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.
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
The 2017 Sutherland Springs Texas church shooting. Would the bystander who engaged the killer been less likely to do so if he carried a weapon with a smaller magazine capacity and smaller effective range is really unknowable. Just as we don't know if the murderer would have went after more targets after the massacre in the church if not wounded by the bystander.
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
The AR-15 is a common firearm which is used in a minuscule number of firearms crime and an infinitesimally small percentage of crime in general. Banning it would be the equivalent of banning Bic brand cigarette lighters to stop arson.
At this point, the AR-15 is in small danger of being banned. After November, when the DNC gets hammered in the midterms, the chances of a ban will be even smaller. If you want them banned, it falls on you to prove that banning the AR-15 would have a positive net effect. Considering that the last ban on “assault weapons” was as useless as nipples on a boar, I wish you luck.
I have neither the time, energy, or desire to find “evidence” that the AR-15 was key in the defense of someone’s life, even though there are plenty of reports of the AR and similar rifles being used for defense. There are more than 20 million so-called “assault rifles” in the U.S. Less than 400 rifles (a category which includes the AR-15) were used to commit homicide in 2020 according to the FBI. The AR-15 is hardly the problem that the powers-that-be would have you believe.
Hmm, why would the party that constantly tries to end-run and undermine the Constitution want to ban the style of rifle which gives civilians a form of parity with the average soldier?
Cops were afraid to apprehend a perp with an AR during Uvalde. Think about that for a minute.
The ode weapons are designed to rip you to shreds. Which it literally did to those kids, which made many of their bodies unidentifiable.
Using the cataclysmic failure of government agents to do their job as an argument to disarm citizens is ridiculous. Those cops would have been scared of a BB gun.
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
Someone tries to invade my house I'll protect it with an AR15. Like this pregnant woman did.
"A pregnant Florida woman, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, gunned down one of two home invaders who had broken in and were pistol whipping her husband, officials said Monday."
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
Just curious, why you are picking the AR-15, and not a Ruger M400, S&W M&P Sport, Springfield Hellion, KelTec RDB, Rock River Arms Elite Carbine, MCM CETME, Colt LE6920, IWI Tavor, Sig M400, POF Minuteman, Arsenal SAM5, or any one of the hundreds of semi auto rifles out there ?
I don’t wanna disarm citizens. I just don’t think a weapon like that should be easily obtainable.
It is much safer to lower regulations to make it easier as well as less expensive to get a gun. It worked wonders for Brazil.
"By November 2021, Mr. Bolsonaro had made 32 changes to ease Brazil’s gun laws. Brazilians were allowed to own more and more-powerful guns—up to six guns and up to .50 caliber, the same maximum caliber as the U.S.
Instead of surging, crime declined sharply in Brazil. In three years under Mr. Bolsonaro, the homicide rate has fallen 34%, to 18.5 per 100,000."
I don’t wanna disarm citizens. I just don’t think a weapon like that should be easily obtainable.
sure you do. with that logic, one can make the case that any bullet can cause death, disfigurement, bodily harm. why stop at the AR? ultimately, there are many who aspire to be like New Jersey where you can’t even possess pepper spray.
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.
