Remember me
▼ Content

Because global warming from emissions is real...



Page 3 of 4<1234>
21-05-2019 18:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
HarveyH55 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]
HarveyH55 wrote:
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.


A few points here...

1. Tell someone who has used an AR on an armed intruder and pumped them full of lead that they didn't really "need" it. You might get a fairly stout response.

2. True, you can't make everything illegal, nor should we. If you're afraid of the nut jobs then the get armed. If guns were made illegal do you think all the thugs would turn them in?

3. Some of the best times with me and my boys are when we go down to the local tractor supply store and get some tanerite. Then we pull out the high powers, ARs, whatever.... and just blow stuff up. It is so much fun! Don't knock it till you've tried it. Then we may do some target shooting or maybe some clays. Doesn't matter. It is tons of fun and great bonding time with my kids. Oh, and you've got an itch to go breaking in our house and threatening our lives, my boys and I will defend if needed. They know their guns well. (yes, they own guns they have actually purchased with lawn mowing money) Are we just backwoods hicks? Nope. Kids are in high school and junior high, they are national honor society students involved in everything from student council to football, baseball, band, and hunting and fishing and too much shit for me to keep up with!!


I guess I really don't "need " that recreational time with my family....but would you like Uncle Samuel to tell me I can't??


You can still do all that 'recreating', without the semiautomatic rifles.
I suppose, but why should the gov tell a law abiding citizen they can't?
Do your kids bring their firearms to school?
I wish they could. I actually brought gus to school on several occasions...hunting or shooting after school with friends. Different time back then. If caught it would have not been a huge deal. Today, you'd go to jail.
How many school shooting have we had in recent years?
each one is another one too many.
There usually isn't any forewarning, just someone starts pulling the trigger.
That's what usually happens to a soft target like a school.
Even if you are carrying, there is going to be a few seconds before you can acquire the target, and squeeze off a few of your own.
You want to attack me... I'm carrying a gun..... or someone else that you know doesn't carry? Your choice.
You have to be careful, since you only want to shoot the nutjob, not a bystander.
Very true.
The nutjob just needs to keep shooting, doesn't care.
And he will keep on shooting until he/she is stopped with deadly force. What did you say was most efficient?
Edited on 21-05-2019 18:05
21-05-2019 18:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.


You two are discussing different things and talking past each other.

@ dehammer, James__ is talking about the NRA
@ James__, dehammer is talking about the 2nd Amendment

You are both absolutely correct.

A Brief History of the NRA
Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.


Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2019 18:14
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/


You forget that most people already used guns daily, for food. Did so well into the 1900s. Farmers and ranchers didn't routinely butcher their stock, that was their income. They usually had stock that was sick, injured, or born unmarketable. But mostly, they avoided using their health stock, for personal consumption, as much as possible. They would starve over it, of course, but they relied on hunting, for their meat. It wasn't until the mid 1800's, that organized police forces started to get widespread, not just a big city think. Law enforcement, was still heavily citizen dependent. Cities had a sheriff, or town marshal, peace officer, and usually that was enough. Anything major, and the town's people were brought in as volunteers.
Guns did play a big role in freeing this country, and they do play a role in keeping the government honest.
21-05-2019 18:30
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Just some food for thought here.

Think about outside our boarders....

Even today, who would want to invade to the US when a huge percent of the population is armed?

Don't think for a second it's not a deterrent. Americans just being armed have helped defend this country without firing a shot.
21-05-2019 18:47
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one.

You lose your argument the moment you pretend to declare what other people need or don't need.

You only get to declare what you need or don't need.

So, to correct you, there is absolutely a recreational need for AR-15s to fire AR-15s recreationally. What part of that gives you difficulty?

Question: Were you thinking of outlawing sports because, technically, there is no "need" for them?

HarveyH55 wrote: There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

To correct you, unless you plan on outlawing sports, buying one should be as simple as buying sports equipment.

HarveyH55 wrote: Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything.

Like baseball bats, golf clubs, free weights, ... all sorts of sports equipment. Are you eyeing any sports equipment for background checks or cooling off periods?

HarveyH55 wrote: Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient.

Like baseball bats.

HarveyH55 wrote: Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly.

Going beserk with a baseball bat does that as well.

HarveyH55 wrote: If a high body count is the goal,

If hitting a home run is the goal, a baseball bat is the best choice. If firing accurately at the range is the goal, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.


HarveyH55 wrote: I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun,

You do not know this. You are simply projecting your hoplophobia. So, to correct you, there are millions of Americans who absolutely need their guns for recreational, hunting and self-defense purposes, which is why they have them.

HarveyH55 wrote: which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

Yes, you are definitely projecting hoplophobia. The problem is on your end.


So, your argument get reduced to nonsense and name-calling... Guess you are about out of ammunition.

I'm only giving my thoughts and opinions, not declaring anything.

Shooting lots of people isn't recreation, least not for me.

Clubbing somebody with a baseball bat is a lot of work, seldom successful, just not enough weight to do major damage with each swing. Not usually the weapon of choice, just handy.

I've got no problems with guns, only been shooting a few times since moving to Florida. It kind sucks down here, and the gun ranges, which are pretty much the only safe place to go shooting, are a little questionable. Florida is too flat, not much to stop bullets, naturally. I was taught to always be aware of the line of fire. Bullets can fly a long way.

There are plenty of guns to use, just don't see the need of semiautomatics, where any other kind can get the job done just as well. Guns aren't toys, the recreation reference kind of doesn't apply. Perhaps it's my growing up in a different time, different environment, which semiautomatic guns were very rare.

The truth is that most gun owners never shoot, or even draw them on another human being. It's not that wide spread of a problem, not counting the big city cesspools.

If you need thirty rounds to hit your target, you need more practice. All those misses, are going to hit something, or somebody. Life is nothing like a video game, we only get one chance to live it, just like everyone else around us. The rest of should suffer, because a few think shooting complete strangers is recreational, just like in all those video games they played, or their favorite action movies. Those 20-50 people who get shot every time one of these people cut loose, are important, and a great loss to somebody. Hopefully, none of us experience such a senseless loss, or become on of the victims, simple because we went to church, grocery shopping, a movie or concert.
21-05-2019 18:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/


You forget that most people already used guns daily, for food. Did so well into the 1900s. Farmers and ranchers didn't routinely butcher their stock, that was their income. They usually had stock that was sick, injured, or born unmarketable. But mostly, they avoided using their health stock, for personal consumption, as much as possible. They would starve over it, of course, but they relied on hunting, for their meat. It wasn't until the mid 1800's, that organized police forces started to get widespread, not just a big city think. Law enforcement, was still heavily citizen dependent. Cities had a sheriff, or town marshal, peace officer, and usually that was enough. Anything major, and the town's people were brought in as volunteers.
Guns did play a big role in freeing this country, and they do play a role in keeping the government honest.



@Harvey,
And now we're in the 21st Century and we should act like we're in the Wild West? Automatic weapons are legal because they are used for hunting. What did people hunt with before automatic weapons were invented and why aren't those weapons sufficient today? As you said, firearms helped to make America what it is today and that those firearms weren't automatic weapons. You're own argument shows that automatic weapons are not needed by civilians.
edited to add;
I am talking specifically about automatic weapons in case you didn't know. When I lived in Washington state, their dept. of natural resources encouraged people to hunt Big Horn sheep. Because of no natural predators they became a threat to the ecosystem. Smaller mammals require under brush which Big Horn sheep eat. Ted Nugent is a big fan of using the bow and arrow but I know most hunters find using a single bolt rifle sufficient. People often ignore the fact that if the animal isn't killed with one shot then adrenaline gets into it's blood stream and will change the taste of it's meat. That is almost never mentioned when it comes to recreational hunting and the need for good marksmanship vs superior fire power.

@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.
Edited on 21-05-2019 18:59
21-05-2019 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936


The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?



There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.


I don't have to move ANYWHERE. I have the 2nd Amendment and you have nothing at all.

Tell us all what you think you can do against the power of the Supreme Court.



The 2nd Amendment allows for muskets and flintlock pistols. You don't even know why the NRA exists. It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted. The NRA doesn't serve that purpose today. It changed. And just as the NRA has changed so to can the Bill of Rights be amended. And when that happens, it will be constitutional. That's how our government works and what people like you will need to accept.


More of your wild eyed mania about the danger of guns. What did they do in NYC? They made it essentially impossible to get a gun and the murder rates went up. How did they respond to that? They made knives illegal. I can put an arrow through you easily at 100 yards - thinking about bow and arrow control? I can run you over - try to make autos illegal.

I do not know where your fear comes from but the 2nd Amendment allows for GUNS and not some specific thing you might believe it to mean. And the courts have so judged.
21-05-2019 18:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote: We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous.

You highlight a serious concern. The government keeps growing ever more powerful every day and now We the People are no longer capable of overthrowing a government that becomes tyrannical. The only control We the People now have is at the ballot box and We the People can only hope and pray that is sufficient. The existence of the 2nd Amendment underscores the Framers' awareness that all governments trend toward tyranny and that all governments trend toward rendering the people defenseless to resist the government should it become tyrannical. As the US government grows bloated with power, day after day, its assault on the 2nd Amendment becomes more intense and never relents.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the attempts by our government to thwart the fair election of Donald Trump, to thwart the will of We the People, to effectively become treasonous with impunity, it seems like just a matter of time before we become another Venezuela or North Korea.

Do you have any idea what happens to an economy when that happens?


James___ wrote: One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare.

Correct! The 2nd Amendment does not delimit which arms We the People are able to bear. We the People carry all authority. We the People should not be limited by any tyrannical government as to which arms We the People shall be able to use to prevent said tyrannical government.

Those words "shall not be infringed" carry a lot of meaning.

James___ wrote: Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?


Those words "shall not be infringed" are very explicit. One cannot be any clearer.

James___ wrote: I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote.

Women always had the right to vote, unless you are claiming that men never had the right to vote either. The question is whether or not that right was enforced. The amendment of the Bill of Rights signaled a new era of enforcement of that right.

James___ wrote: This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right.

The Tenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights an extremely clear definition of who has what right:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Please let me know if you are unclear and I will be more than happy to explain.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2019 19:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.


So you defeat our military...then what? To control the people you have to get past there guns. You think military personnel and law enforcement are the only ones willing to die for their country??
21-05-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/


You forget that most people already used guns daily, for food. Did so well into the 1900s.

They still do.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Farmers and ranchers didn't routinely butcher their stock, that was their income.

Depends on the stock.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They usually had stock that was sick, injured, or born unmarketable. But mostly, they avoided using their health stock, for personal consumption, as much as possible. They would starve over it, of course, but they relied on hunting, for their meat.

Depends on their stock. Guns are also used to protect that stock. They are used to protect crops. Even vegetarians depend on the gun and hunting.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It wasn't until the mid 1800's, that organized police forces started to get widespread, not just a big city think. Law enforcement, was still heavily citizen dependent. Cities had a sheriff, or town marshal, peace officer, and usually that was enough. Anything major, and the town's people were brought in as volunteers.

Depends on the size of the town. In many towns, it's still done that way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Guns did play a big role in freeing this country, and they do play a role in keeping the government honest.

They also continue to play a role in protecting crops, livestock, and in keeping the ranch or farm secure from criminals.


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2019 19:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just some food for thought here.

Think about outside our boarders....

Even today, who would want to invade to the US when a huge percent of the population is armed?

Don't think for a second it's not a deterrent. Americans just being armed have helped defend this country without firing a shot.


Some people in Japan did, during WW2, but many realized the terrible cost that would result from the attempt.


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2019 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one.

You lose your argument the moment you pretend to declare what other people need or don't need.

You only get to declare what you need or don't need.

So, to correct you, there is absolutely a recreational need for AR-15s to fire AR-15s recreationally. What part of that gives you difficulty?

Question: Were you thinking of outlawing sports because, technically, there is no "need" for them?

HarveyH55 wrote: There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

To correct you, unless you plan on outlawing sports, buying one should be as simple as buying sports equipment.

HarveyH55 wrote: Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything.

Like baseball bats, golf clubs, free weights, ... all sorts of sports equipment. Are you eyeing any sports equipment for background checks or cooling off periods?

HarveyH55 wrote: Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient.

Like baseball bats.

HarveyH55 wrote: Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly.

Going beserk with a baseball bat does that as well.

HarveyH55 wrote: If a high body count is the goal,

If hitting a home run is the goal, a baseball bat is the best choice. If firing accurately at the range is the goal, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.


HarveyH55 wrote: I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun,

You do not know this. You are simply projecting your hoplophobia. So, to correct you, there are millions of Americans who absolutely need their guns for recreational, hunting and self-defense purposes, which is why they have them.

HarveyH55 wrote: which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

Yes, you are definitely projecting hoplophobia. The problem is on your end.


So, your argument get reduced to nonsense and name-calling... Guess you are about out of ammunition.

I'm only giving my thoughts and opinions, not declaring anything.

Shooting lots of people isn't recreation, least not for me.

Clubbing somebody with a baseball bat is a lot of work, seldom successful, just not enough weight to do major damage with each swing. Not usually the weapon of choice, just handy.

I've got no problems with guns, only been shooting a few times since moving to Florida. It kind sucks down here, and the gun ranges, which are pretty much the only safe place to go shooting, are a little questionable. Florida is too flat, not much to stop bullets, naturally. I was taught to always be aware of the line of fire. Bullets can fly a long way.

There are plenty of guns to use, just don't see the need of semiautomatics, where any other kind can get the job done just as well. Guns aren't toys, the recreation reference kind of doesn't apply. Perhaps it's my growing up in a different time, different environment, which semiautomatic guns were very rare.

The truth is that most gun owners never shoot, or even draw them on another human being. It's not that wide spread of a problem, not counting the big city cesspools.

If you need thirty rounds to hit your target, you need more practice. All those misses, are going to hit something, or somebody. Life is nothing like a video game, we only get one chance to live it, just like everyone else around us. The rest of should suffer, because a few think shooting complete strangers is recreational, just like in all those video games they played, or their favorite action movies. Those 20-50 people who get shot every time one of these people cut loose, are important, and a great loss to somebody. Hopefully, none of us experience such a senseless loss, or become on of the victims, simple because we went to church, grocery shopping, a movie or concert.

Actually, the thick vegetation you have down there is pretty good at stopping bullets.

Semiautomatic guns have been common for a long time, since before you were born.


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2019 19:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote:So, your argument get reduced to nonsense and name-calling... Guess you are about out of ammunition.

I was not presenting any argument. I simply rebutted every single one of your points ... and apparently you have no response.

If you are getting "triggered" that I am referring to your hoplophobia, get over it. The problem is on your end. Go see a counsellor; address your issue. Just don't go apeshit when the rest of the world doesn't rally around your mindless panic at the concept of an inanimate object.

HarveyH55 wrote: I'm only giving my thoughts and opinions, not declaring anything.

Boolsch'et. You just took great offense at a differing view. You take this issue personally. The problem is on your end. You really should see someone about it.

HarveyH55 wrote: Shooting lots of people isn't recreation, least not for me.

Equating recreational shooting or hunting or carrying for self defense with "shooting lots of people" is completely irrational and should be a red flag to you that you have a phobia. You clearly try to blame other people for your abject fear of certain inanimate objects; your concern is greatly misplaced.

HarveyH55 wrote: Clubbing somebody with a baseball bat is a lot of work, seldom successful,

Are you under the impression that clubbing someone with fists is as easy and as efficient as with a baseball bat? You have got to be out of your mind, ... which I think has been my point regarding the topic of firearms. If your irrational fear were of baseball bats as it is with firearms, you'd be lamenting the existence of MLB as there being no "need" for the league.

HarveyH55 wrote: ... just not enough weight to do major damage with each swing.


This just in ...

Coroner IDs Las Vegas woman killed with a baseball bat
By Rio Lacanlale Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 20, 2019 - 1:37 pm

A woman who police say was bludgeoned to death on Friday by her husband with a baseball bat has been identified as a 31-year-old Las Vegas resident.

On Friday afternoon, the couple's teenage son ran from the Summerhill Pointe Apartments near Sahara Avenue and Fort Apache Road to a nearby gas station to call 911 for help for his mother, Zvjezdana Bencun.

Officers had to climb through an open bedroom window, where they found Bencun on a bed bleeding from a head injury. Lying beside her was her 37-year-old husband, later identified as Slobodan Miljus, who was conscious but did not immediately respond to officers' commands, according to the Metropolitan Police Department. He eventually complied and was taken into custody.


HarveyH55 wrote: I've got no problems with guns,

Oh sure, I completely take that at face value.

HarveyH55 wrote: There are plenty of guns to use, just don't see the need of semiautomatics, where any other kind can get the job done just as well.

Once again, you are back to declaring others' "lack of need." Your argument is summarily dismissed. Do needs not exist if you are not aware of them? Do needs of other people not exist if you do not share those needs? Your argument is absolutely stupid.

HarveyH55 wrote: Guns aren't toys, the recreation reference kind of doesn't apply.

Let's see if you have started making sense ...

Recreational vehicles are not toys. Wait, the recreation reference applies.
ATVs are not toys. Wait, the recreation reference applies here as well.
Parachutes are not toys. "Recreation" applies to skydiving.
Life vests are not toys. One should absolutely have one while recreationally boating.
Guns are not toys. Relaxing at the shooting range is ... well, look at that ... it's recreation! Go figure.

Nope, you haven't started making sense,

HarveyH55 wrote: Perhaps it's my growing up in a different time, different environment, which semiautomatic guns were very rare.

Where I was raised, guns were practically illegal. To fire guns, my friends and I had to fire illegally in remote areas. I grew up in an environment where my right to bear arms was heavily infringed and I did not appreciate it.

I take it you however did appreciate having your rights infringed. Are there any other rights you don't particularly "need" and feel others don't "need" them either?

HarveyH55 wrote:The truth is that most gun owners never shoot, or even draw them on another human being. It's not that wide spread of a problem, not counting the big city cesspools.

Where do you believe that carrying firearms prevents crime most?

HarveyH55 wrote: If you need thirty rounds to hit your target, you need more practice.

How many small game do you personally bag on the first shot? Are you aware that even olympic shooters miss? Are you aware that a hunter can fire more than thirty rounds and come home empty-handed.

So, to correct you, the number of rounds needed to hit a target depends a lot on the target. A lot.

HarveyH55 wrote: All those misses, are going to hit something, or somebody.

Except when they don't.

HarveyH55 wrote: The rest of should suffer, because a few think shooting complete strangers is recreational, just like in all those video games they played, or their favorite action movies.

You do not have a rational view; you do not have a grip on reality.

HarveyH55 wrote: Those 20-50 people who get shot every time one of these people cut loose, are important, and a great loss to somebody.

Who are you talking about? Wait, let me guess ...

You are specifically referring exclusively to cases where someone who is mentally deranged specifically seeks out one of the abundant defenselessness zones (aka "gun free zones") to act on emotional distress, yes?

... and let me guess, your response to such events is to mandate even more defenselessness zones, yes?

HarveyH55 wrote: Hopefully, none of us experience such a senseless loss, or become on of the victims, simple because [where we wanted to go was mandated to be a defenselessness zone to appease gun-phobes].

I wish that never happens to anyone, but I think we both know that as long as we have defenselessness zones and mentally deranged people, we are begging for that to happen.

Let's get rid of the defenselessness zones. Let's try that and see how that works. What do you think? Can we agree that only someone who is irrationally gun-phobic would oppose allowing people to defend themselves?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2019 19:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
GasGuzzler wrote:
@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.


So you defeat our military...then what? To control the people you have to get past there guns. You think military personnel and law enforcement are the only ones willing to die for their country??



I am glad that you think the Armed Forces lack the ability to protect our country.
21-05-2019 20:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.


So you defeat our military...then what? To control the people you have to get past there guns. You think military personnel and law enforcement are the only ones willing to die for their country??



I am glad that you think the Armed Forces lack the ability to protect our country.

Don't be such a dumbass...never said that. You did.
21-05-2019 21:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/


You forget that most people already used guns daily, for food. Did so well into the 1900s. Farmers and ranchers didn't routinely butcher their stock, that was their income. They usually had stock that was sick, injured, or born unmarketable. But mostly, they avoided using their health stock, for personal consumption, as much as possible. They would starve over it, of course, but they relied on hunting, for their meat. It wasn't until the mid 1800's, that organized police forces started to get widespread, not just a big city think. Law enforcement, was still heavily citizen dependent. Cities had a sheriff, or town marshal, peace officer, and usually that was enough. Anything major, and the town's people were brought in as volunteers.
Guns did play a big role in freeing this country, and they do play a role in keeping the government honest.



@Harvey,
And now we're in the 21st Century and we should act like we're in the Wild West? Automatic weapons are legal because they are used for hunting. What did people hunt with before automatic weapons were invented and why aren't those weapons sufficient today? As you said, firearms helped to make America what it is today and that those firearms weren't automatic weapons. You're own argument shows that automatic weapons are not needed by civilians.
edited to add;
I am talking specifically about automatic weapons in case you didn't know. When I lived in Washington state, their dept. of natural resources encouraged people to hunt Big Horn sheep. Because of no natural predators they became a threat to the ecosystem. Smaller mammals require under brush which Big Horn sheep eat. Ted Nugent is a big fan of using the bow and arrow but I know most hunters find using a single bolt rifle sufficient. People often ignore the fact that if the animal isn't killed with one shot then adrenaline gets into it's blood stream and will change the taste of it's meat. That is almost never mentioned when it comes to recreational hunting and the need for good marksmanship vs superior fire power.

@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.


James, forgive me for getting angry with you, but you do seem intent on saying the most stupid things.

What did we do for hunting before we had spears?

That man has invented more effective ways for killing does not mean the world is a more dangerous place. In fact it has become far more peaceful if you actually look at the statistics instead of Avengers Endgame.

I would suggest that you actually learn things that you think about. This country has never been more free than it presently is. Do you suppose you were more free wandering the wild west and attempting to feed yourself in places like Utah? Or walking into a pizza shop?

Contrary to your ideas, the government is elected by the people. This is not an oligarchy. Though it appears that Obama's government was attempting to do just that and now that we have a real Attorney General that is assigning special prosecutors to look into the people that were attempting to overthrow a duly elected President that is likely to put a whole lot of people away effectively for their lives and to frighten any attempts at repeats for a very long time.

Some Deep State that has attempted to control the population not with popular support but with fear tactics certain has to be slapped down.

Do not allow yourself to become a victim of these fears.
21-05-2019 21:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
Wake wrote:Though it appears that Obama's government was attempting to do just that and now that we have a real Attorney General that is assigning special prosecutors to look into the people that were attempting to overthrow a duly elected President that is likely to put a whole lot of people away effectively for their lives and to frighten any attempts at repeats for a very long time.

Some Deep State that has attempted to control the population not with popular support but with fear tactics certain has to be slapped down.

Do not allow yourself to become a victim of these fears.

Sage advice.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-05-2019 00:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.
Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.



We don't have to worry about that any more. As per your argument, people would need to be capable of over throwing the US government which is considered treasonous. We're not settlers and now Native Americans live on reservations. One thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it does not specifically state what arms a person has a right to bare. Why weren't our forefathers more explicit in what those rights are?
I mean the Bill of Rights was amended to give women the right to vote. This shows that the Bill of Rights was not written with a clear definition of who has what right. The Bill of Rights was amended because times have changed. That was Aug. 18th, 1920 and is the 19th amendment to the Bill of Rights.
As for how people use automatic weapons, this clip shows one being used for fun and games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=AwR9di_admE

What's legal;
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/

Semi-automatic rifles can be made to be very close to being fully automatic. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oxh-KpWeQ


edited to add; dehammer, the NRA was established so that Americans would know how to use firearms in case they needed to be drafted. This would be like my being in the ROTC in high school. I used to go to a police station to take indoor target practice on their range.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."

http://time.com/4106381/nra-1871-history/


You forget that most people already used guns daily, for food. Did so well into the 1900s. Farmers and ranchers didn't routinely butcher their stock, that was their income. They usually had stock that was sick, injured, or born unmarketable. But mostly, they avoided using their health stock, for personal consumption, as much as possible. They would starve over it, of course, but they relied on hunting, for their meat. It wasn't until the mid 1800's, that organized police forces started to get widespread, not just a big city think. Law enforcement, was still heavily citizen dependent. Cities had a sheriff, or town marshal, peace officer, and usually that was enough. Anything major, and the town's people were brought in as volunteers.
Guns did play a big role in freeing this country, and they do play a role in keeping the government honest.



@Harvey,
And now we're in the 21st Century and we should act like we're in the Wild West? Automatic weapons are legal because they are used for hunting. What did people hunt with before automatic weapons were invented and why aren't those weapons sufficient today? As you said, firearms helped to make America what it is today and that those firearms weren't automatic weapons. You're own argument shows that automatic weapons are not needed by civilians.
edited to add;
I am talking specifically about automatic weapons in case you didn't know. When I lived in Washington state, their dept. of natural resources encouraged people to hunt Big Horn sheep. Because of no natural predators they became a threat to the ecosystem. Smaller mammals require under brush which Big Horn sheep eat. Ted Nugent is a big fan of using the bow and arrow but I know most hunters find using a single bolt rifle sufficient. People often ignore the fact that if the animal isn't killed with one shot then adrenaline gets into it's blood stream and will change the taste of it's meat. That is almost never mentioned when it comes to recreational hunting and the need for good marksmanship vs superior fire power.

@GasGuzzler,
We're too militarily advanced for anything Canada might throw at us. The same goes for Mexico. For anyone else, it'd probably be an ICBM. If not then it'd be some type of aircraft. Do you think you could stop one of those? Just being realistic.


James, forgive me for getting angry with you, but you do seem intent on saying the most stupid things.

What did we do for hunting before we had spears?

That man has invented more effective ways for killing does not mean the world is a more dangerous place. In fact it has become far more peaceful if you actually look at the statistics instead of Avengers Endgame.

I would suggest that you actually learn things that you think about. This country has never been more free than it presently is. Do you suppose you were more free wandering the wild west and attempting to feed yourself in places like Utah? Or walking into a pizza shop?

Contrary to your ideas, the government is elected by the people. This is not an oligarchy. Though it appears that Obama's government was attempting to do just that and now that we have a real Attorney General that is assigning special prosecutors to look into the people that were attempting to overthrow a duly elected President that is likely to put a whole lot of people away effectively for their lives and to frighten any attempts at repeats for a very long time.

Some Deep State that has attempted to control the population not with popular support but with fear tactics certain has to be slapped down.

Do not allow yourself to become a victim of these fears.



Talk about posting nothing but crap. I guess you post what you know, right?
22-05-2019 04:10
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
What' the weapon of choice for mass shooters these past couple of years? AR 15, a fairly consistent theme, young or old. Seems that 'We have Rights!', means the only recourse would be to encourage everyone who doesn't want to be randomly murdered, to carry an AR 15, or better. Every classroom should have one heavily armed guard. Every business, movie theater, every church should have an almost military presence. And I'm crazy...

Mass shootings is a very real problem these days, worldwide. If a child in your home misuse tools or toys, doing harm (people, pets, or property), the parent typically takes that away from the child. A generous dose of leather isn't politically correct these days, not sure what's consider effective anymore. No cell phone for two hours? It's one, very specific type of weapon, that makes these mass killings simple, easy, and accessible. A lot of these killers, purchased them specifically for that purpose. It's not that were just having a bad day, they plan and prepare. The one who shot up church goes in New Zealand, went as far is rigging up cameras, and live streaming his 'recreation' for all his FaceBook fans to share in his 'fun'.

I'm sure my hunting memories are outdated. Seems that 'hunting' these days, is sitting up in a treestand, drinking beer, until something that resembles a deer comes to eat the food scatter form them around the base of that tree.

A phobia, is an unnatural fear. Mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles, is a very real, and becoming too common, threat. Nonsensical argument, I don't fear guns, but I am concerned about how they are being used, and see a problem that needs to be addressed,

Want to get stupid ridiculous? Aren't missiles firearms? Why can't we own them, seems like a lot fun, all kinds of recreation possibilities. Seems like rockets and missiles would be fun and efficient way to hut, if you only want the trophy to hang on the wall, or want to reduce the population. Why bother with picking them off a few at a time, when you could get the job done in a day or two, by going after whole herds. I fly drones, it's the 21st century, why couldn't I just mount a semiautomatic on, and do my hunting from the air? The old ways don't matter much, we want to make use of modern weapons and technology. Constitution doesn't say anything about flying machines or missiles, aren't we the people entitled? The laws on drones isn't really set yet, keep changing every couple of years, fairly restrictive, but not often enforced. Mostly, it's difficult to keep up with, much more serious problems to deal with, than a flying camera, which isn't likely to harm anyone.

I have a lot of different hobbies, so maybe I have trouble understand people that are only capable of just one thing. Most of my hobbies, I don't go high end, I enjoy them with what's reasonable and functional. I look at the functions and features I actually need, and would mostly use. I don't see paying high dollars for something, I only going to use a fraction of the potential. Maybe that's why I fail to see the value of an AR 15, when a lever action would be just as much fun, and functional. A six round revolver, over a 15 round clip. Just can't see a firing a 30 round clip being so much better, that I couldn't shoot anything else. It's an AR 15, and nothing else? I'm just not that limited...
22-05-2019 06:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What' the weapon of choice for mass shooters these past couple of years? AR 15, a fairly consistent theme, young or old. Seems that 'We have Rights!', means the only recourse would be to encourage everyone who doesn't want to be randomly murdered, to carry an AR 15, or better. Every classroom should have one heavily armed guard. Every business, movie theater, every church should have an almost military presence. And I'm crazy...

No one is saying all these places should be armed. All these place should have the right to be armed if they so choose.
Mass shootings is a very real problem these days, worldwide. If a child in your home misuse tools or toys, doing harm (people, pets, or property), the parent typically takes that away from the child. A generous dose of leather isn't politically correct these days, not sure what's consider effective anymore. No cell phone for two hours? It's one, very specific type of weapon, that makes these mass killings simple, easy, and accessible. A lot of these killers, purchased them specifically for that purpose. It's not that were just having a bad day, they plan and prepare. The one who shot up church goes in New Zealand, went as far is rigging up cameras, and live streaming his 'recreation' for all his FaceBook fans to share in his 'fun'.

First it was the 30 round clip. Now it's the type of weapon. Which is it dude? You know it is relatively easy to expand the capacity of smaller clips?

I'm sure my hunting memories are outdated. Seems that 'hunting' these days, is sitting up in a treestand, drinking beer, until something that resembles a deer comes to eat the food scatter form them around the base of that tree.

You are grossly misinformed. There are slob hunters everywhere, but the vast majority are law abiding good people. Baiting deer is illegal in my state and I appreciate that. Can't even hunt over a salt or mineral lick. You can plant your own food plots however and many guys do. So much good has come to wildlife BECAUSE of responsible hunters. Myself, I don't gun hunt at all. Purely archery in my blood. My son has gotten into muzzle loading black powder and that is quite interesting. He is also quite an archer at 16 and dropped his second turkey with his bow. Quite an accomplishment. Recreation at it's best.
A phobia, is an unnatural fear. Mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles, is a very real, and becoming too common, threat. Nonsensical argument, I don't fear guns, but I am concerned about how they are being used, and see a problem that needs to be addressed,

But you do fear guns, the AR in particular.
Want to get stupid ridiculous? Aren't missiles firearms? Why can't we own them, seems like a lot fun, all kinds of recreation possibilities. Seems like rockets and missiles would be fun and efficient way to hut, if you only want the trophy to hang on the wall, or want to reduce the population. Why bother with picking them off a few at a time, when you could get the job done in a day or two, by going after whole herds. I fly drones, it's the 21st century, why couldn't I just mount a semiautomatic on, and do my hunting from the air? The old ways don't matter much, we want to make use of modern weapons and technology. Constitution doesn't say anything about flying machines or missiles, aren't we the people entitled? The laws on drones isn't really set yet, keep changing every couple of years, fairly restrictive, but not often enforced. Mostly, it's difficult to keep up with, much more serious problems to deal with, than a flying camera, which isn't likely to harm anyone.

You haven't hunted much, or never had a passion for it. It's not about the kill. It's about the thrill of the hunt, the efforts, the strategies and plans, the pre season intelligence gathering...and most importantly purchasing all the "needed" supplies under the wife's radar.

I have a lot of different hobbies, so maybe I have trouble understand people that are only capable of just one thing. Most of my hobbies, I don't go high end, I enjoy them with what's reasonable and functional. I look at the functions and features I actually need, and would mostly use. I don't see paying high dollars for something, I only going to use a fraction of the potential. Maybe that's why I fail to see the value of an AR 15, when a lever action would be just as much fun, and functional. A six round revolver, over a 15 round clip. Just can't see a firing a 30 round clip being so much better, that I couldn't shoot anything else. It's an AR 15, and nothing else? I'm just not that limited...

First, you don't get to tell me what's fun. I happen to think popping off 30 is exactly TWICE as much fun as shooting only 15.
Secondly, I'm thinking you've never handled or fired an AR. I can tell you they do have a fun feel, but hell, not once did I ever wonder how many people I could kill. Personally, I don't understand the hype over drones. I get the application value. Farmers are using them a LOT now to see precisely where there is more fertilizer needed and just a birds eye view into the field. But I don't get the recreation. Not for me, but I'm not telling you that you shouldn't be able to have them. The cameras actually do bother me. They infringe upon my right to privacy! If I ever see one over my land the last picture it ever takes will be of a shotgun blast!

One more thing...

Say 3 armed thugs came into you home tonight and you had an AR. You have a 30 round clip and a 15 round clip on the night stand.

They are in your home and closing fast...which clip are you reaching for?...or better yet, which one is already in the gun?
Edited on 22-05-2019 06:45
22-05-2019 10:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What' the weapon of choice for mass shooters these past couple of years? AR 15, a fairly consistent theme, young or old.

WRONG. The weapon of choice for most mass murderers is a pistol, usually .22 or 9mm. Their favorite choice is usually a shotgun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems that 'We have Rights!', means the only recourse would be to encourage everyone who doesn't want to be randomly murdered, to carry an AR 15, or better.

No need. Not a practical weapon for the situation.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Every classroom should have one heavily armed guard.

No need. Not a practical weapon for the situation.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Every business, movie theater, every church should have an almost military presence.

No need. You are living in a paranoia induced by newspapers. Despite what you read, schools, churches, and movie theaters aren't getting shot up every day. Compared to the number of schools and movie theaters, only one or two might get hit. Chances are very low it's going to be yours.
HarveyH55 wrote:
And I'm crazy...

You're certainly getting paranoid.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mass shootings is a very real problem these days, worldwide.

Not nearly as big as you think. Yes, they happen, but not all the time an not in all locations.
HarveyH55 wrote:
If a child in your home misuse tools or toys, doing harm (people, pets, or property), the parent typically takes that away from the child.

Because the parent is responsible for the damage that child does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A generous dose of leather isn't politically correct these days, not sure what's consider effective anymore.

It's your home. Political correctness doesn't come into play.
HarveyH55 wrote:
No cell phone for two hours?

Hoodlums are raised that way, it doesn't happen overnight. If you teach by example correct principles, your kids will follow you.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's one, very specific type of weapon, that makes these mass killings simple, easy, and accessible.

WRONG. Most mass murders are done with .22 pistols, 9mm pistols, and shotguns.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A lot of these killers, purchased them specifically for that purpose.

WRONG. They are usually stolen.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not that were just having a bad day, they plan and prepare.

Yes they do. Despite this, it can be a drug induced reason.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The one who shot up church goes in New Zealand, went as far is rigging up cameras, and live streaming his 'recreation' for all his FaceBook fans to share in his 'fun'.

He wanted to go out in infamy. A consequence of the presence of social media.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm sure my hunting memories are outdated.

Not really. Many hunters still like to go out and stalk their prey.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems that 'hunting' these days, is sitting up in a treestand, drinking beer, until something that resembles a deer comes to eat the food scatter form them around the base of that tree.

That's not even hunting. That's ambushing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A phobia, is an unnatural fear.

Which is what you are developing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles, is a very real, and becoming too common, threat.

Occasionally they are used, but usually it's just pistols. If a rifle is used, it's more often a .22 then an AR-15 design.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nonsensical argument, I don't fear guns, but I am concerned about how they are being used, and see a problem that needs to be addressed,

Then address it effectively. Banning guns is not the answer. Banning large magazines is not the answer.

1) Do something about the psychoquacks prescribing mind altering 'medicines' that cause suicidal and homicidal tendencies upon withdrawal.

2) Install steel doors on classrooms. Install locks the teachers themselves can lock from the inside without the use of a key.

3) Allow teachers and other school personnel to carry.

4) Provide first aid training and equipment to handle lung shots. This alone can save a lot of lives and it doesn't cost much.

5) Provide 'fire drills' for kids to teach them where to go and how to get away from someone shooting up a school.

6) Pay attention to warning signs. Too often they get ignored. You can't arrest someone on such warning signs, but you CAN monitor them more closely as they enter and leave a school campus.

7) Parents, teach your kids to live responsibly and productively. When they are able, teach them what a gun can do and how to handle a gun that is found. If they are so inclined and able, take them hunting! Teach them how to shoot and handle a gun safely! The mystique of the gun and believing the movies are real has a lot to do with misuse of guns. Teach them that you don't solve problems with guns.

I go to movie theaters without worry. I go to school campuses without worry. I go to shopping malls without worry. The whole world isn't getting shot up.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Want to get stupid ridiculous?

You already are there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Aren't missiles firearms?

No, they are missiles.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why can't we own them,

Yes you can. It's perfectly legal to own missiles.
HarveyH55 wrote:
seems like a lot fun, all kinds of recreation possibilities.

They do. Model rocketry is a fun hobby. More advanced hobby rocketry is somewhat popular as well, for those wishing to enjoy a more expensive hobby.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems like rockets and missiles would be fun and efficient way to hut, if you only want the trophy to hang on the wall, or want to reduce the population

Lousy way to hunt. Lousy way kill people as well.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why bother with picking them off a few at a time, when you could get the job done in a day or two, by going after whole herds.

Rockets and missiles don't go after whole herds. They are just vehicles. Different warheads, if they have one, do different things.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I fly drones, it's the 21st century, why couldn't I just mount a semiautomatic on, and do my hunting from the air?

Weight. Liability.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The old ways don't matter much, we want to make use of modern weapons and technology.

I don't think you understand how little a drone can really carry. I don't think you understand how easy it is to shoot them out of the air either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Constitution doesn't say anything about flying machines or missiles, aren't we the people entitled?

It's not an entitlement. It is a right. Yes...people have that right.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The laws on drones isn't really set yet,

Yes they are. The CFR's that govern such devices hasn't really changed much since the FAA wrote them in response to congressional directive.
HarveyH55 wrote:
keep changing every couple of years,

Not by much.
HarveyH55 wrote:
fairly restrictive, but not often enforced.

You only need to get caught once. The penalties for violating these rules has a pretty stiff penalty.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, it's difficult to keep up with, much more serious problems to deal with, than a flying camera, which isn't likely to harm anyone.

No? Flying cameras CAN harm people. Flown in the wrong area where you are trespassing, someone will shoot your drone down...legally...then prosecute you for violating the law if they find you.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I have a lot of different hobbies, so maybe I have trouble understand people that are only capable of just one thing. Most of my hobbies, I don't go high end, I enjoy them with what's reasonable and functional. I look at the functions and features I actually need, and would mostly use. I don't see paying high dollars for something, I only going to use a fraction of the potential.

Nevertheless, you really should pay attention to the law.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe that's why I fail to see the value of an AR 15,

Irrelevant. YOU don't get to choose what is practical for someone else. The AR-15 is a solid design useful for hunting, defense of your property, use by police for certain situations, etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
when a lever action would be just as much fun, and functional.

YOU don't get to choose what gun other get to use. You only get to choose what gun, if any, YOU want to carry. If you prefer lever action guns, enjoy them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
A six round revolver, over a 15 round clip.

You don't get to make that choice for others. You are not the king.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just can't see a firing a 30 round clip being so much better, that I couldn't shoot anything else.

Too bad. You don't get to choose for others what size magazine they use. Few guns use clips anymore.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an AR 15, and nothing else? I'm just not that limited...

But you are. You are afraid of the AR-15 design. You are unfamiliar with guns. You don't know how fast they are typically fired in a mass murder situation, how long it takes to reload them, or even certain terminology.

In addition, you figure that you somehow have the power to choose what gun people are allowed to have. You don't have that choice. You are not the king. The government doesn't have that choice. The Constitution never gave it that power.


The Parrot Killer
22-05-2019 10:31
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness. Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings? They are specialized weapons, and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one. Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing. I've got no problem with most other firearm sales. It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim. How many are you going to shoot, before they get you? I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away. I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them. There should be some middle ground. You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

Don't really have to worry much about drones, the camera is wide angle, at 60 feet up, not much fine detail, couldn't identify anyone. Much lower than 60 feet, and there are potential hazards. like power lines, trees. Doesn't take much to knock them down, so there is a certain thrill to not crashing. Chasing alligators down at the lake is kind of fun, not that easy to get down close for good video. No luck spotting fish though, few turtles. I suppose it would be possible to use a drone to hurt people, but it wouldn't be easy. Takes some time to learn to fly, and the weapon part would be completely a custom job, since they aren't sold that way.
22-05-2019 16:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness. Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings? They are specialized weapons, and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one. Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing. I've got no problem with most other firearm sales. It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim. How many are you going to shoot, before they get you? I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away. I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them. There should be some middle ground. You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

Don't really have to worry much about drones, the camera is wide angle, at 60 feet up, not much fine detail, couldn't identify anyone. Much lower than 60 feet, and there are potential hazards. like power lines, trees. Doesn't take much to knock them down, so there is a certain thrill to not crashing. Chasing alligators down at the lake is kind of fun, not that easy to get down close for good video. No luck spotting fish though, few turtles. I suppose it would be possible to use a drone to hurt people, but it wouldn't be easy. Takes some time to learn to fly, and the weapon part would be completely a custom job, since they aren't sold that way.



Could be one reason why there's so many mass shootings. Too many people take things to the extreme.
22-05-2019 16:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What' the weapon of choice for mass shooters these past couple of years? AR 15, a fairly consistent theme, young or old. Seems that 'We have Rights!', means the only recourse would be to encourage everyone who doesn't want to be randomly murdered, to carry an AR 15, or better. Every classroom should have one heavily armed guard. Every business, movie theater, every church should have an almost military presence. And I'm crazy...

Yes, you are crazy. Once again, you obsess on the inanimate object, the object of your irrational phobia, instead of recognizing the problem (aberrant behavior drawn by defenselessness zones). To any rational person, the solution is obvious: eliminate the defenselessness zones by allowing people to defend themselves. Simple. But in your case, your phobia won't allow you to calmly and rationally analyze the situation. Instead, your gun-phobia will only allow you to panic and scramble to take guns away from people who don't commit crimes, i.e. create more and more defenselessness zones ... just to appease your phobia.

You aren't being helpful; you make the problem worse. You would turn the United States into one big killing field just to make yourself feel better that all guns have been removed from law-abiding citizens. Yes, you are the crazy one. You have a problematic phobia and should get counseling.

HarveyH55 wrote: Mass shootings is a very real problem these days, worldwide.

Which all occur in defenselessness zones. I'm wasting my time pointing this out to you, aren't I? You can't think about anything other than your obsession with inanimate objects. Do you actually still wonder why your arguments are summarily dismissed? All mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones where obviously no one pulls out a firearm and simply stops the shooting before it even happens. Everyone is unarmed and defenseless. I'm just wasting my time, right? Yes, you are the crazy one.

HarveyH55 wrote: The one who shot up church goes in New Zealand, went as far is rigging up cameras, and live streaming his 'recreation' for all his FaceBook fans to share in his 'fun'.

You are sick. You have a serious mental problem. Your gun obsession has you equating recreational shooting with mass shootings. Your perspective is warped. This should be a huge red flag for you.

HarveyH55 wrote: A phobia, is an unnatural fear.

It's an irrational fear that controls your thoughts and behavior. Your gun-phobia clearly dominates your thoughts and prevents rational thinking.

HarveyH55 wrote: Mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles, is a very real, and becoming too common, threat.

You are not concerned about mass shootings. You obsess over inanimate objects. You fear guns, period. Rational people deal with mass killings by analyzing their characteristics and taking steps to prevent them. You can't even address the fact that they all occur in defenselessness zones where no one can stop the attack before anyone dies. You can't get past your panic that "something happened with a GUN!!! Oh my GOD! A gun! A GUN! Did someone say 'GUN'? Run! Hide! There was a GUUUUUUUN somewhere!..."

You are not capable of discussing the subject rationally. You can't get beyond your gun-phobic obsession on inanimate objects.

HarveyH55 wrote: Want to get stupid ridiculous? Aren't missiles firearms?

I suppose that depends on whom you ask. I consider missiles to be munitions, not firearms. That's just me. You have every right to disagree.

HarveyH55 wrote: Why can't we own them, seems like a lot fun, all kinds of recreation possibilities. Seems like rockets and missiles would be fun and efficient way to hut, if you only want the trophy to hang on the wall, or want to reduce the population. Why bother with picking them off a few at a time, when you could get the job done in a day or two, by going after whole herds.

Your gun-phobia now has you conflating "recreational" with "efficient" just as a knee-jerk panic reaction. I jog four miles for recreation but I drive four miles for efficiency and effectiveness. I'm wasting my time explaining this to you, aren't I? Common sense isn't the point in your mind, right? Just GET RID OF THE GUNS, right?

HarveyH55 wrote: I fly drones, it's the 21st century, why couldn't I just mount a semiautomatic on, and do my hunting from the air?

I suppose you could, but a rational, gun-safe person would shy away from applications where there is no direct personal control of the firearm and that would allow a potentially lethally dangerous situation resulting from a mere technical glitch.

HarveyH55 wrote: I have a lot of different hobbies, so maybe I have trouble understand people that are only capable of just one thing.

Who do you know who is capable of only one thing and how do(es) they/he fit into this discussion?

HarveyH55 wrote: Maybe that's why I fail to see the value of an AR 15, when a lever action would be just as much fun, and functional.

Let me get this straight, an AR-15 wouldn't be as much fun or as functional for use in your hobbies therefore others should not have them?

HarveyH55 wrote: A six round revolver, over a 15 round clip. Just can't see a firing a 30 round clip being so much better, that I couldn't shoot anything else.

How would you feel about the AR-15 crowd pushing to get your hobbies banned because they don't see any "need" for them?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-05-2019 17:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote: Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness.

i.e. your inability to discuss the topic rationally. You cannot be yanked off your obsession with inanimate objects to discuss anything else.

Let me know when you are capable of discussing the problem of people being required to be defenseless.

HarveyH55 wrote: Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings?

More of your obsession on inanimate objects?

What's more important, the right of We the People to defend ourselves, to not be killed because we are required to be defenseless, and to be able to hunt as we need and to lawfully recreate ... or your personal need to remove all guns from law-abiding citizens because you are gun-phobic lunatic?

If I were to hold it to a democratic vote among rational people, how do you think the exit interviews would go? What about the final official tally?

HarveyH55 wrote: They are specialized weapons, and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one.

When you say "specialized" ... do you mean to say that they were designed? Engineered? Should all things that were drawn up be made difficult to obtain or just the guns you fear?

HarveyH55 wrote: Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing.

Now the ball is in your court. You explain how any mass killing would have been prevented by a little more paperwork.

*THEN* you get to explain why we should do "a little more paperwork" on everything that is engineered/designed/manufactured.

HarveyH55 wrote: I've got no problem with most other firearm sales. It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

More of your gun obsession. It's all you think about. Go ahead, tell me you don't fear guns. Of course I'll believe it. Really, I will. I'll take it a face value.

[smileys intentionally omitted for the uncertainty effect]

HarveyH55 wrote: If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim. How many are you going to shoot, before they get you?

Naturally you're not obsessing right now. What was I thinking.

HarveyH55 wrote: I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away.

You know that if you express your true desires that everyone will be onto you as I am. I won't speak for others but you don't fool me. You can't bring yourself to say "More people should be able to defend themselves with firearms" or "Defenselessness zones should be outlawed." The reason you can't bring yourself to say those things because that implies *more* people bearing arms not fewer, and all you want is to rid the world of the inanimate objects that you irrationally fear.

HarveyH55 wrote: I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them.

You want law-abiding citizens to not be able to get them and to remain defenseless. You don't want it EASIER for law-abiding citizens to be able to acquire them and defend themselves. All just because you have an irrational fear that you will not address, or even acknowledge.

HarveyH55 wrote: There should be some middle ground.

Yes, ground that necessarily involves you getting past your gun-phobic obsession and rationally discussing points of substance that don't involve your panic-driven mental imagery.

Again, let me know when you can rationally address empowering We the People to better defend ourselves, or would you prefer we all become defenseless?

HarveyH55 wrote: You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

Why should I or any one of We the People care about *your* preferences? How about you defend yourself in the manner you see fit, and you help empower everyone else to defend him/herself and his/her family as he/she sees fit?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-05-2019 18:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What' the weapon of choice for mass shooters these past couple of years? AR 15, a fairly consistent theme, young or old. Seems that 'We have Rights!', means the only recourse would be to encourage everyone who doesn't want to be randomly murdered, to carry an AR 15, or better. Every classroom should have one heavily armed guard. Every business, movie theater, every church should have an almost military presence. And I'm crazy...

Mass shootings is a very real problem these days, worldwide. If a child in your home misuse tools or toys, doing harm (people, pets, or property), the parent typically takes that away from the child. A generous dose of leather isn't politically correct these days, not sure what's consider effective anymore. No cell phone for two hours? It's one, very specific type of weapon, that makes these mass killings simple, easy, and accessible. A lot of these killers, purchased them specifically for that purpose. It's not that were just having a bad day, they plan and prepare. The one who shot up church goes in New Zealand, went as far is rigging up cameras, and live streaming his 'recreation' for all his FaceBook fans to share in his 'fun'.

I'm sure my hunting memories are outdated. Seems that 'hunting' these days, is sitting up in a treestand, drinking beer, until something that resembles a deer comes to eat the food scatter form them around the base of that tree.

A phobia, is an unnatural fear. Mass shootings with semiautomatic rifles, is a very real, and becoming too common, threat. Nonsensical argument, I don't fear guns, but I am concerned about how they are being used, and see a problem that needs to be addressed,

Want to get stupid ridiculous? Aren't missiles firearms? Why can't we own them, seems like a lot fun, all kinds of recreation possibilities. Seems like rockets and missiles would be fun and efficient way to hut, if you only want the trophy to hang on the wall, or want to reduce the population. Why bother with picking them off a few at a time, when you could get the job done in a day or two, by going after whole herds. I fly drones, it's the 21st century, why couldn't I just mount a semiautomatic on, and do my hunting from the air? The old ways don't matter much, we want to make use of modern weapons and technology. Constitution doesn't say anything about flying machines or missiles, aren't we the people entitled? The laws on drones isn't really set yet, keep changing every couple of years, fairly restrictive, but not often enforced. Mostly, it's difficult to keep up with, much more serious problems to deal with, than a flying camera, which isn't likely to harm anyone.

I have a lot of different hobbies, so maybe I have trouble understand people that are only capable of just one thing. Most of my hobbies, I don't go high end, I enjoy them with what's reasonable and functional. I look at the functions and features I actually need, and would mostly use. I don't see paying high dollars for something, I only going to use a fraction of the potential. Maybe that's why I fail to see the value of an AR 15, when a lever action would be just as much fun, and functional. A six round revolver, over a 15 round clip. Just can't see a firing a 30 round clip being so much better, that I couldn't shoot anything else. It's an AR 15, and nothing else? I'm just not that limited...


Quite to the contrary. I think that only one of those mass shooters actually used an AR. A couple carried them but in close quarters they are difficult to use and instead they used pistols.

I agree with you concerning using a revolver. A .357 with a 3" barrel from Colt can knock a buffalo over at 50 yards. With a reloader it takes about the same amount of time to reload as snapping a new clip into an automatic.

And the merest thought of it makes James crap his pants. That is at least one advantage.
22-05-2019 18:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness.

You are the one doing it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings?

False dichotomy. Bigotry. Not everyone buying an AR-15 is going out to murder people.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They are specialized weapons,

No, they are not. They are a semiautomatic rifle, similar to other semiautomatic rifles. You have just demonstrated you know very little about guns.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one.

You don't get to do that. You are not the king. The government has no power to do that. The Constitution never gave it that power.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing.

Paperwork does not stop murder.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've got no problem with most other firearm sales.

Bull. Once you ban the AR-15, you will simply move on to the next gun you deem 'inappropriate'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

The AR-15 is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle in terms of rate of fire.
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim.

WRONG. Thugs generally prefer pistols. 9mm is popular these days. They want to hide their weapon. They are criminals, not allowed to have guns. Hence the 'gangsta' way of holstering one in the belt of the pants (a stupid and dangerous way to holster a gun).
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many are you going to shoot, before they get you?

How many are there?
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away.

Lie. You are arguing EXACTLY THAT.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them.

That is banning them. There is no other word to call it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There should be some middle ground.

None. The Constitution of the United States quite clear lays out the limits of the federal government and of State governments in this area.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

The first thing you grab is the best gun. The AR-15 is an excellent gun for defending a home and property. No everyone lives in an apartment, you see.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't really have to worry much about drones, the camera is wide angle, at 60 feet up, not much fine detail, couldn't identify anyone. Much lower than 60 feet, and there are potential hazards. like power lines, trees. Doesn't take much to knock them down, so there is a certain thrill to not crashing.

True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Chasing alligators down at the lake is kind of fun,

It's also illegal. Leave the poor critters alone. There are laws in Florida that protect alligators from harassment like this.
HarveyH55 wrote:
not that easy to get down close for good video.

Stop harassing alligators. It's illegal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
No luck spotting fish though, few turtles.

Drones don't fly underwater. Turtles are quite numerous, but they stay in smaller tributaries.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I suppose it would be possible to use a drone to hurt people, but it wouldn't be easy.

Depends on your flying skill. You can kill someone with a drone.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Takes some time to learn to fly,

Most people learn the basics in a day or two.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and the weapon part would be completely a custom job,

The weapon would be too heavy. If it went off and killed someone, you are liable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
since they aren't sold that way.

That is why. Weight. Liability.


The Parrot Killer
22-05-2019 18:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness. Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings? They are specialized weapons, and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one. Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing. I've got no problem with most other firearm sales. It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim. How many are you going to shoot, before they get you? I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away. I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them. There should be some middle ground. You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

Don't really have to worry much about drones, the camera is wide angle, at 60 feet up, not much fine detail, couldn't identify anyone. Much lower than 60 feet, and there are potential hazards. like power lines, trees. Doesn't take much to knock them down, so there is a certain thrill to not crashing. Chasing alligators down at the lake is kind of fun, not that easy to get down close for good video. No luck spotting fish though, few turtles. I suppose it would be possible to use a drone to hurt people, but it wouldn't be easy. Takes some time to learn to fly, and the weapon part would be completely a custom job, since they aren't sold that way.



Could be one reason why there's so many mass shootings. Too many people take things to the extreme.

There aren't. Mass murder occurs rather rarely.


The Parrot Killer
22-05-2019 18:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Like mention in an early reply, this debate has been reduce to silliness. Which is more important the rights of the hundreds of people getting killed by AR 15s, or the rights of the people who by them, to do those mass shootings? They are specialized weapons, and there should be some special steps involved in getting your hands on one. Those who feel they can't live without then, shouldn't have a problem doing a little extra paperwork, work a little for that special tool/toy, if will help prevent some needless killing. I've got no problem with most other firearm sales. It's the speed at which you can fire a lot of rounds, and the few seconds it takes to swap mags, that make these an entirely different sort of weapon.

If you armed thugs, all have AR 15s, stolen from a previous victim. How many are you going to shoot, before they get you? I've never said any about banning, them or taking them away. I just would like to see it a little more difficult to acquire them. There should be some middle ground. You go to weapon in your home, is the AR 15? Really? Think I'd go with a pistol, shotgun, if I wasn't living alone.

Don't really have to worry much about drones, the camera is wide angle, at 60 feet up, not much fine detail, couldn't identify anyone. Much lower than 60 feet, and there are potential hazards. like power lines, trees. Doesn't take much to knock them down, so there is a certain thrill to not crashing. Chasing alligators down at the lake is kind of fun, not that easy to get down close for good video. No luck spotting fish though, few turtles. I suppose it would be possible to use a drone to hurt people, but it wouldn't be easy. Takes some time to learn to fly, and the weapon part would be completely a custom job, since they aren't sold that way.



Could be one reason why there's so many mass shootings. Too many people take things to the extreme.


In the last ten years only 500 people have been killed in "mass shootings" and the largest number of those were from gang warfare or people fired from jobs during Obama's Great Recession.

So exactly what makes you believe that there are "so many mass shootings"?
22-05-2019 19:06
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
Wake wrote:

Quite to the contrary. I think that only one of those mass shooters actually used an AR. A couple carried them but in close quarters they are difficult to use and instead they used pistols.

I agree with you concerning using a revolver. A .357 with a 3" barrel from Colt can knock a buffalo over at 50 yards. With a reloader it takes about the same amount of time to reload as snapping a new clip into an automatic.

And the merest thought of it makes James crap his pants. That is at least one advantage.



Wake, at the end of the day you're nothing but a bigot. You have to hate on someone to feel good about yourself. It's funny because you say automatic weapons need to be legal because of the 2nd Amendment.
You're a joke. You know I have taken target practice at my local police station because I was in NJROTC. After serving active duty in the US Navy I joined my states National Guard and was qualified on the M16. Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have. I also remembered why I was holding it. If I didn't know how to use it then I couldn't shoot another person with it, could I? Nope, I couldn't. Only reason I was trained on how to take care of it, point it and shoot it.
That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp.
I'm a civilian now. And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one.


Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone".
I've forgotten the actual term used but with an automatic weapon, it's most efficient if you can have your targets approaching you within a limited field that you can "spray". That increases the likelyhood of terminating your targets. Kind of imagine if you laid down in the prone position, on your stomach and consider about 15º to 20º to the left and right from straight ahead. It'll take out everything in that field of fire. That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire.
Of course if people avoided military service because they love America.......
Edited on 22-05-2019 19:58
22-05-2019 22:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote:Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have.

How do you know? Maybe it was just an automatic rifle and not an automatic assault rifle.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is it because climate scientists say so?

James___ wrote: That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp.

Let's go down this line of reasoning.

All US military have to take either the ASVAB or an OQT. It asks a lot of questions but primarily they need to know if you can follow simple instructions. This is always a requirement. The military is the wrong place for someone to be who can't follow simple instructions. Following instructions is a part of boot camp.

James___ wrote: And in the military, it's about shooting someone else.

In the military it's about following instructions (orders).

James___ wrote: Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone".

Ergo, your military training has taught you that your rifle is for the efficient following of instructions?

Hold on, in boot camp you had to follow instructions but I bet you didn't terminate any human life.

James___ wrote: That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire.

I'm still not sure there is such a thing as an assault rifle.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-05-2019 22:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
.James wrote And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one.

Can you James...or ANYONE....explain WTF you mean by this? I'm at a total loss here!
23-05-2019 00:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
GasGuzzler wrote:
.James wrote And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one.

Can you James...or ANYONE....explain WTF you mean by this? I'm at a total loss here!



That's an easy one GasGuzzler. Wake probably only supports people having the right to own an automatic weapon because it's what other people don't support. It gives him a cause. He's never said if he owns any firearms or has any training, just supports private ownership of automatic weapons. ie., he's fighting someone else's battle.
With you, if you own a gun for self defense or to defend America with, are you prepared to kill someone? After all, if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, there's a chance they will die. Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person. And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them?
23-05-2019 00:11
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have.

How do you know? Maybe it was just an automatic rifle and not an automatic assault rifle.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is it because climate scientists say so?

James___ wrote: That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp.

Let's go down this line of reasoning.

All US military have to take either the ASVAB or an OQT. It asks a lot of questions but primarily they need to know if you can follow simple instructions. This is always a requirement. The military is the wrong place for someone to be who can't follow simple instructions. Following instructions is a part of boot camp.

James___ wrote: And in the military, it's about shooting someone else.

In the military it's about following instructions (orders).

James___ wrote: Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone".

Ergo, your military training has taught you that your rifle is for the efficient following of instructions?

Hold on, in boot camp you had to follow instructions but I bet you didn't terminate any human life.

James___ wrote: That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire.

I'm still not sure there is such a thing as an assault rifle.



That's a good one IBNotDaMann. The aircraft carrier I was on did terminate human lives. Only 6 though. A foreign vessel was where we wanted to be. We were bigger and we won. We did lose fires in one boiler in the engine room that I worked in as a result of the collision.
Because people were properly trained, they knew how to take the boiler offline and avoid a disaster in our engine room. You see, if people waited for orders then catastrophic failure might not have been averted.
And it's sad that all you have are word games. It's strange how many Americans are at war but the enemy are other Americans. It's like they have something to prove, like how important they or their ideas are while they do nothing that benefits anyone. Just bored, unhappy people that are sad
23-05-2019 02:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Quite to the contrary. I think that only one of those mass shooters actually used an AR. A couple carried them but in close quarters they are difficult to use and instead they used pistols.

I agree with you concerning using a revolver. A .357 with a 3" barrel from Colt can knock a buffalo over at 50 yards. With a reloader it takes about the same amount of time to reload as snapping a new clip into an automatic.

And the merest thought of it makes James crap his pants. That is at least one advantage.



Wake, at the end of the day you're nothing but a bigot. You have to hate on someone to feel good about yourself. It's funny because you say automatic weapons need to be legal because of the 2nd Amendment.
You're a joke. You know I have taken target practice at my local police station because I was in NJROTC. After serving active duty in the US Navy I joined my states National Guard and was qualified on the M16. Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have. I also remembered why I was holding it. If I didn't know how to use it then I couldn't shoot another person with it, could I? Nope, I couldn't. Only reason I was trained on how to take care of it, point it and shoot it.
That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp.
I'm a civilian now. And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one.


Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone".
I've forgotten the actual term used but with an automatic weapon, it's most efficient if you can have your targets approaching you within a limited field that you can "spray". That increases the likelyhood of terminating your targets. Kind of imagine if you laid down in the prone position, on your stomach and consider about 15º to 20º to the left and right from straight ahead. It'll take out everything in that field of fire. That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire.
Of course if people avoided military service because they love America.......


Everything you've said here indicates you know exactly how to use a machine gun and you have fired one.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-05-2019 02:42
23-05-2019 02:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Ever fire a fully automatic assault rifle? No? I have.

How do you know? Maybe it was just an automatic rifle and not an automatic assault rifle.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is it because climate scientists say so?

James___ wrote: That's one of those things about being in the military they ask you when you join, could you kill someone? That about always requires a yes answer. I mean the military is the wrong place for someone to be who isn't willing to take another life. Shooting guns and how to handle them is a part of boot camp.

Let's go down this line of reasoning.

All US military have to take either the ASVAB or an OQT. It asks a lot of questions but primarily they need to know if you can follow simple instructions. This is always a requirement. The military is the wrong place for someone to be who can't follow simple instructions. Following instructions is a part of boot camp.

James___ wrote: And in the military, it's about shooting someone else.

In the military it's about following instructions (orders).

James___ wrote: Isn't that funny Wake? My military training by military agencies of the US or within it's borders have taught me that automatic assault weapons are intended for the efficient termination of human life by creating a "fire zone".

Ergo, your military training has taught you that your rifle is for the efficient following of instructions?

Hold on, in boot camp you had to follow instructions but I bet you didn't terminate any human life.

James___ wrote: That's why assault rifles are normally fired from the prone position. It's easier to control your line of fire.

I'm still not sure there is such a thing as an assault rifle.


It's one of those buzzwords like you find in The Manual, but this Manual is for the Church of Gun Control. Like other religions that stem from the Church of Karl Marx, this is just another aspect of furthering the goals of Marxism.

Many fall into this religion because they are afraid of guns. All they know about guns they learned from the movies and from the Church leaders.


The Parrot Killer
23-05-2019 04:56
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
To much BS to address individually...

AR 15 type weapons were designed and built to kill lots of people, quick and easy, a military weapon. For your little 'Debate' recreation, you generalize, where I'm speaking of one specific type of gun. Never hinted at banning, only access control, which you blow way out of proportion, into all guns, instead of a single type, designed for military applications. Still not sure where the phobia crap comes in, other than it's a fun part of your little debate game, to distract and mis-direct.

Don't know where you guys get your statistics on mass shootings, but 2 years ago, we had a mass shooting at a night club in Orlando, 50+ dead. Last year, a church shooting, and most recently, a high school on Valentines day. Starting this coming fall, there will be armed teachers in most Florida schools, seems obvious, that people are take this as a very serious and on going threat, not just a 'rare' random event. I only proposed a solution of access control, to one very specific type of gun, and the nutjob debaters, start playing here. So, my thought make me insane, but how would you all solve the problem? More guns, greater access to superior weapons? Get everyone to carry a firearm, all the time? And I'm paranoid... You have to work for anything you want in life, well some people like to shortcuts, democrats like to create the illusion of free stuff for all. These designed for military application weapons, should be more work to acquire and own, than other firearms, the are a special case, and deserve special attention.

I do understand how the debate-game is played, and it part of the title of this forum. I've never had an interest in playing that particular word based game. Some people here are pretty good at it, but they tend to forget, most people haven't, or don't play the game. Little annoying, when every post is treated as part of the debate game. Pretty easy to win, when you are the only one playing. Mass shootings have become a very real, serious threat over the past ten years or so, and increasing in frequency. It's not Climate Change BS. The shooters haven't been in serious enough trouble, to prevent them from buying firearms. Banning firearms isn't an option, but there should be something in place to make it not so easy for those intent on using them like this. We have no way of identifying the individuals intent on doing these mass shootings ahead of time, but we can identify their prefered choice of weapons, and at least try to limit their access to them. Why make it so simple and easy for them? It's true, they can simply chose another weapon, but it won't be as good a guaranty of success to their plans, and hopefully they won't, least in some cases, or at least reduce the damage they do.

I'm no expert in any of this, or anything, really, but I do see a serious problem, that is killing too many people, and happening way too often. Needs to be addressed. Should have been addressed a long time ago. Every school has had armed guards (resource officers) for a long time now. When I went to school, the police were rarely needed. They showed up more often to give safety talks, then for actual crimes. In Florida, they just went from one officer, to a minimal of two. Staff weren't allowed to carry on school grounds, nor visitors. Now the staff is being encouraged to get trained and certified, to carry on school grounds. Doesn't really instill a whole lot of confidence, a constant reminder, that these kids risk their lives, just to get an education everyday.
23-05-2019 05:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote].James wrote And with you, you're either a gun nut or someone who's never had any training. And in the military, it's about shooting someone else. GasGuzzler doesn't get that about having a gun. If you're not willing to use it then you shouldn't have one.

Can you James...or ANYONE....explain WTF you mean by this? I'm at a total loss here!



James___ wrote:That's an easy one GasGuzzler....
...With you, if you own a gun for self defense or to defend America with, are you prepared to kill someone?

Without question, without hesitation.
After all, if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them, there's a chance they will die.

I hope they do die. Here's why, and maybe I'm wrong, but it's a fair discussion of the topic for everyone here.

A wounded man and a lousy judge can sue you into oblivion.
A dead man can't do much about it.

I would NEVER want to take another human life. However, if an innocent life is being threatened, I have not a problem neutralizing that threat with a bullet.

Most people who buy a gun for self defense don't think about that aspect of it. You know, actually shooting another person.

Really??!! You think people buy guns for self defense with wild west dreams of shooting the pistol out of the aggressors hand? WTF again!
And of course, if another country invades the US, are you willing to kill them?

Yes. I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I was a POS kid and young adult. I'd have no problem with that.
Edited on 23-05-2019 05:55
23-05-2019 12:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
To much BS to address individually...

It is YOUR BS. I will address it individually, like I usually do.
HarveyH55 wrote:
AR 15 type weapons were designed and built to kill lots of people, quick and easy, a military weapon.

The AR15 is NOT a military weapon. It is for sale to the general public.
HarveyH55 wrote:
For your little 'Debate' recreation, you generalize, where I'm speaking of one specific type of gun.

No, YOU generalize. You consider the AR15 something it is not.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Never hinted at banning, only access control, which you blow way out of proportion,

It is YOU that is blowing things out of proportion. The AR15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle. YOU don't get to pick and choose who has access to any particular gun. You are not the king. You also know zero about the AR15.
HarveyH55 wrote:
into all guns,

The 2nd amendment concerns all guns, including the AR15. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that gives the power to the government to ban or limit access to guns based on a name or type of action.
HarveyH55 wrote:
instead of a single type,

You are attacking all types if you attack one. You are attacking the Constitution of the United States itself.
HarveyH55 wrote:
designed for military applications.

The AR15 is NOT a military weapon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Still not sure where the phobia crap comes in,

From you.
HarveyH55 wrote:
other than it's a fun part of your little debate game, to distract and mis-direct.

It is YOU playing the game. Inversion fallacy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't know where you guys get your statistics on mass shootings,

The FBI. The CIA. The UN.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but 2 years ago, we had a mass shooting at a night club in Orlando, 50+ dead.

Out of how many night clubs in the United States? ONE gets hit, and only on ONE particular night.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Last year, a church shooting, and most recently, a high school on Valentines day.

The synagogue shooting was antisemitism, a problem that's been around long before that synagogue was even built. The Valentine's day shooting killed less people than the arsonist did at my high school (he burned down the library). Both were ex-students.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Starting this coming fall, there will be armed teachers in most Florida schools,

Works for me. A better solution would be to put steel doors on classrooms. They can be quite decorative, and they will stop a bullet from an AR15. Drop slats that can be triggered from the office are effective too.
HarveyH55 wrote:
seems obvious, that people are take this as a very serious and on going threat, not just a 'rare' random event.

It is a rare random event. How many high schools are in the United States? ONE got hit in Florida. ONE got hit in Washington. ONE got hit in Colorado. This is over several years.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I only proposed a solution of access control,

That's banning the weapon by type. You can't do that in the United States legally.
HarveyH55 wrote:
to one very specific type of gun,

Doesn't matter if it's one or several. YOU don't get to decide who can carry what type of gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and the nutjob debaters,

So now anyone that disagrees with you is a 'nutjob', eh? You drop to insulting people just as fast as idiots from the Church of Global Warming.
HarveyH55 wrote:
start playing here.

YOU brought up the subject. YOU have a paranoid attitude about a gun you know nothing about. YOU want to punish thousands of law abiding citizens for the actions of a few.
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, my thought make me insane, but how would you all solve the problem?

Steel doors. Locks the teachers can lock from the inside without the use of a key. Steel drop slats that can be triggered by the office. Isolate the shooter and he has nothing to shoot at but himself. No school shooting has ever lasted longer than 10 minutes. BTW, 17 targets shot in 10 minutes is a rate of fire that's a whopping once every 35 seconds. You think reloading time is a factor?
HarveyH55 wrote:
More guns, greater access to superior weapons?

Certainly one way to deal with it. The methods I describe DO work, and they don't require more guns.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Get everyone to carry a firearm, all the time?

Many people do. You'd be surprised at the number of people that carry all the time around you right now. Those weapons are concealed in most cases. They're not shooting up schools or malls either.
HarveyH55 wrote:
And I'm paranoid...

Yup. You are paranoid.
HarveyH55 wrote:
...deleted irrelevant portion...These designed for military application weapons,

WRONG. The AR15 is NOT a military weapon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
should be more work to acquire and own, than other firearms, the are a special case, and deserve special attention.

There is nothing special about them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I do understand how the debate-game is played,

Obviously. YOU are playing it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and it part of the title of this forum.

I'll not mention the other part here.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never had an interest in playing that particular word based game.

Then don't. Only YOU are playing the word games.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people here are pretty good at it, but they tend to forget, most people haven't, or don't play the game.

YOU are playing the game. YOU are using phrases that are buzzwords. YOU are trying to ban a weapon you know nothing about. YOU are trying to blow the mass shooting statistics out of proportion. YOU are attacking literally millions of gun lawful gun owners just to satisfy YOUR belief that a particular gun is somehow 'different' and should be banned. It is YOU that is playing all the games here.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Little annoying, when every post is treated as part of the debate game.

Then stop. YOU are playing the word games.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Pretty easy to win, when you are the only one playing.

YOU are the only one playing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mass shootings have become a very real, serious threat over the past ten years or so, and increasing in frequency.

Homicide rates are actually going down. Mass shootings are actually pretty rare. Remember, the news doesn't report a normal day at any of the thousands of schools or malls that DIDN'T have a shooting.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not Climate Change BS.

Correct. It's gun control BS.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The shooters haven't been in serious enough trouble, to prevent them from buying firearms.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes the guns are simply stolen.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Banning firearms isn't an option,

But that is what you are trying to argue by 'limiting access' to them. That's a ban, dude. There is nothing else you could call it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but there should be something in place to make it not so easy for those intent on using them like this.

Then you should not be allowed to fly your drone around without submitting lots of paperwork and background checks, paying extra fees, being required to buy a license from the federal government, and prevent you from flying the things anywhere near any cities, within 10 miles of any school, church, synagogue, sporting event, or shopping mall.

Drones are dangerous. They can kill people.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We have no way of identifying the individuals intent on doing these mass shootings ahead of time, but we can identify their prefered choice of weapons, and at least try to limit their access to them.

YOU CAN'T PROSECUTE SOMEONE ELSE FOR WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL HASN'T DONE YET! What do you think this is? A dictatorship???

A moron flew a drone into the Space Needle a couple of years ago. YOU should be banned from flying a drone anywhere near any city or shopping mall as a result. YOU should be forced to pay the price for his carelessness.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why make it so simple and easy for them?

Why persecute millions of law abiding citizens for what ONE of them does? Did you know that murder is already against the law??
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's true, they can simply chose another weapon,

Most of the time, mass shooters use .22 pistols, 9mm pistols, shotguns, and maybe a .22 rifle. The AR15 isn't even commonly used. It is also no different than that .22 rifle in terms of rate of fire or reloading time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but it won't be as good a guaranty of success to their plans,

These pistols are just as effective at killing people as any AR15.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and hopefully they won't, least in some cases, or at least reduce the damage they do.

WRONG. You are demonstrating you know nothing about guns and are willing to punish millions of law abiding citizens for what ONE criminal does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm no expert in any of this,

Obviously. Yet you seem to have no problem dictating to people decisions based on your lack of expertise.
HarveyH55 wrote:
or anything, really, but I do see a serious problem,

Yeah. It's the news media.
HarveyH55 wrote:
that is killing too many people, and happening way too often.

Wake up. People have been shooting people for a long time now. Do you know how many gang members are shooting at each other in Florida? Do you have any idea how strong organized crime is there? Have you any idea of the numbers of antisemite bigots, neo-nazis, you have there? Do you know how many armed robbers there are in just Miami alone? They've all been there quite a long time, dude. What rock have YOU been hiding under?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Needs to be addressed.

You cannot punish law abiding citizens for the actions of a criminal or for what an individual hasn't done.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Should have been addressed a long time ago.

Go talk to the police. Join them and support them in their efforts. It's a eye opener just how much shit they have to deal with day in and day out.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Every school has had armed guards (resource officers) for a long time now.

Works for me. Too bad some of them are cowards.
HarveyH55 wrote:
When I went to school, the police were rarely needed.

Nah. You just didn't notice they were there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They showed up more often to give safety talks, then for actual crimes.

No, actual crimes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In Florida, they just went from one officer, to a minimal of two.

Works for me.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Staff weren't allowed to carry on school grounds, nor visitors. Now the staff is being encouraged to get trained and certified, to carry on school grounds.

This is good. Gun free zones are where mass murders occur. Eliminate the gun free zones.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't really instill a whole lot of confidence, a constant reminder, that these kids risk their lives, just to get an education everyday.

They've done it just like you did when you went to school.

Stop living in paranoia.


The Parrot Killer
23-05-2019 14:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
James___ wrote: That's a good one IBNotDaMann. The aircraft carrier I was on did terminate human lives.

In boot camp?

James___ wrote: And it's sad that all you have are word games.

I have no word games. Plenty of sudokus, though. What word games do you think I have?

James___ wrote: It's strange how many Americans are at war but the enemy are other Americans.

How many is that?

James___ wrote: It's like they have something to prove,

Necessity is th mother of invention.

James___ wrote: like how important they or their ideas are ...

.. on an anonymous message board? Can that work?

James___ wrote: Just bored, unhappy people that are sad

Are you telling me that there are unhappy people that are sad? I'm not sure if I'll buy that. Let me read up on it first.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Because global warming from emissions is real...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
O'Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 029-04-2019 18:46
"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback731-03-2019 17:14
India's carbon dioxide emissions up 5%027-03-2019 22:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact