RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:51:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus


An AR-15 is like duck hunting with a rocket launcher.



You can get an AR15 chambered as a 22 long rifle, hardly a rocket launcher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable. Nor do people need assault rifles, semi-automatics, etc.


CA has a 10 day wait and does federal and state background checks.




onemanship -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Background checks and 5-day waiting periods are not unreasonable.


Unsubstantiated opinion.



*chuckle* As is yours.

Who needs an assault rifle in a hurry (that should be able to get one)?

Who would need an assault rifle but not training in its use (short of previous training)?



Let be honest, most of those guns are made for illiterate peasants---load, point, shoot. Only rocket science is rocket science, amirite?




I think the agenda of the gun control movement is to make it more difficult to obtain a gun than it is currently, by adding as more restrictions.

Stringent and mandatory training/licensing would part of that. We do it for automobiles, why not for guns?




LadyHibiscus -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 1:54:02 PM)

There's a little chart on facebook comparing the restrictions on cars to those on guns... and my point was, you don't NEED the gun, why bother being trained in its use? All that training is pointless unless you practise constantly anyway.

No new rules will address the guns already in civilian hands.




Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:00:30 PM)

~FR~

Fact is, states with stricter laws have fewer incidents of violence like this.

Colorado should consider it.

But to the NRA, complete deregulation is more important than lives.




BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:01:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


I really did say it was preferable in that situation just like you did. Has there ever been a mass murder stopped by a civilian with a gun?

Yes pearl Mississippi just toname one. At Lubies in TX a man used a steak knife because they had just outlawed concealed carry and was killed before he could reach the shooter.




SilverMark -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:04:48 PM)

Pearl Mississippi?...are you discussing the school shooting?




OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:04:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


But to the NRA, complete deregulation is more important than lives.


I own guns and think the NRA is insane.




BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:05:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

You can call them what you wish, a gun like the AR-15 is used for killing, not really used to hunt deer now is it?

Imagine squirrel hunting with one?

Taking out a few fuzzy bunnies?

Nope, made for target practice, killing people or showing off....doesn't work too well for other things...

For home defense, a shotgun would work MUCH better...point in the general direcction and the blast and shot pattern would certainly be a deterent

Depending on the caliber. The basic .223 round can't be used for deer hunting in most states, not powerfull enough, to big for rabbits , nice varmit round though. The shotgun was far more deadly.




BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:09:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Pearl Mississippi?...are you discussing the school shooting?

yes
Name a shooting incident that was made worse by an intended victim being armed. These thing always take place in gun free zones.




SilverMark -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:15:08 PM)

As the kid was leaving, and AFTER he had already shot 9 kids, killing two.....just a tad bit late....and all the assistant principal did was detain him....didn't stop anything, the damage was done, the kid was leaving the school....I guess it is possible he might have stopped the kid from shooting anyone on his drive home, assuming he would have done so?




lovmuffin -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:32:20 PM)

H
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark



The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault.




You can make your own definitions but it doesn't make them official. M16's are produced for the military, theAR15 is a semi-auto look alike produced for civillians.

Bullshit

Armalite made the AR-15 to sell to the military. The entire history of the AR-15 is tied to selling a rifle to the US military. The immediate predecessor to the AR-15 was the AR-10 (essentially a 7.62N weapon that looks almost exactly like an AR-15) which was rejected by the US Army back in th 1950's. The AR-15 was developed at the direct request of General Willard Wyman as an entrant to the .223 caliber weapon program.





Thanks for the little tid big on gun history but what I stated is correct. The M 16 is military and the Ar 15 is a semi auto look alike. So bullshit on your bullshit.




Moonhead -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:35:31 PM)

Actually you've got that backwards:
The M16 (officially Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16) is the United States military designation for the AR-15 rifle adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst and full-automatic fire.[5] Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite, and currently uses that designation only for semi-automatic versions of the rifle.




BamaD -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:40:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

As the kid was leaving, and AFTER he had already shot 9 kids, killing two.....just a tad bit late....and all the assistant principal did was detain him....didn't stop anything, the damage was done, the kid was leaving the school....I guess it is possible he might have stopped the kid from shooting anyone on his drive home, assuming he would have done so?

[/quotThe kid quit when he saw the assistant principle with a gun. The reasoin it took so long to stop him was that the assit priciple had to rum over a quarter mile to get his gun since the law required that trhe gun be 1000 ft from the school rack up some dead kids to a gun law.




KYsissy -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:41:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

H
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark



The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault.




You can make your own definitions but it doesn't make them official. M16's are produced for the military, theAR15 is a semi-auto look alike produced for civillians.

Bullshit

Armalite made the AR-15 to sell to the military. The entire history of the AR-15 is tied to selling a rifle to the US military. The immediate predecessor to the AR-15 was the AR-10 (essentially a 7.62N weapon that looks almost exactly like an AR-15) which was rejected by the US Army back in th 1950's. The AR-15 was developed at the direct request of General Willard Wyman as an entrant to the .223 caliber weapon program.





Thanks for the little tid big on gun history but what I stated is correct. The M 16 is military and the Ar 15 is a semi auto look alike. So bullshit on your bullshit.



I have a springfield M-6 Scout, Originally military issue. No way would anyone call it an assault rifle




lovmuffin -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:45:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


But to the NRA, complete deregulation is more important than lives.


I own guns and think the NRA is insane.





Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago.




OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:48:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


But to the NRA, complete deregulation is more important than lives.


I own guns and think the NRA is insane.





Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago.



Maybe. But, they're as guilty of letting their knees jerk them around as the anti-gun folks.

But, since muzzle loaders started as a military weapon, they'd get classified as an assault weapon.




Musicmystery -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:56:20 PM)

quote:

Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago.


Without the NRA, people would be buying guns responsibly, with waiting periods and background checks, and not stocking up at gun shows -- like Holmes just did.




lovmuffin -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 2:59:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


But to the NRA, complete deregulation is more important than lives.


I own guns and think the NRA is insane.





Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago.



Maybe. But, they're as guilty of letting their knees jerk them around as the anti-gun folks.

But, since muzzle loaders started as a military weapon, they'd get classified as an assault weapon.




But still, knee jerk or not they have managed to keep the gun grabbers at bay.


Your right about the muzzle loader though I'm sure we would have to have them registered.




DomKen -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 3:03:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

H
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark



The AR-15 used in Colorado for example was designed and built for the US military.....I'd say that makes it an assault weapon....The military rarely buys weapons not made to KILL PEOPLE....I'd say killing is indeed assault.




You can make your own definitions but it doesn't make them official. M16's are produced for the military, theAR15 is a semi-auto look alike produced for civillians.

Bullshit

Armalite made the AR-15 to sell to the military. The entire history of the AR-15 is tied to selling a rifle to the US military. The immediate predecessor to the AR-15 was the AR-10 (essentially a 7.62N weapon that looks almost exactly like an AR-15) which was rejected by the US Army back in th 1950's. The AR-15 was developed at the direct request of General Willard Wyman as an entrant to the .223 caliber weapon program.





Thanks for the little tid big on gun history but what I stated is correct. The M 16 is military and the Ar 15 is a semi auto look alike. So bullshit on your bullshit.


Wrong again.

The designation M16 is simply what the military calls the selective fire AR-15's they bought. It's like how the M9 is also the Beretta 92F.




OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? (7/23/2012 3:09:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Without the NRA You would have been regulated to muzzle loaders long time ago.


Without the NRA, people would be buying guns responsibly, with waiting periods and background checks, and not stocking up at gun shows -- like Holmes just did.


You keep going on about that...but the fact remains that it varies by state and a lot of states already have waiting periods and background checks......whether the guns are bought at a gun show or not.




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375