safety in any meaningful way. But they will create an opening for more and more aggressive gun bans that eventually guts the 2nd Amendment and makes us that much less a free people.

It's not a political thing with me either, I usually vote D and I was just as opposed to the Patriot Act, NDAA, DUI checkpoints, and no knock warrants. There are people all over the political spectrum who want to chip away at this freedom or that freedom for a whole myriad of reasons, and they should all be opposed.
 
2013-01-03 01:15:40 PM  

ElBarto79: jshine: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


The whole point of a *right* is that it exists independent of whether or not other people approve.

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...

You have a right as long as doesn't infringe upon someone else in some way. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. See the difference? In the same way if your idea of fun requires a tool which was specifically designed to kill lots of people, has few or zero practical uses that there are not better tools for and which is incredibly deadly in the wrong hands then you may be out of luck with regards to that particular kind of "fun".



Of course "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (incorrectly attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, but still a good quote).

...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.
affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-01-03 01:15:46 PM  
fark you anti freedom assholes. raise your kids properly you TV watching, Walmart shopping zombies, don't infringe on my rights. going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too. fark you, it's your kid, your problem, not ours. stop deflecting and straw manning.
 
2013-01-03 01:15:54 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?


Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.

In any event no one is realistically proposing disarming the American population, and with more than 300 million privately owned firearms it couldn't even be done without an enormous amount of illegal searching.  The whole discussion is bluster to keep people arguing over nothing of consequence.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:19 PM  

Outrageous Muff: In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.


Don't forget the pro-gun whackjobs who think psychopathic killers would be just as effective with a pointy stick as with a few 30-round magazines and a Bushmaster.

"New regulations won't stop all mass murders, so why bother?"
 
2013-01-03 01:16:20 PM  

moanerific: I suspect the military could, since they designed many of them.

The military hasn't designed a small arm in well over one hundred years.


Perhaps the people that designed the ones they USE, then?

Someone's making these decisions, and for some reason, somewhere along the line.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:20 PM  

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


You failed at reading comprehension.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:25 PM  

dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.


rebuttal:
www.chemistryland.com

Also, try going to some third world country with little to no water quality control. Drinking something out of a tap will give you the raging shiats, but a bottle of Coors is perfectly safe.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:32 PM  
WILD


PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG



lh4.googleusercontent.com


www.2dayblog.com

boarmasters.mywowbb.com


www.huntercourse.com

THRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDD
 
2013-01-03 01:16:46 PM  
CPT Ethanolic:I go back and forth on banning assault weapons because I do appreciate the hobby of shooting, but I would be in favor of banning high capacity magazines.  Assault weapons can be used for "fun", but high capacity magazines are ONLY meant for producing a high casualty count in a short period of time.

This comment was 10 pages ago and I haven't looked to see if anyone else has made my comment, but... this is pretty much what Canada has, as well as classing some guns (handguns, shorter barrel carbines) as restricted and needing a special license.

If a rifle is center-fire and semi-auto, the mag can only be 5 rounds max. Handguns 10 rounds. Anything else is doesn't have a limit.

Link

I know most Americans think our gun laws are too restrictive, but speaking as a hunter who also has his restricted license for sport shooting it's really not so bad (at least since they scraped the long-gun registry, which was a colossal fark-up). You have to take a hunter safety training course to get your gun license. I think it was 4-5 evenings worth of class and a test. Basic stuff like how to hold your gun in the field, how to cross a fence, and how fields of fire work so you don't kill your hunting buddy. I say "I think" it was 4-5 evenings because it was 16 years ago. You only have to take it once as long as you don't let your license expire. Then, my restricted license that lets me buy/use handguns and other restricted weapons was similar, but a bit longer if I remember correctly (2-3 weekends in my case). Same thing, once you have it you just need to keep your license current. Also, any guns that are classified as restricted See note earlier on the same page as before need to be registered.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:57 PM  

moanerific: I suspect your opinion is that we should have a complete ban on any kind of firearm. Just based on the few comments you have made.


Clearly you have no read enough, because I don't.
 
2013-01-03 01:16:59 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: fark you anti freedom assholes. raise your kids properly you TV watching, Walmart shopping zombies, don't infringe on my rights. going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too. fark you, it's your kid, your problem, not ours. stop deflecting and straw manning.


Had you not waited so long to make your purchase, you would have saved approximately $1000.

Gunbroker.com now lists AR-15 uppers for the same price that I paid for my entire rifle in 2009.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:14 PM  

Thunderpipes: You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.


I miss having a Prius and plan on buying a Nissan Leaf for my next car (yet I race motorcycles, and restored and own a classic Mustang fastback, '52 Dodge truck and '48 Willys) My house and office are powered almost entirely with solar panels that I installed myself. I typically vote for liberals, but occasionally vote for a moderate republican.

And I own enough guns that I require a couple safes to house them. From a Tarus .38 snub nose, to my SKS, 10/22, an Enfield, my takedown Winchester Model 12 shotgun and almost every example of a Winchester lever action (each manufactured in the 19th century, in museum quality). I only lack an Model 1895, and an authentic Henry rifle. Although I am thinking of adding a Sig 556 to my collection, in light of a possible AWB.

That's me, a Prius driving liberal sissy crybaby, with more guns than room and a concealed carry permit. You might want to rethink your stereotypes.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:14 PM  

cr7pilot: The_Sponge: cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?

Nope, not me. I'll have to take a look now...


Let me know what you think.
 
2013-01-03 01:17:15 PM  
Here are my views on gun control:

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.

I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.

Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?
 
2013-01-03 01:17:28 PM  

you have pee hands: BraveNewCheneyWorld: If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?

Mostly because people keep piling up make believe quotes and laws and don't bother to fact check their own bullshiat, but partly because people aren't generally willing to shoot back at a fascist when they know they'll get a couple potshots off before their entire family is killed in retribution.  You know what all these dictatorships actually do have in common?  Whoever controls the military wins.  When the military starts to defect en masse, that's when the gig's up.  Regardless of weaponry there's an enormous difference between trained soldiers and disorganized rabble and militias replacing authoritarian dictatorships with anything but other authoritarian dictatorships in an armed revolution almost never happens.

In any event no one is realistically proposing disarming the American population, and with more than 300 million privately owned firearms it couldn't even be done without an enormous amount of illegal searching.  The whole discussion is bluster to keep people arguing over nothing of consequence.


Explain what's been going on in Syria then?
 
2013-01-03 01:17:44 PM  
Woo! Preview/Cut and paste fail!
 
2013-01-03 01:18:03 PM  

Lets rip this fool apart line by line, shall we


He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle-the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Fact: An AR style rifle was in the car, but was not used in the shooting
Link , so right off the bat this "reporter" shows (s)he is not trustworthy.

Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15

Hyperbole. journalism 101 fail

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter,
Really? Citation please? Links to all your "pro Second Amendment" articles would be a good start.


But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

* Not only does this fool contradict himself, ala it's not suited to hunting (said twice) then backtracking saying that it can be used and the .223 works well on small game.

* .223 takes deer this uninformed "reporter" considers that small game?

* Uses the term "Stopping power" a myth anyone informed about firearms (watching "Lethal Weapon" on DVD doesn't count) knows is a bull--it term.
-- See
----- FBI report on "handgun wounding Factors and Effectiveness" (July 1989)
----- http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html


When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house
So can almost all handgun ammo.
Link

unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact
Which is a common it the market. Again, (s)he's shot down his/her own point.

the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster
No faster than any semi-automatic pistol (or even revolver for that matter), like the 1911 from ... 1911.

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you're trying to do is sell guns.
Wow, when you threaten to ban something market demand goes up? Wow thanks for the news flash there Skippy we would never have known that one kennedy )


Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales.

Wait.... didn't he say
The AR-15 was designed in 1957
What does "modern" mean again?
*Emphasis mine

Also note that since AR Style rifles were the only rifle I could find in S&W's page, it would stand to reason that they would account for a large portion of their net sales. I wonder is this "reporter" is familiar with the term "Lie of omission".

As the NRA's David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions.
So (s)he's now admitting many hunters do use sporting rifles for hunting? Didn't he just say these were not suited for that use? You can't have it both ways.

But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn't get nearly as much press-paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster.
Ignoring the silly hyperbole (s)he's using, does that mean "paranoid survivalists" like this?
4.bp.blogspot.com

An article on ar15.com titled "The Ideal Rifle" notes that "the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a 'survival' rifle is real. Selecting a single 'ideal rifle' is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else."
So those that (unlike this "reporter) are informed about firearms do agree that the AR is a fine home defense gun

But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance-as is, I think, fitting-and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use
When you're using the amount of hyperbole and outright misinformation*cough*lies*cough* this "reporter" engages in you have lost all right to words like 'rhetoric".
 
2013-01-03 01:18:08 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Well, if you don't practice shooting off rounds, you'll find that when you actually need to use your gun it may perform the way you expect.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:25 PM  
I've considered buying one just because I'm ex-Army and it's a rifle that I'm familiar with.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:32 PM  

H31N0US: BraveNewCheneyWorld: There isn't an argument here, because you didn't even bother to look up what "well regulated" meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Here, let me show you yet another reason why you're wrong.

Ok I'll play. What part of some asshole shooting up a bunch of first graders seems to import "functioning correctly" to you? Adam Lanza was part of a "Well Regulated" (per your interpretation of the syntax) militia?


Are you barely literate? That's not what the 2nd amendment says at all. The 2nd amendment outlines that it is necessary for the formation of a well equipped militia, it does not in any way state that it is the sole reason for the existence of the 2nd. We already have laws in place keeping guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza, but surprise surprise.. a criminal didn't obey the law. How is it that your mind is so defective that the "obvious solution" is to make more restrictive laws. You have the thought process of a crazy person.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:41 PM  

Mimic_Octopus: going out to buy my first 2 AR-15's this weekend and 10,000 rounds too.


No you won't. Ammo is just about sold out nation wide and the firearm manufacturers can't keep up with the demand.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:57 PM  

topcon: I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.


The batshiat insane stuff is coming from the 2nd amendment kooks. Most people, and most NRA members support registration, backround checks, closing private sale loopholes, and banning high capacity magazines, and maybe "assault rifles" themselves. If you label that as batshiat insane, maybe you should look in the mirror, adjust meds.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:58 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.


Machine guns are already federally restricted and, while not prohibited entirely, are already not commonly available to civilians.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:09 PM  

tricycleracer: Rapmaster2000: I'm into guns that you guys have probably never even heard of.

I'm getting really into 1970s Israeli arms. Yisrael Galil's inspired designs have stoked the creative fires of countless gunsmiths.


Yeah, he was a pretty heavy influence on Alexi Dragunov and PP-19 Bizon.  You can really see it when you know what to look for.

I'd post some of his work on here, but Farkers wouldn't really get it.  They just don't have the taste to appreciate his work on as many levels as I do.  They're probably into played-out Glocks.  So provincial.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:18 PM  

Bomb Head Mohammed: Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.

I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.


Wait, so you bring up handgun deaths and then argue that rifles should be banned?

Protip: the number of people killed by rifles is a shade above 300 a year. About 700 people a year are beaten to death.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM  
Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:20 PM  

TheOther: a hunting rifle


What is a "hunting rifle"?
 
2013-01-03 01:19:30 PM  
I've never had much of a desire to own/fire a gun.

I've never had the inclination to murder a bunch of people with a gun.

I think there is something in that.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:41 PM  

seniorgato: That being said. The guns are wicked stupid. I've thought about it a lot. A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat. An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside. And it's not worth it.


Let's throw this out right now. Most tests I've seen with drywall show that an AR-15 round is less likely to overpenetrate than handgun or shotgun rounds. Small rifle rounds going through drywall tend to tumble and disintegrate, while handgun/shotgun rounds tend to keep going (see: box of truth, use of weapons by police and military when trying to reduce collateral damage).

Beyond that, understand this point: the most protected firearms, constitutionally, are those that "serve some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (US v. Miller). I'm tired of seeing "but they're no good for hunting!" when it comes to talking about any type of firearm. While using a firearm for the purpose of hunting is also preserved by the 2nd amendment, it's by no means its core. The fact that US v. Miller is the case that is most often thrown around by those claiming that the 2nd amendment protects a "collective" right (despite it never addressing that notion), then is turned around and ignored by those same people speaks volumes. They're not concerned with the right at all, it's a play to piecemeal ban things as they see fit. Start with "military style weapons" because someone who doesn't know much about guns says they're "unusual and unusually dangerous", then switch to banning weapons good for hunting because "the second amendment only protects arms for militia use". It's an iterative method of eliminating a right, and it's utter bullshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:19:46 PM  

Karac: dr-shotgun: Than be logically consistent and call for a ban on alcohol.

Alcohol has absolutely zero positive social utility. It is a substance used purely for enjoyment.

rebuttal:
[www.chemistryland.com image 225x400]

Also, try going to some third world country with little to no water quality control. Drinking something out of a tap will give you the raging shiats, but a bottle of Coors is perfectly safe.



That's not the same "alcohol," actually. The alcohol a person drinks is ethanol, whereas the image you posted is 2-propanol. Both are generically called "alcohol" because of the -OH group, but they're totally different chemicals.

/chemical engineer
 
2013-01-03 01:20:05 PM  

technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?


Subject to regulation? Yes.


Where do you get subject to regulation?
 
2013-01-03 01:20:24 PM  

jshine: ...so owning weapons (the right guaranteed by the Constitution) should be legal, while using them to shoot people should be illegal.


And only criminals shoot people - not law-abiding gun owners.

Of course, when someone who legally owns a (or has easy access to a legally owned) gun kills a few people, then he's a criminal and we can still say "Law-abiding gun owners don't commit gun crimes."

www.brainygamer.com
And keep pretending that the threat of legal punishment has a deterrent effect on someone who plans to die at the end of his rampage.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:25 PM  

Joe Blowme: Yet another tard who thinks the 2nd is for hunting.... so sad.
Dont like guns? Dont buy guns. Dont let your gunaphobia affect my right to buy a gun.


If you can get guns to agree to stop shooting people, I bet you wouldn't hear another word.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:29 PM  

Cymbal: See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.


So people who own a shooting range should be able to own them (for the purpose of stocking the range)? What if it's a partnership? Should both owners be allowed to own them? What if it's a member-owned shooting club?
 
2013-01-03 01:20:32 PM  

Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.


Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.
 
2013-01-03 01:20:56 PM  

topcon: The murder rate of rifles vs. handguns, you say? Why, the FBI has statistics on that right on their website! I'm guessing the amount of deaths by AR-15s in a given year is, oh, well under 1 percent.

The number of deaths by things like Saturday Night Special .22LRs in the hood is probably quite significant, though.


That's a pretty good list.

What I find really interesting is that the number of murders by "Personal Weapons" is almost twice that of rifles... Even more with knives, and about 50% more with blunt instruments. On top of that, "assault rifles" makes up just a small part of "rifles" altogether...
 
Displayed 50 of 1354 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report