Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The ignorance of liberals


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:22:34 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Ayn Rand was 100% pro-abortion and an atheist. Perhaps you are confusing her with Rick Santorum.

Ann rand was a punkassmotherfucking liar who tried to defraud the u.s. govt.

Whom do you think creates jobs? The poor? Exactly where does the money come from that funds these companies? People who made money and who have money and who take risks to make even more money.


You are abysmally ignorant. A job is created for the purpose of making the job creator money.Without an employee there is no job.

Why is it that antithetical philosophies in geographically identical areas result in antithetical results -- i.e., West Germany and the East Germany? Could it have been the differences in the economic systems perhaps?

Perhaps you were unaware that e. germany was one of the ten top economies in the world. I believe that your bias has crippled your intellect.

As far as the Earth's being created in 6 days -- that's about the same as saying in the 1970s that the planet was facing and impending ice age and that today global warming is going to kill us all. They're both pseudo-science.

Actually it is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion that is psuedo science.

Defense spending made lower? It's already low.

Obviously you are innumerate and cannot read.


But if you'd like to see the "benefits" of low defense spending, I suggest you look the Britain's navy circa the late 1930s and the good that did them;

It was britains navy that saved her ass. But those who choose to learn history from the tv will forever be ignorant fools.



or you could simply look around the world today and see how our LordGodObama is perceived by our enemies (laughable) and friends (contemptible).

No...that would be your opinion...why don't you own it instead of trying to pimp your moronic ignorance on others?



No one is going to ban same-sex marriage via the constitution any more than Lister's germ theory is going to banned. That's political talk and prattle,

You think the comstock laws were just political prattle...what a fucking moron.


well unless of course the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama so loves

Would you have any validation for this ignorant unsubstantiated bullshit?


takes a greater part in our country in which case there will be no need to ban same-sex marriage since all gays will simply be executed. Instead of easy targets such as opponents of gay marriage, I suggest leftists focus their targets on the shari'a advocates and Muslims who want to execute gays. Just a bit of a difference there and, dressed in your niqab, it will be pretty hard to stop those executions.

Just like christians want to murder those they disagree with.



(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:24:52 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline 		What are those pointy things in the pictures of the clips, there, M4M?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:28:36 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
The bullshit gets even stupider. Does anyone really believe that crap ? I would like to see this demonstrated. However close to a minute you can manage to get, loading 3 more 30 round magazines firing a total of 100 rounds, I'd be interested to see how many of those rounds can hit 100 different targets.

The fact is, if someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, at a place where everyone is unarmed, it doesn't freakin matter what type of firearm you have. Most any type of weapon outside of the semi automatic class will suffice and create as much or more carnage.

Or just use a car or a truck as a weapon, or gasoline or propane, or swords, or derail a train...

or fertilizer


I understand your a politically conservative sort of guy. But take it from me, bring up 'fertilizer' is not a good idea. In US History, fertilizer served to help a pair of political conservatives to 'give' this nation the awful event of 4/19/95.....

And I'm sure you did not have that in mind when making the comment. But I think lovmuffin's and Sanity's rants fall on the line of 'dumb things to say on the subject'. If Americans were limited to muskets, as per the 2nd amendment (a REALLY 'old school', conservative standpoint) could not create mass murder. The fastest time I've seen in 17.3 seconds in reloading and firing (accurately). That's quite a difference from a weapon that can fire many times that within the same time period, (accurately again) and reload a dozen seconds quicker.

I have a question, BamaD....

If your as good a shot as you claim, why do you need fourteen, nineteen or more rounds in your magazine for the pistol/rifle? Since most people do not encounter hordes of people attacking them. Nor 'massive zombie plague' either. In both cases, I could understand the need for additional ammunition in the magazine, exceeding the 'Democratic 10' (Democrats and gun controllers favoring a 10-round magazine). Are you REALLY so bad of a shot that you cant place three rounds down range, accurately?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:29:10 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????


1.) A restraining order prohibits a person from coming into contact with a certain other person or persons.
It has nothing to do with licences or permits to carry firearms.

2.) If the criminal has already decided to violate one law (restraining order), what makes you think he'd suddenly grow a conscience and respect another law (atempted/murder)?


The question about #1 is why it has noting to do with licenses or permits to carry firearms, that is the point. Do you know why a restraining order is issued? It is issued because someone is felt to be threat to the other person, and usually only is issued when the person being served with it has shown a propensity to violence, where they pose a threat to the complaintent. So by what twisted logic, when that person has shown he is a threat to another person, should he be allowed to carry guns?

Your number 2 argument is even further proof...you take the gun away from the guy because if he does violate the restraining order, it is more than likely he will then do violence upon his target, and wtf do you let a guy have a gun who if he does violate that order, allow him to have a gun? Someone with a restraining order should be immediately ineligible to bear arms...put it this way, in law enforcement, if a cop gets into a violent altercation, a domestic dispute or has an order of protection put against him, he automatically has to turn in his guns (or at least, that is SOP here in NJ and in NYC as far as I know).

A restraining order against someone indicates they are otherwise compromised in judgement, so why would you allow them to keep a gun? It is like telling a two year old they can't stick a knife in a socket, then letting the kid run around the house with a knife, assuming that he won't stick it in an outlet because you said no. Any parent with half a brain would make sure the kid didn't have access to a knife or other metalic thing capable of going into the outlet, if he demonstrated a desire to do so.

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:30:43 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

A while back, I started a thread pointing out the commonplace ignorance of guns among the anti-gun crowd. An article I ran across today takes it quite a bit further, pointing out the widespread ignorance of pretty much anything beyond their own opinions in the media community. I thought It was a good read, with some pretty darn amusing links embedded throughout. Enjoy!


http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/09/media-ignorance-becoming-serious-problem/



Two reality checks here.

First, the article is about media ignorance, by title, but is really about ignorance of our own 20th century history. While this piece is anecdotal, the problem is not limited to this guy, but is endemic in a pathetically sub-standard educational system that's a shadow of what it was a few decades ago.

And second, being a gun expert is not necessarily relevant to social issues like gun violence.

In fairness, though, I certainly agree that (a) generic knowledge is a good thing, and that (2) public positions should be well-informed, and this is a dreadful display of ignorance.

Your post title, though, belies that we could line up many people, conservative and yes, liberal, who are clueless. And who don't really care about that ignorance.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:37:23 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

semi-automatic weapons are not automatic weapons. one trigger pull results in one bullet fired.

I understand that, but the refresh rate on a semi automatic weapon means you can fire bullets pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger. Assuming refresh time of 1/sec (ie between pulls it takes one second) means that the person could fire 60 rounds/minute, and that is not slow. It is more rapid fire than you can do with let's say a revolver, and from what I recall a rifle in semi automatic mode can fire a lot faster than a semi automatic pistol.

I fully understand the difference between a semi automatic and a fully automatic weapon, they are orders of magnitude different. What I have been trying to say is that semi automatic rifles like the AR15 and so forth, can still shoot at a rate that allows someone to kill a lot more victims faster then if they had let's say a semi automatic pistol or a revolver or a hunting rifle or a standard shotgun. Combine a relatively hire fire rate and a large capacity magazine and someone can kill a lot of people quickly without needing to reload. Even though a semi automatic pistol can be reloaded quickly, it is likely that given how many times someone needs to reload, someone could have the time to disarm the shooter, which with some clown with let's say an AR15 with a large magazine they won't be able to.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:39:08 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think the dead people care.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:41:40 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
The idea that an assault weapon is only the military full automatic mode is a matter of semantics, because among other things, military weapons can fire both semi and fully automatic modes.


1.) Uh, no. There is a HUMONGOUS legal distinction between a semi-automatic and a full-automatic weapon.

2.) "Among other things", just because a full-auto weapon is also capable of semi-auto operation (as well as single-shot operation, for many models), does NOT automatically* mean that the reverse is true. A semi-automatic weapon will release only one bullet per trigger pull.

* pun intended

quote:

... the point is that a weapon that can fire a hundred rounds a minute, can hold large magazines and can have them changed rapidly, is a weapon designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, pure and simple, and by its very nature that is a military weapon, not something appropriate for civilian use.


Hm, I guess once we start creating legal frameworks based on nebulous considerations of what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate", it's hard to stop. Eh, don't worry about things that can be concretely delineated and tested, such as "is this weapon capable of fully-automatic operation? YES/NO" and "is it able to mount a grenade launcher attachment? YES/NO"... let's focus on "ZOMFG, it's big & black & looks scary, so I guess it's, like, inappropriate, or something" (which is the exact thinking behind the hare-brained NY SAFE law, among other things).

quote:

I have no problems with a semi automatic rifle being sold that is basically the same thing as the military model, all I want to see is the firing rate, magazine capacity and reload ability made so that it reduces the ability to kill as many people as they can.


Military models are hell of a lot more destructive than anything commercially available, so this statement makes no sense whatsoever.

quote:

... and with semi automatic weapons commonly called assault weapons, the name is meaningless


Damn right it's meaningless. Because referring to semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons" is utterly, completely, and totally wrong. The term is misused this way intentionally, by the media and the anti-gun nuts like Dianne Feinstein (who, BTW, has a personal license to carry AND armed security, goddamn hypocrite that she is) and Piers Morgan (who also has armed security - armed with the very same semi-auto AR-15's that he denounces on TV).

quote:

I also quite honestly find it a bit pathetic that grown people actually take something out of carrying a weapon that looks like a military weapon


It's not a matter of looks, it's a matter of features / abilities.



Every item in the above image has a purpose and a reason to be there. But because they "look" scary, there are people who'd love to ban them (and already have, in some states).

There's a reason for buying guns that may "look scary" to the untrained eye. A black coated rifle is less likely to spook a deer, or in the case of home defense, less likely to be noticed by intruders. Accessory rails are there not to look cool, but to allow attachments like flashlights and rangefinders. Etc, etc.


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:48:31 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????

1.) A restraining order prohibits a person from coming into contact with a certain other person or persons.
It has nothing to do with licences or permits to carry firearms.
2.) If the criminal has already decided to violate one law (restraining order), what makes you think he'd suddenly grow a conscience and respect another law (atempted/murder)?


The question about #1 is why it has noting to do with licenses or permits to carry firearms, that is the point. Do you know why a restraining order is issued? It is issued because someone is felt to be threat to the other person, and usually only is issued when the person being served with it has shown a propensity to violence, where they pose a threat to the complaintent. So by what twisted logic, when that person has shown he is a threat to another person, should he be allowed to carry guns?

Your number 2 argument is even further proof...you take the gun away from the guy because if he does violate the restraining order, it is more than likely he will then do violence upon his target, and wtf do you let a guy have a gun who if he does violate that order, allow him to have a gun? Someone with a restraining order should be immediately ineligible to bear arms...put it this way, in law enforcement, if a cop gets into a violent altercation, a domestic dispute or has an order of protection put against him, he automatically has to turn in his guns (or at least, that is SOP here in NJ and in NYC as far as I know).

A restraining order against someone indicates they are otherwise compromised in judgement, so why would you allow them to keep a gun? It is like telling a two year old they can't stick a knife in a socket, then letting the kid run around the house with a knife, assuming that he won't stick it in an outlet because you said no. Any parent with half a brain would make sure the kid didn't have access to a knife or other metalic thing capable of going into the outlet, if he demonstrated a desire to do so.


Ah, so based on a potential misuse of a weapon against a specific person, the entire right should be abrogated? Nice legal precedent. SMH.

And, BTW, a restraining order doesn't "indicate" someone is "compromised in judgment". Tempers flare, and people say/threaten things they don't mean. Which sometimes results in an RO being issued. However, that does not make them instantly & permanently crazy. You seem to be equating people with RO's against them, with those who have been actually adjudicated mentally unstable by a court. I understand the purpose - let's deny gun permits to as many people as we can, on as varying a basis as we can - but, seriously, you have to draw the line somewhere.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:52:13 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????

1.) A restraining order prohibits a person from coming into contact with a certain other person or persons.
It has nothing to do with licences or permits to carry firearms.

2.) If the criminal has already decided to violate one law (restraining order), what makes you think he'd suddenly grow a conscience and respect another law (atempted/murder)?


The question about #1 is why it has noting to do with licenses or permits to carry firearms, that is the point. Do you know why a restraining order is issued? It is issued because someone is felt to be threat to the other person, and usually only is issued when the person being served with it has shown a propensity to violence, where they pose a threat to the complaintent. So by what twisted logic, when that person has shown he is a threat to another person, should he be allowed to carry guns?

Your number 2 argument is even further proof...you take the gun away from the guy because if he does violate the restraining order, it is more than likely he will then do violence upon his target, and wtf do you let a guy have a gun who if he does violate that order, allow him to have a gun? Someone with a restraining order should be immediately ineligible to bear arms...put it this way, in law enforcement, if a cop gets into a violent altercation, a domestic dispute or has an order of protection put against him, he automatically has to turn in his guns (or at least, that is SOP here in NJ and in NYC as far as I know).

A restraining order against someone indicates they are otherwise compromised in judgement, so why would you allow them to keep a gun? It is like telling a two year old they can't stick a knife in a socket, then letting the kid run around the house with a knife, assuming that he won't stick it in an outlet because you said no. Any parent with half a brain would make sure the kid didn't have access to a knife or other metalic thing capable of going into the outlet, if he demonstrated a desire to do so.


You might be able to 'school' her on guns from the stand point of how they mechanically operate. But mechanical operation of a firearm is not being discussion here. Its whether common sense and wisdom should dictate firearm policy as it relates to others being threaten by someone whom can easily obtain said arms in society. Forcing the person issuing the restraining order to 'obtain' a firearm to protect themselves from the gun nut (who is issued the restraining order), is not liberty nor 'exercising one's right to the 2nd amendment'. An if someone has a history of being violent, why do we as a society allow them to have arms? That's like giving explosives to a terrorist; would you do that too?

Your two points, Mouth4Mistress, is the material gun nuts would spew in reaction. Gun Owners on the other hand, are more likely to side with njlauren. Because Gun Owners feel being sensible, responsible, and honest with firearms is the best way to exercise this liberty. Gun Nuts do not live in the 'Land of Reality', and want a gun for any reason without law or hinderance.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:56:42 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
semi-automatic weapons are not automatic weapons. one trigger pull results in one bullet fired.

I understand that, but the refresh rate on a semi automatic weapon means you can fire bullets pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger. Assuming refresh time of 1/sec (ie between pulls it takes one second) means that the person could fire 60 rounds/minute, and that is not slow. It is more rapid fire than you can do with let's say a revolver, and from what I recall a rifle in semi automatic mode can fire a lot faster than a semi automatic pistol.

I fully understand the difference between a semi automatic and a fully automatic weapon, they are orders of magnitude different. What I have been trying to say is that semi automatic rifles like the AR15 and so forth, can still shoot at a rate that allows someone to kill a lot more victims faster then if they had let's say a semi automatic pistol or a revolver or a hunting rifle or a standard shotgun. Combine a relatively hire fire rate and a large capacity magazine and someone can kill a lot of people quickly without needing to reload. Even though a semi automatic pistol can be reloaded quickly, it is likely that given how many times someone needs to reload, someone could have the time to disarm the shooter, which with some clown with let's say an AR15 with a large magazine they won't be able to.


Thanks to this insane troll logic, mass shooters have started carrying multiple WEAPONS, so they don't have to reload the mags. Drop the 1st gun, keep firing with the 2nd. Or, reload the 1st one-handed if you brought a harness.

Limiting magazine size has done absolutely nothing to reduce mass shootings. Holmes brought a rifle, a shotgun, and 2 handguns to the Aurora movie theater. Adam Lanza brought the same layout - rifle + shotgun + 2 pistols, although he only used the rifle before killing himself, and left the shotgun in the trunk.

Gun-control advocates are stuck on "It's never the murderer that's the problem, it's always the tool" fallacy. The problem is not the tool, the problem is the intent of the mind that's controlling the hand that's holding the tool.

I'm just waiting for the day some maniac brings a flamethrower, roasts a dozen people, and the same people will find themselves trying to ban gasoline. After all, if we're blaming the tools and not the people, that would be the consistent thing to do.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:56:46 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sorry, Lauren, but your buckets of wallpaper paste bore the shit out of me. I get up in the morning.

Everybody here knows that the truth bores the shit out of you. So what is new?


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:58:09 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



Any semi-automatic rifle is ready to fire again as soon as the action cycles. AR-form rifles are no different in this regard. And unless you enjoy sounding like an ignorant idiot, I would advise you to stop referring to a magazine as a "clip" and to semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons".

K.





I must agree that the use of the word clip for magazine is irritating. I have to ask why you do not point this difference out to ignorant posters whom you agree with?
Which mitary style rifle is not an assault weapon?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:58:29 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Gun Nuts do not live in the 'Land of Reality', and want a gun for any reason without law or hinderance.


I'm not a "gun nut", I don't even own a firearm.

But I have a huge problem with people who would like to destroy constitutional rights based on a transient and narrowly-focused issue.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 10:59:19 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		yes I KNOWWWW there are PROs out there that could, but I doubt I COULD

No they cannot.
No one can change the cycle time of the weapon.
No one can change the number of seconds in a minute.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 11:00:12 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I must agree that the use of the word clip for magazine is irritating. I have to ask why you do not point this difference out to ignorant posters whom you agree with?
Which mitary style rifle is not an assault weapon?


This is "military style":



:D :D :D

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 11:00:34 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

In post 43 I mentioned the texas deaths of 6 members of a family, including 4 kids, which has been roundly ignored(what a surprise) well there's more information.
His wife had a restraining order, from a year ago, he shot her sister and the family because they wouldnt tell him where the ex wife was.
the 15 year old that survived despite being shot in the head, called the police because the dumbfuck big man with the gun was on the way to the grandparents house.

Why was he allowed a gun with a restraining order against him? how many innocent people have to die at the hands of disgruntled people armed with a gun????

Texas Massacre Survivor's Courage Saved Grandparents' Lives

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-massacre-survivors-courage-saved-grandparents-lives/story?id=24518195



I didn't see the first post but you raise some good questions. IMO not only should the restraining order stopped him from having a gun his past mental history should have as well. But I haven't seen any information on where he actually got the gun and if it was legal. If they found out someone else got it for them, I think they should go after them also.

As to your second question, as long as there are guns in the world, innocent people will be killed with them and I don't see them going away any time soon. Even if they were outlawed here, they would find a way in. We can't keep out drugs or illegals, why would this be any different.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 11:01:10 AM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

No, that isn't true, and that is the fundamental problem with the argument that a semi automatic rifle like Lanza used is the same as anything else. One of the fundamental truths of semi automatic weapons is they are designed for rapid fire, not accuracy, in use they are designed to rapidly fire and spray. It is like the arguments I have heard gun proponents use that a knife is the same thing as a gun in terms of lethalness, because they both can kill, but that belies the fundamental difference between them, in how fast they can kill and how effectively.


I didn't say that a semi auto firearm is the same as anything else. What I was trying to get through was, though other types of guns may function differently and have different tactical applications, their lethality when shooting up a bunch of unarmed people is or certainly can be pretty much the same or worse. If you had any amount of experience or knowledge concerning firearms, you would know this.

quote:

ORIGINAL:

Put it this way, picture the scenario of Lanza going into the school, but instead of the AR15 with the large magazine, he has a handgun (semi auto, revolver, doesn't matter). He breaks in, and starts firing the gun , he gets a couple of people. He then has to reload, let's say the gun has 10 bullets. During that time, someone could take a garbage can and nail the sob, or pick up a fire hydrant, because it is likely he hasn't been able to kill everyone in the room, whereas with an AR15, he can already have wiped out all the people in the room.

Douchebag goes into a movie theater with a 9mm, and starts shooting, he runs out of bullets, goes to reload, and a couple of guys while he is reloading kick the shit of out him. With an AR15, he will have killed and wounded a lot more people, enough to allow him to put in another magazine and keep firing....

The point being that with a standard gun, handgun or rifle, the victims stand a lot better chance of getting away. If we are talking one person shooting a few people (like the piece of shit in Texas who just wiped out an entire family), it doesn't matter, but if you are talking someone like Adam Lanza or the douchebag in Aurora, CO, it does matter, because when we are talking opening fire in a public place, there is no comparison to the damage that can be done by one of the semi automatic weapons we are talking about versus a standard gun.


Put it this way. A 12 gauge pump shotgun with on the average of 6 round magazines is every bit as lethal as the .223 at the range Lanza used his weapon and then some. It can be easily and quickly uploaded as you're shooting away. Should it look like you're going to be hit with a garbage can while your shotgun is low or empty and you can't reload it fast enough, you simply whip out one of your .357 magnum as fast as you can reload a magazine into a semi auto and shoot the garbage can man. Multiple 6 shooters with a crap load of ammo and speed loaders will suffice for the task at hand as well.

There are plenty of comparisons that can be made between the *results*of a semi auto vs a standard gun (what ever standard gun means) and more weapon types with their own particular tactical applications to kill crap loads of unarmed people.

I will grant you one thing though. A semi automatic, for what ever purpose you have in mind, is or can certainly be a convenience.

quote:

ORIGINAL:


And I suggest you do a little research on the firing capabilities of some of these guns, there was a lot written after the Connecticut shootings.


I suggest you're the one who needs to do a little research, and I don't mean reading a bunch of gun control talking points with the black helicopter analogies and all the rest of it.




_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 11:02:03 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

semi-automatic weapons are not automatic weapons. one trigger pull results in one bullet fired.

I understand that, but the refresh rate on a semi automatic weapon means you can fire bullets pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger. Assuming refresh time of 1/sec (ie between pulls it takes one second) means that the person could fire 60 rounds/minute, and that is not slow. It is more rapid fire than you can do with let's say a revolver, and from what I recall a rifle in semi automatic mode can fire a lot faster than a semi automatic pistol.

I fully understand the difference between a semi automatic and a fully automatic weapon, they are orders of magnitude different. What I have been trying to say is that semi automatic rifles like the AR15 and so forth, can still shoot at a rate that allows someone to kill a lot more victims faster then if they had let's say a semi automatic pistol or a revolver or a hunting rifle or a standard shotgun. Combine a relatively hire fire rate and a large capacity magazine and someone can kill a lot of people quickly without needing to reload. Even though a semi automatic pistol can be reloaded quickly, it is likely that given how many times someone needs to reload, someone could have the time to disarm the shooter, which with some clown with let's say an AR15 with a large magazine they won't be able to.


whats the refresh rate on a bomb?


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/11/2014 11:03:00 AM   
Mouth4Mistress


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/8/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
As to your second question, as long as there are guns in the world, innocent people will be killed with them and I don't see them going away any time soon.


Exactly. Bad people will continue doing bad things, with sticks and rocks if they have to.

The line between good and evil is not drawn across borders, but across hearts.

quote:

Even if they were outlawed here, they would find a way in. We can't keep out drugs or illegals, why would this be any different.



(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109