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.
Hmm, interesting. Looks like I gotta get another coffee for a long read.
Now when they say mass shootings, are they referring to just shootings where the goal is to mow down as many as possible? Or does it include crime where bystanders are collateral?
Because while crimes such as robberies and gang shootings are bad harm innocents, often times they’re not the target.
But mass shooters in the dems rig Uvalde/Columbine/Buffalo/El Paso/Pulse etc. are more about just taking out as many innocents as possible. There’s no motive to rob or gain anything but a kill count.
But I am surprised to see that the Virgina Tech shooting was done by a handgun. Now that I recall I do remember that.
So then it isn’t the gun itself that is primarily used. But I still gotta say that the AR did didn’t just kill them, their bodies were shredded up. It’s bad enough that they got shot.
Why would anyone need that kind of firepower?
Please do some research, it's completely obvious you are basing your opinions with zero lack of knowledge.
In the case of the TX school shooting, it was basically point blank range. A 10mm handgun would have the same effect.
Please explain what you mean with "that kind of firepower" ? It's a rifle, like any other semi auto rifle. And in reality, it is on the lower end of the spectrum of "power".
In other words, any of these 2 scenarios would be evidential
Case 1:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun either ceased to act or discontinued their act promptly after a law abiding citizen pulled out an AR-15 , either due to being deterred or was shot in an act of self-defense
Case 2:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun and was not disrupted by any self-defense actions including that of a law abiding citizen with a non-semi-automatic rifle
If we have even one recorded evidence of either or Case 1 or Case 2 I could be more convinced that AR-15 guns provide something that any number of Americans feel they need for their protection. If not then I don’t know why this is needed
Sure, let's ban the AR-15.
Now introducing the brand new AR-XV for sale.
Same gun? Oh heavens no, the new one comes with an optional cup holder and the barrell is 1mm shorter.
You are aware that rifles are used in a small percentage of mass shootings , aren't you ? The majority of them, handguns were used.
Again, explain your logic.
Gun grabbers only care about the highly publicized mass shooting events that they can exploit to try to create a mechanical boogie man in the form of the AR-15.
Garden variety mass shootings that happen with handguns every day in Democrat run crap hole cities aren't worth the time of day to them
In other words, any of these 2 scenarios would be evidential
Case 1:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun either ceased to act or discontinued their act promptly after a law abiding citizen pulled out an AR-15 , either due to being deterred or was shot in an act of self-defense
Case 2:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun and was not disrupted by any self-defense actions including that of a law abiding citizen with a non-semi-automatic rifle
If we have even one recorded evidence of either or Case 1 or Case 2 I could be more convinced that AR-15 guns provide something that any number of Americans feel they need for their protection. If not then I don’t know why this is needed
Simply put why I personally feel I "need" for defensive options is nobody's business but my own. My need do not need yours or anyone else's understanding. That implies that I somehow am obligated to justify myself and I'm not. That is all I have to say...
Scenarios dont matter, your personal opinion does NOT MATTER, nor does my personal opinion matter. And certainly not the beliefs or personal opinions of those anti gun far lefties. What matters is the Constitution of the United States. We have a mechanism to change the Constitution all anti gun folks need to do is follow the Laws of this Nation and if they get enough backing they can change it or eliminate the 2ned Amendment. Once we become a Nation that ignores our own laws for our personal beliefs or the beliefs of our political party or ideology we cease to be a Nation and become some place I wouldn't want to live in. And we seem to have more and more people who think that Laws and rights are optional for the "other guy"..
For many decades the 'American Rifleman' magazine has published an article every month detailed a US citizen who has successfully defended themselves using a firearm.
About two years ago, I mentioned this to a group of friends when a local lawyer interrupted by insisting that this idea is a myth. She insists that nobody has ever defended themselves with a firearm in this nation. As a result, I began sharing on my Facebook page, every week, news articles about firearms being used for self-defense.
There are people who simply are not aware that this happens every week in our nation. and there are people whose world view and ideology are such that they will insist that self-defense never happens.
In the course of sharing these weekly news articles, a few of my friends have countered that they believe it is far more likely for an armed person to have their firearm taken away and to be shot by their own firearm.
I am not aware of any link to a database that documents how many of these self-defense situations have included any specific style of firearm [like an AR15].
In other words, any of these 2 scenarios would be evidential
Case 1:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun either ceased to act or discontinued their act promptly after a law abiding citizen pulled out an AR-15 , either due to being deterred or was shot in an act of self-defense
Case 2:
An unstable person found to have been carrying a loaded gun and was not disrupted by any self-defense actions including that of a law abiding citizen with a non-semi-automatic rifle
If we have even one recorded evidence of either or Case 1 or Case 2 I could be more convinced that AR-15 guns provide something that any number of Americans feel they need for their protection. If not then I don’t know why this is needed
1. Sutherland Springs has been mentioned.
2. There are actually a number of examples of people defending themselves and homes with ARs. Just look.
When Obama was president he had the CDC do a study on defensive uses of guns. When it did not turn out the way he wanted, he tried to bury it. The CDC study estimated there are between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses yearly. And there were certainly many more. The majority don't result in a gun being fired so the police are not called to make a report. I have had to use one to defend myself twice and never reported it either time. Numerous others have said the same.
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.
...I guarantee that 10 is nothing like the original!
