Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up....
.... a get-together, or a public place like a store, office, concert, etc. festival where probably several out of a hundred people were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is often to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a school etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd or campus were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone were contemplating killing people, but knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
Admittedly didn't read through all the posts. I get the second amendment issue. But could someone explain to me why we couldn't ban military assault weapons like the AR-15 which create a blast effect when entering the human body? What purpose do they serve for civilians? Do you need one to kill a deer?
I mean, we use common sense and outlaw surface to air missiles for civilians and other military equipment. Am I right?
Admittedly didn't read through all the posts. I get the second amendment issue. But could someone explain to me why we couldn't ban military assault weapons like the AR-15 which create a blast effect when entering the human body? What purpose do they serve for civilians? Do you need one to kill a deer?
I mean, we use common sense and outlaw surface to air missiles for civilians and other military equipment. Am I right?
Before commenting, at least do a little research.
An AR-15 is just a basic mag fed semi auto rifle, and it's never been used in any military. Not to mention, it is widely used for deer and small game hunting.
Meh on the surface to air missile. It's too tough to fit in a backpack, and not a real good choice for personal protection.
An AR-15 is just a basic mag fed semi auto rifle, and it's never been used in any military. Not to mention, it is widely used for deer and small game hunting.
Meh on the surface to air missile. It's too tough to fit in a backpack, and not a real good choice for personal protection.
Ouch.
But okay I did do a little research.
"There have been two different firearms, both with the name AR-15. The original was designed by a group of people working at Armalite. It was intended for use by the military. But the design was sold to Colt. They further refined it. The design was field tested by the Army during the Viet Nam War as the AR-15. At a later time it was adopted and standardized as the M-16. Subsequent to that, Colt decided to market it for civilian use. They made a redesigned version of it."
So arguably we're both kinda right. But fair point that it was not used by the military despite originally being designed for the purpose of war.
Maybe we should call it a bullet exploding weapon? But I still don't get it's use for hunting. If you use it for deer and small game hunting, won't you be chewing on a lot of buckshot?
So, still can't wrap my brain around why civilians need assault weapons (originally designed for use by the military). Help me understand why it's necessary......
Last edited by Shallow Hal; 04-03-2023 at 12:00 PM..
"There have been two different firearms, both with the name AR-15. The original was designed by a group of people working at Armalite. It was intended for use by the military. But the design was sold to Colt. They further refined it. The design was field tested by the Army during the Viet Nam War as the AR-15. At a later time it was adopted and standardized as the M-16. Subsequent to that, Colt decided to market it for civilian use. They made a redesigned version of it."
So arguably we're both kinda right. But fair point that it was not used by the military despite originally being designed for the purpose of war.
Maybe we should call it a bullet exploding weapon? But I still don't get it's use for hunting. If you use it for deer and small game hunting, won't you be chewing on a lot of buckshot?
So, still can't wrap my brain around why civilians need assault weapons (originally designed for use by the military). Help me understand why it's necessary......
You missed a key point between the Armalite 15 and the civilian AR-15....select fire.
Not sure what your hang up is with this whole "military" thing, though. A firearm is a firearm When it's negligently or nefariously used, it really doesn't matter much.
You really lost me with this one. Not exactly sure what you mean.
Maybe we should call it a bullet exploding weapon? But I still don't get it's use for hunting. If you use it for deer and small game hunting, won't you be chewing on a lot of buckshot?
Look at where MOST of the gun violence occurs and get back to us!
Another reason people should have to pass a test BEFORE being able to vote!
The USA!?? and its not even close! In fact its not even close to being close! Certainly amongst 1st World countries........the US is still considered 1st World isn't it?
Maybe we should call it a bullet exploding weapon? But I still don't get it's use for hunting. If you use it for deer and small game hunting, won't you be chewing on a lot of buckshot?
Not sure where I lost you on this. I was referring to hunters that eat what they shoot. Does that clarify that statement?
"Not sure what your hang up is with this whole "military" thing, though. A firearm is a firearm When it's negligently or nefariously used, it really doesn't matter much."
Huh, hung up on the military. Don't think so as many in my family are in the military. So I'd have to disagree with you on that point. You took issue with my statement that I didn't do any research and I acknowledged that and responded in kind. Saying that I have a hang up and disregarding the research that does not wholly support your argument is gas lighting IMO.
But a bullet that explodes in the body is a whole lot harder for a surgeon to try to fix. It matters if the survival rate is close to nil. But I do get your point about firearms are firearms when used with negligence and nefarious purposes.
Maybe we should call it a bullet exploding weapon? But I still don't get it's use for hunting. If you use it for deer and small game hunting, won't you be chewing on a lot of buckshot?
Not sure where I lost you on this. I was referring to hunters that eat what they shoot. Does that clarify that statement?
"Not sure what your hang up is with this whole "military" thing, though. A firearm is a firearm When it's negligently or nefariously used, it really doesn't matter much."
Huh, hung up on the military. Don't think so as many in my family are in the military. So I'd have to disagree with you on that point. You took issue with my statement that I didn't do any research and I acknowledged that and responded in kind. Saying that I have a hang up and disregarding the research that does not wholly support your argument is gas lighting IMO.
But a bullet that explodes in the body is a whole lot harder for a surgeon to try to fix. It matters if the survival rate is close to nil. But I do get your point about firearms are firearms when used with negligence and nefarious purposes.
Wow. I can't have a rational discussion with someone that is either completely unknowledgable on the subject, completely ignorant, or is purposely being disingenuous.
First off, i thought we were talking about the semi auto rifle (AR15), so i have no clue why you are bringing up buckshot. Secondly, bullets don't "explode", they may fragment, and if one is using personal protection rounds they do expand or mushroom.
And again, you are losing me with the military thing. The discussion is about semi auto rifles, not firearms the military uses.
Either way, i'm out. I just can't follow your train of thought. Maybe someone else will pick up the discussion with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
designed for use by the military). Help me understand why it's necessary......
and its not even close! In fact its not even close to being close! Certainly amongst 1st World countries........the US is still considered 1st World isn't it? 