AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[JollyMon]

FALSE. Show me the link to a timeline that states most of the victims died in the first few minutes. It was the 3 hour wait that turned shooting victims into shooting deaths.
He also spent the time in the bathroom reloading mags, which proves how bogus your theory is that hi cap mags are somehow more lethal.

Not sure about died, but police had the main area under their control within 5 minutes. Granted, I agree it was the three hour wait before treatment that probably elevated the death toll, but dont see why police wouldnt drag injured victims away. Hence I believe both of you equally.

GUN WATCH: Orlando; The Problems Police Responders Face with Active Shooters; How People can Help

 

[rvb]

I don't see anyone demanding unrestricted access to NFA items for everyone. I'm sure you know a few people who, while having the RIGHT to KBA, probably shouldn't be trusted with such things; they ain't right in the head, too prone to anger issues, or just plain reckless.

If you agree with that last sentence, then you're FOR gun control!

Then you haven't been paying close attention. Myself, and many other gun owners, incl on this forum, are opposed to the NFA. I'm also opposed to GCA, FOPA MG ban, etc. I find it fundamentally opposed to liberty to have to purchase a right back from the government. Can you imagine the uproar if it cost you $200 to "claim the 5th" any time you wanted to not incriminate yourself or to require a police get a warrant before searching your home?!

And yes, I know people who aren't too smart or right in the head, reckless, anger easily, etc. That still doesn't make me favor gun control... They also have drivers licenses and vehicles and sometimes they even vote! There are lots of ways for those folks to be a danger to society.

If we got rid of the NFA, would we see a huge increase in violent crime, mass murders, etc? maybe. but I doubt it.
If we banned all "high-cap," semi-auto firearms, would we see a huge increase in public safety? maybe. but I doubt it.

But then, I'm willing to accept a slight risk to my personal safety if it means living with more freedom, especially if that means I also have more freedom in how/when I can defend myself (e.g. get rid of GFZs).

And with an engineer's mind, I tend not to be swayed by a single sad event; I can look at the national statistics and the impact of proposed legislation and see how futile it is. Of course, Orlando made me hurt for those people and their families, and I literally cried after Sandy Hook (easy to empathize w/ one kid in kindergarten and another in pre-k at the time). But I don't have a guilt complex because I own ARs. Instead I think, in Orlando, where was the "Let's Roll" mentality that occurred on flight 93 on 9/11. As this guy reloaded multiple times, the crowd didn't take any opportunities? Reducing capacity of the gun so he has to reload even more wouldn't have mattered w/o the right mentality to act. He could have used my Remington 788 30-30 with a fanny pack full of 5-round mags in that atmosphere and been as successful.

-rvb

 

[BE Mike]

"Well-regulated militia..."

It doesn't follow with the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. It was intentional that it said the right of the people. The military doesn't need individual rights to bear arms. The Bill of Rights refers to individual rights.

 

[david890]

David's opinion that the AR is not appropriate for most applications is not an acceptable reason to restrict rights. I am a little biased, but Jamil's opinion that AR-15s are an excellent platform for home defense, varmint control and other hunting, and well as for competition shooting, supersedes david890s opinion that they aren't appropriate.

I don't recall saying those uses were INAPPROPRIATE. What I recall stating (or at least inferring) is that using a 30-, 60- or 100-round mag for such uses wasn't appropriate or justifiable (comp shooting excluded). HD, varmint control, hunting, etc., were all done effectively before the introduction of the AR.

 

[david890]

Abortion....

I am curious what he believes the limit should be on the number of abortions an individual can get....One does not technically "need" an abortion.....

Other than, ya know, "life/health of the mother", don't have the cash to properly raise that child, etc.

I suspect many in INGO have more ARs than the typical woman has abortions...

 

[david890]

That fallacy is the idea that 49 people dying in close proximity to each other, by the same cause, is somehow more tragic than if they had died over a longer period of time as a result of separate causes of death.

That is simply SO WRONG.

49 dying in close proximity, by the same cause, IS more tragic. Everyone accepts that we can't prevent every death. But to claim we shouldn't prevent a mass shooting because we don't prevent a SINGLE shooting is a fallacy.

I suspect if you asked liberal and conservative both, each would agree that 9/11 was far more tragic than the other 7,000 or so deaths that occurred that day, as most of those 7,000 deaths had more to do with bad decisions by the victim (e.g., heart disease from obesity and failure to exercise, cancer from smoking, drunk driving, etc) than dying due to the decisions of a handful of terrorists.

We're hard-wired to view mass death as somehow "worse" than single, separated deaths. Heck, we still snap our heads around to stare at a loud noise (the "orienting reflex") because loud noises like shrieking tires and the crunching of metal usually mean bad things are happening, and we had better pay attention to them, lest we become a victim.

 

[david890]

Problem is, his kind is winning.[/QUOTE

That's not the reason. It's that both sides are simply more polarized. There's no "middle ground" anymore, because people have learned that if you take your argument to an extreme (think of 2 men hand-cuffed together, and one is willing to jump off a cliff to get what he wants), you're more likely to get what you want. The discussion has become a "zero-sum" game, and we know from experience that the crazy folks tend to win.

It's like an article I read several months ago about divided America. It's Cracker Barrel vs Whole Foods.

I shop at Kroger's. Ya know, the "middle ground" grocery store. Also, Cracker Barrel is a restaurant, while Whole Foods is a grocery.

 

[BogWalker]

I don't recall saying those uses were INAPPROPRIATE. What I recall stating (or at least inferring) is that using a 30-, 60- or 100-round mag for such uses wasn't appropriate or justifiable (comp shooting excluded). HD, varmint control, hunting, etc., were all done effectively before the introduction of the AR.

You have no need for competition shooting. Surrender your magazines over 10 rounds in capacity.

Oh, and people with neck injuries shot effectively before the AR was invented as well.

You have no case for why you should have one and we shouldn't.

 

[david890]

Instead I think, in Orlando, where was the "Let's Roll" mentality that occurred on flight 93 on 9/11.

So, the cop who retreated into the club is just a p*ssy? Didn't have what it takes? That "Let's roll!" works against a locked door, or a few guys with box-cutters equally as someone with an AR?

As this guy reloaded multiple times, the crowd didn't take any opportunities?

Ah, yes. Blame the victims. I'm sure YOU would have had him down in seconds, using only your smartphone...

 

[worddoer]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already-- I only read the first 5-6 pages of the thread.

There is one core fallacy that underpins all the arguments about ammo capacity and what someone "needs" in terms of firepower or rate of fire and so forth. And it is indeed a fallacy.

That fallacy is the idea that 49 people dying in close proximity to each other, by the same cause, is somehow more tragic than if they had died over a longer period of time as a result of separate causes of death.

If the same 49 people had been mugged and killed in different places of the city, by different people, at different times over a six month period, for example, nobody would care at all what weapons were used, or the motivations of the person doing the crimes.


On September 11th, 2001, it's a statistical certainty the someone was killed by a drunk driver. Did that person's family get a million dollars from the Feds? No. Why not? Because dying in the twin towers made you a special class of victim, and you and your family apparently deserve more justice than those people who also died that day, but were loved no less by those who cared for them.

This is why we see headlines for San Bernardino, but nothing for the exact same number of people that die in most typical weeks in Chicago-- by the exact same cause of death: being shot to death.

49 people shot to death in a club is the "worst shooting in our nation's history (ignoring Wounded Knee, I supposed). Yet 49 people being shot within a similar period of time elsewhere in the state of Florida? Meh, that's just life, right?


What is the root of this fallacy?

I think it is simple. I think that a typical bleeding heart liberal thinks it's more tragic because it's more tragic to THEMSELVES. A person who loses a loved one isn't comforted by the fact that nobody else was also murdered at the same time.

But the bleeding heart liberal? Oh, he's SO MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE knowing that all those deaths are split into smaller, separate events. It spares him his own personal trauma of having to deal with how much evil there is in the world. It allows him to talk about "senseless" acts of violence (senseless only to the person who denies the evil and crazy in the world). His worldview and its belief in inherently good people are violently and authoritatively refuted by the mass shooting. But when those shootings are split into smaller events? He can deny those, ignore them. The media won't cover it. There's no widespread emotional reaction. There's no reason to think it could be capitalized upon to seize political power.


So the liberal really doesn't care about saving lives. He cares not at all about the number of people who die from a GSW. What he cares about is whether he will be exposed to it-- his own personal trauma. Sure, it's tragic that someone had a loved one die in the club, but it his mind, it's JUST as tragic that he has to live in a world where such things happen. That someone can't see the obvious solution and just "do something" about the "gun problem."


You see, a gun grabber, like most Statist/Leftist types, is a selfish narcissist. He hates liberty because of how you might use yours. And if you use yours differently than he thinks you should, you are a hateful racist, a bigoted ignorant moron.

And because HIS OWN emotions are the only ones that matter-- the arbiters of what is truth, far above anything science or reason may demonstrate-- he wants those emotions spared, their exquisite, enlightened sensitivity exposed only to pre-filtered events that perpetuate his confirmation bias.

So a mass shooting, to the liberal, is FAR more tragic than other means of death over other spans of time or distance. Because HE is traumatized, and he cares nothing for the actual victims.

So he will indulge all manners of illogical, untrue, even counterproductive policy recommendations that cannot save a single life or bring one back from the dead. Because it's not about saving lives in general. It's about saving one particular life (his own) from the discomfort of seeing the ugly reality of human depravity.

So if you think it's OK to have 10 rounds of lethal force, but not 30, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you believe that 10 people dead or wounded is acceptable, but 30 is not, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you believe that 10 people shot is terrible, but 10 people stabbed to death is just part of life, you are exactly this kind of narcissistic liberal. If you want to ban "assault rifles" but not handguns, airguns, knives, compound bows, cordless tools, garden implements, or any of the other means someone can harm someone else-- you are EXACTLY this kind of narcissistic liberal.



H

Excellent points sir! And, IMHO, spot on regarding David's motivations.

But don't expect any sort of real response other than repeating the same things. Most likely you will just end up on David's ignore list. The longer this thread goes on, the more I believe that David is a gun control advocate trying to portray himself otherwise. It seems to me that David is just regurgitating the gun control info he has consumed from websites like these.....

https://theprogressivecynic.com/deb...g-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

Strangely, every time someone brings a logical and valid point, David is suddenly quiet and never does acknowledge or answer them.

Kirk, Hough, myself and others have posts that have never been acknowledged nor answered. So apparently his beliefs are not strong enough to counter those arguments. So we must be ignored to allow David to stay in his world of self imposed ignorance and delusion.

 

[david890]

Oh, and people with neck injuries shot effectively before the AR was invented as well.

Citations, please. And don't presume to understand the level of pain I deal with on a daily issue.

You have no case for why you should have one and we shouldn't.

My case has been...repeated ad nauseum...for the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of the AR (i.e., the in-line barrel, BCG, and buffer assembly), not the CAPACITY of the magazine. The design allows me to shoot without pain, something few other designs allow.

As I have also stated, I own an AR in 300 Blackout. I can turn the gas off, making it similar to a bolt-action in the need to physically cycle the action for the next round.

 

[Gary119]

David, simple question. If three men were intent on doing you/your wife/your grand children harm/death, they each had 20/30 round magazines, what would you want your magazine size to be? Would you be content with a 5 or 10?

You seem to be looking at this from the killers stand point, the folks on here, are looking at it from the victims.

Whatever ammo he has I want double, and I hope I'm a lot better aim.

 

[worddoer]

I don't recall saying those uses were INAPPROPRIATE. What I recall stating (or at least inferring) is that using a 30-, 60- or 100-round mag for such uses wasn't appropriate or justifiable (comp shooting excluded). HD, varmint control, hunting, etc., were all done effectively before the introduction of the AR.

If David is truely a gun owner (which I don't believe) he is at best Fudd material.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fudd

 

[BogWalker]

Citations, please. And don't presume to understand the level of pain I deal with on a daily issue.



My case has been...repeated ad nauseum...for the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of the AR (i.e., the in-line barrel, BCG, and buffer assembly), not the CAPACITY of the magazine. The design allows me to shoot without pain, something few other designs allow.

As I have also stated, I own an AR in 300 Blackout. I can turn the gas off, making it similar to a bolt-action in the need to physically cycle the action for the next round.

Citations please? Citations of what? Are you trying to say that, in the history of firearms, you're the first person to use one with a severe neck injury?

What size are your magazines?

You could permanently disable the gas system. Why don't you?

Oh, and there are many firearms with less recoil impulse than an AR-15 in .300 blackout. Why don't you use one of those?

 

[david890]

David, simple question. If three men were intent on doing you/your wife/your grand children harm/death, they each had 20/30 round magazines, what would you want your magazine size to be? Would you be content with a 5 or 10?

Depends on the situation. Can I/we retreat? What are the surroundings? Are they doing "spray and pray", or taking well-aimed, well-timed shots? Do I have a Glock 19 with a standard mag or a S&W 5-shot .32? Do I have a Rem 870 or a Rem 700?

Every situation is different. What if it's 10 bad guys instead of 3? My answer will vary. In actual experience, merely brandishing my shotgun behind a screen door was enough to scare off an unknown number of intruders at my mother's farm late one night. Had I been fired upon, I would have retreated to a more defensible position and waited for them to act. No hope for police, as the nearest cop would have been anywhere from 10 to 60 minutes away. I would do the best I could with the tools I had. Wishing for something more won't make a difference.

What if the 1st shot from one of those bad guys hits the receiver and jams your AR? Magazine size won't matter to you then...

 

[david890]

Citations please? Citations of what? Are you trying to say that, in the history of firearms, you're the first person to use one with a severe neck injury?

Not at all. I simply would like you to cite medical information regarding the effects of felt recoil on someone with a severely-damaged spine. In my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I can shoot an AR with less pain than a bolt-action.

What size are your magazines?

30-round. Would I trade them in for 10-round mags if that were to become law? Yes, as I wish to remain a legal shooter.

You could permanently disable the gas system. Why don't you?

Getting up from the rifle to cycle the action manually would likely be quite painful on my lower back. It's worse than my neck.

Oh, and there are many firearms with less recoil impulse than an AR-15 in .300 blackout. Why don't you use one of those?

.22LR? I have a conversion kit for my AR if I wish to shoot that caliber. As for the 300 Blackout, I chose it because the majority of parts are interchangeable with my other ARs.

 

[BugI02]

So, the cop who retreated into the club is just a p*ssy? Didn't have what it takes? That "Let's roll!" works against a locked door, or a few guys with box-cutters equally as someone with an AR?

Dude, if yer pretty sure you're gonna die anyway take a few with you

Ah, yes. Blame the victims. I'm sure YOU would have had him down in seconds, using only your smartphone...

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

Guns of Brixton
The Clash

 

[BogWalker]

Not at all. I simply would like you to cite medical information regarding the effects of felt recoil on someone with a severely-damaged spine. In my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I can shoot an AR with less pain than a bolt-action.



30-round. Would I trade them in for 10-round mags if that were to become law? Yes, as I wish to remain a legal shooter.



Getting up from the rifle to cycle the action manually would likely be quite painful on my lower back. It's worse than my neck.



.22LR? I have a conversion kit for my AR if I wish to shoot that caliber. As for the 300 Blackout, I chose it because the majority of parts are interchangeable with my other ARs.

So you support all of these regulations being passed and forced involuntarily on you and other shooters, but you won't do it voluntarily?

 

[IndyDave1776]

If David is truely a gun owner (which I don't believe) he is at best Fudd material.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fudd

I don't know if he is telling the truth or not regarding ownership, but I am satisfied you have his nature down. I would also point out that Samuel Adams had something to say about him:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

It is also apparent that he has no problem with authoritarian government so long as it is basically aligned with his idea of right and proper.

 

[rvb]

So, the cop who retreated into the club is just a p*ssy? Didn't have what it takes? That "Let's roll!" works against a locked door, or a few guys with box-cutters equally as someone with an AR?



Ah, yes. Blame the victims. I'm sure YOU would have had him down in seconds, using only your smartphone...

I'm not blaming the victims. Of course it's not their fault. I was trying to make the point that even if the shooter had no access to dangerous "high-cap" mags, it wouldn't have mattered. If after the 1st 30 rounds, or when he had his back to part of the crowd, no one in the crowd of hundreds thought to tackle the shooter, would it have made a difference if he had to reload after 10 instead?

Witnesses report seeing him walk around executing those who were lying injured. He had to reload at least a couple times. He had to have his back to part of crowd some of the time. If I believe I'm about to eat a bullet regardless, yes, I would take any opportunity possible. Would I eat a bullet any way? very likely (the guys on flight 93 knew they were probably dead either way, too). Isn't that exactly what the gov tells us to do in those run/hide/fight videos, that if all else fails, fight, and commit to the fight? If that didn't happen here, and part of the lesson is it's not likely to happen in these situations, why the argument for mag restrictions? what would have been different?

-rvb