Jump to content

Gun Control


Englebert

Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2018 at 9:24 AM, PAMFAM10 said:

Not trying to argue but, you don’t believe the gun was made to kill. I know many use it as self defense but it was made to kill

Absolutely, the Armalite Rifle was designed as a combat weapon. 

Do you feel more vindicated in your beliefs for that reason and would feel better if the people were killed by a firearm that was not “designed to kill”? 

The argument against the AR type rifles is merely a ploy for more gun laws. In fact in a majority of the shootings the AR is a poor choice of weapons. In the Killeen Luby’s shooting, the suspect used two 9mm handguns in what was the largest mass murder at that time.  In Virginia Tech the suspect not only used just two handguns in what is still the largest school shooting, one was a .22 which is a tiny target round and almost laughable as an offensive weapon and not even a recommended self defense handgun. Tell that to the 32 victims. 

As you are well aware, the AR is designed and intended to be used at ranges of a quarter mile or more. For easy of carry, concealment, speed and ease if handling, carrying lots of ammo and ease/speed of reloading, the 9mm is much more effective and just as deadly. In this shooting and Sandy Hook, had the shooters been armed with a couple of small 9mm handguns, the death toll would likely have beet much higher. 

I guess that would give you satisfaction since those self defense and target type weapons weren’t designed for offensive weapons and they don’t have the scary look of an AR.

The entire “assault” weapon argument is simply a means to an end.  It would do nothing or stop nothing but would simply be another law on the books.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Absolutely, the Armalite Rifle was designed as a combat weapon. 

Do you feel more vindicated in your beliefs for that reason and would feel better if the people were killed by a firearm that was not “designed to kill”? 

The argument against the AR type rifles is merely a ploy for more gun laws. In fact in a majority of the shootings the AR is a poor choice of weapons. In the Killeen Luby’s shooting, the suspect used two 9mm handguns in what was the largest mass murder at that time.  In Virginia Tech the suspect not only used just two handguns in what is still the largest school shooting, one was a .22 which is a tiny target round and almost laughable as an offensive weapon and not even a recommended self defense handgun. Tell that to the 32 victims. 

As you are well aware, the AR is designed and intended to be used at ranges of a quarter mile or more. For easy of carry, concealment, speed and ease if handling, carrying lots of ammo and ease/speed of reloading, the 9mm is much more effective and just as deadly. In this shooting and Sandy Hook, had the shooters been armed with a couple of small 9mm handguns, the death toll would likely have beet much higher. 

I guess that would give you satisfaction since those self defense and target type weapons weren’t designed for offensive weapons and they don’t have the scary look of an AR.

The entire “assault” weapon argument is simply a means to an end.  It would do nothing or stop nothing but would simply be another law on the books.  

Don't forget the UT campus shooting in the 60's.  This was done with a Remington 700 bolt action rifle.  I think it was a 30.06, one of the most popular hunting rifles out there.  I believe 13 were killed, if I'm not mistaken.  So why is the AR always the bad guy.  The libs like to lock on to the look of it.  I'm sure most think the AR stands for assault rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Don't forget the UT campus shooting in the 60's.  This was done with a Remington 700 bolt action rifle.  I think it was a 30.06, one of the most popular hunting rifles out there.  I believe 13 were killed, if I'm not mistaken.  So why is the AR always the bad guy.  The libs like to lock on to the look of it.  I'm sure most think the AR stands for assault rifle.

Because it's the typical liberal knee-jerk reaction they are famous for.  Do they ever discuss any other reason that might be the reason(s) for all this violence?!  NO!   The slime Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, and obama's friend, stated: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste!"  So, there you have the answer! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

Don't forget the UT campus shooting in the 60's.  This was done with a Remington 700 bolt action rifle.  I think it was a 30.06, one of the most popular hunting rifles out there.  I believe 13 were killed, if I'm not mistaken.  So why is the AR always the bad guy.  The libs like to lock on to the look of it.  I'm sure most think the AR stands for assault rifle.

 That is entirely correct however that still required a rifle… Which is a bad word in some circles. 

Almost all (with a couple of exceptions) of these shootings take place at point blank ranges where the AR is not an optimal weapon of choice.  To read the Internet you would think that if the AR did not exist then no shootings wouldn’t happen or there would be less casualties  when just the opposite might be true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

 That is entirely correct however that still required a rifle… Which is a bad word in some circles. 

Almost all (with a couple of exceptions) of these shootings take place at point blank ranges where the AR is not an optimal weapon of choice.  To read the Internet you would think that if the AR did not exist then no shootings wouldn’t happen or there would be less casualties  when just the opposite might be true. 

Or listen to the dimtards.  Just want to throw this out there.  The Livingston Youth Baseball Association will be raffling off an AR this spring, if anyone is interested.  Hopefully they won't change their minds, or have someone change it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 19, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Englebert said:

That's why I keep asking for solutions.

My responses to you are really meant to be generalized to the Left (especially the Liberal politicians) who passionately advocate for gun confiscation in the form of gun control. I realize you are not part of that particular group, but I respond to your posts because you seem to be the only one from the Left that has the guts to post on this topic. I apologize if you are anyone interpret my responses as an attack on you. I'm really just trying to provoke the Left into revealing their true agenda. If only they would respond. 

On another site, there was a liberal lady denouncing Trump & Reubs for not doing anything.  She had posted 3 times.  I simply ask her that if she was in charge, what would she do to solve it.  Crickets.

The one absolute deterrent would be arming a select few teachers.  That would do more than any possible legislation.  Next, I'd ban the bloody, gory video games where kids constantly kill people.  To many, to young, are playing them.  In life, no reset button.  Jmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 20, 2018 at 11:41 AM, tvc184 said:

Absolutely, the Armalite Rifle was designed as a combat weapon. 

Do you feel more vindicated in your beliefs for that reason and would feel better if the people were killed by a firearm that was not “designed to kill”? 

The argument against the AR type rifles is merely a ploy for more gun laws. In fact in a majority of the shootings the AR is a poor choice of weapons. In the Killeen Luby’s shooting, the suspect used two 9mm handguns in what was the largest mass murder at that time.  In Virginia Tech the suspect not only used just two handguns in what is still the largest school shooting, one was a .22 which is a tiny target round and almost laughable as an offensive weapon and not even a recommended self defense handgun. Tell that to the 32 victims. 

As you are well aware, the AR is designed and intended to be used at ranges of a quarter mile or more. For easy of carry, concealment, speed and ease if handling, carrying lots of ammo and ease/speed of reloading, the 9mm is much more effective and just as deadly. In this shooting and Sandy Hook, had the shooters been armed with a couple of small 9mm handguns, the death toll would likely have beet much higher. 

I guess that would give you satisfaction since those self defense and target type weapons weren’t designed for offensive weapons and they don’t have the scary look of an AR.

The entire “assault” weapon argument is simply a means to an end.  It would do nothing or stop nothing but would simply be another law on the books.  

A great, informative post Tvc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a teacher, and TVC can attest that I’m at least adequate with a gun.  I don’t claim to be brave, and I have a strong sense of self preservation.  That being said, if someone was shooting up my school, I would gladly run towards the threat if I was armed, and I would pay for the training necessary for me to be able to do so.  Unfortunately, the only weapon I have access to at school is the paring knife we used to carve jackolanterns every year, so if a shooter shows up I’ll only be able to lock my door and huddle in the corner with everyone else, hoping someone shows up to stop him before he makes it to my room.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armed teachers with pistols won’t work.  The bullets are too slow......Talk about a special kind of stupid 

 

 

Quote:

MSNBC anchors are claiming that teachers armed with handguns would be unable to stop a school shooter because rifles shoot "three times faster."



Anchor Lawrence O'Donnell said on his show Thursday night that "a bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgunand yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter."



Stephanie Ruhle similarly asked, "How does the best marksman in the world with a handgun take down a shooter with an AR-15 (bullets travel 3x faster)."

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Armed teachers with pistols won’t work.  The bullets are too slow......Talk about a special kind of stupid 

 

 

Quote:

MSNBC anchors are claiming that teachers armed with handguns would be unable to stop a school shooter because rifles shoot "three times faster."

 

Anchor Lawrence O'Donnell said on his show Thursday night that "a bullet fired from an AR-15 travels 3x faster than one from a handgunand yet the president and the NRA think giving teachers guns will stop a school shooter."

 

Stephanie Ruhle similarly asked, "How does the best marksman in the world with a handgun take down a shooter with an AR-15 (bullets travel 3x faster)."

This is the hidden content, please

Although he is right about the bullet velocity, it makes no difference as to whether or not you can take him out with the "slow" .45. I assure you he cannot sidestep that round. Terrible argument drummed up by the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I’m a teacher, and TVC can attest that I’m at least adequate with a gun.  I don’t claim to be brave, and I have a strong sense of self preservation.  That being said, if someone was shooting up my school, I would gladly run towards the threat if I was armed, and I would pay for the training necessary for me to be able to do so.  Unfortunately, the only weapon I have access to at school is the paring knife we used to carve jackolanterns every year, so if a shooter shows up I’ll only be able to lock my door and huddle in the corner with everyone else, hoping someone shows up to stop him before he makes it to my room.  

Good post.

We live in a different world and we must be diligent to stop these guys from ever walking into a school, but we need to realize some are going to still walk into schools.

Having several qualified teachers that carry is the best way to protect our kids IMO.

Everything we value in this country is protected with guns...why not kids in school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2018 at 10:49 PM, bullets13 said:

I’m a teacher, and TVC can attest that I’m at least adequate with a gun.  I don’t claim to be brave, and I have a strong sense of self preservation.  That being said, if someone was shooting up my school, I would gladly run towards the threat if I was armed, and I would pay for the training necessary for me to be able to do so.  Unfortunately, the only weapon I have access to at school is the paring knife we used to carve jackolanterns every year, so if a shooter shows up I’ll only be able to lock my door and huddle in the corner with everyone else, hoping someone shows up to stop him before he makes it to my room.  

Sorry, apparently you can't handle the responsibility. Saw this Saturday morning and there's so much wrong with it I'm not going to point it all out.

This is the hidden content, please

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined



×
×
  • Create New...