Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@sceletera,

Quote:

They produce more deaths because they are a variation of a model of gun that was originally designed to kill and maim humans in combat.

This is a pointless comment unless you can name a gun that wasn't meant to kill something. Should we also ban regular hunting rifles, they are used by the US military as Sniper rifles?

1 Reply

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

blah, blah, blah, blah....

I notice a slight uptick in the quality of your arguments here.

sceletera wrote:

You didn't address anything about an assault weapons ban.

Wrong. I confronted the substance of the ban directly.

sceletera wrote:

You simply accuse me of lying

Perhaps you should stop lying about people whenever you are wrong -- especially since you are wrong virtually all the time.

sceletera wrote:

and then double down on all your fallacious arguments.

Facts that prove you wrong are hardly a fallacious argument.

sceletera wrote:

What would be banned under the law ...

Quote:
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22;

A series of guns with pistol grips would be banned under that law.

sceletera wrote:

Not a single mention of a pistol grip in that list.

That does not change the reality that those guns were banned because of pistol grips and similar features that there is also no reason to ban.

sceletera wrote:

Resorting to arguing about pistol grips is clearly not dealing with the issue of banning the named weapons.

When those guns were banned only because of pistol grips and other features that there is no good reason to ban, referring to pistol grips and the other features is very much dealing with the issue.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

As has been shown, the banned guns result in more deaths in a mass shooting incident on average than other guns do.

Wrong. You have not shown that these guns are any more deadly than a rifle that doesn't have pistol grips.

If you want to show that pistol grips make a rifle more deadly, you need to compare "rifles with pistol grips" against "rifles that don't have pistol grips".

Showing that rifles are more deadly than handguns is addressing an entirely different issue from the question of pistol grips.

sceletera wrote:

They don't produce more deaths because the pistol grips didn't save a life.

Pistol grips do not cost any lives, and are thus not responsible for the number of people that are killed.

sceletera wrote:

They produce more deaths because they are a variation of a model of gun that was originally designed to kill and maim humans in combat.

That is incorrect. They produce more deaths because they are rifles with large magazines.

"What variation of gun they are" is entirely irrelevant to how many people they kill.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
They produce more deaths because they are a variation of a model of gun that was originally designed to kill and maim humans in combat.

This is a pointless comment unless you can name a gun that wasn't meant to kill something. Should we also ban regular hunting rifles, they are used by the US military as Sniper rifles?

There is a difference between a gun designed to kill buffaloes or elephants and one designed to kill humans. Do you know the difference between a human and a deer and a rabbit?

I have never argued that guns designed for other purposes that the military has decided to use should be banned. (If such guns even exist. I doubt the military distributes rifles that they purchased at Walmart.) The M-16 was designed specifically for the military.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Pistol grips is a red herring.

You haven't addressed any weapon on this list

Quote:

‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22;

The Tec-9 is not a rifle.
The Uzi is not a rifle.
the SWD M-series is not a rifle.

Now are just making yourself look silly by arguing that they are rifles.

1 Reply

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

Pistol grips is a red herring.

Not when discussing a law about pistol grips.

sceletera wrote:

You haven't addressed any weapon on this list

Yes I have.

sceletera wrote:

The Tec-9 is not a rifle.
The Uzi is not a rifle.
the SWD M-series is not a rifle.

They are all included on the list only because they possess features that there is no reason to ban.

1 Reply

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

There is a difference between a gun designed to kill buffaloes or elephants and one designed to kill humans. Do you know the difference between a human and a deer and a rabbit?

As if adding a pistol grip to a rifle made it any more useful for killing humans (or made it inappropriate for hunting deer).

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Pistols were not banned because they had pistol grips.

2 Replies

@sceletera,

That does not change the fact that a number of rifles were banned because of pistol grips.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

Quote:

There is a difference between a gun designed to kill buffaloes or elephants and one designed to kill humans.

No there isn't a difference, a gun is a gun is a gun. Do you plan on banning certain calibers? What is the difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle and an AR-15? How about a gun that is designed to kill wild hogs or coyotes?

Quote:

Do you know the difference between a human and a deer and a rabbit?

I sure do, do you know the difference between the guns you want banned and the ones you don't? I'll bet you don't really know anything about guns except what the anti-gun groups tell you.

Quote:

I have never argued that guns designed for other purposes that the military has decided to use should be banned. (If such guns even exist. I doubt the military distributes rifles that they purchased at Walmart.) The M-16 was designed specifically for the military.

Civilians can't own M-16's, they are are more than semi-auto, the M-16 shoots semi-auto and 3 round burst. The AR-15 only shoots in semi-auto.

I'll ask the same question that I did above, what is the difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle and an AR-15?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Quote:
There is a difference between a gun designed to kill buffaloes or elephants and one designed to kill humans.

No there isn't a difference, a gun is a gun is a gun.

Do you have evidence that the military didn't do any research before they changed to the M-16? Everything I have read shows they did and were looking for specific characteristics in a gun. One thing they discovered is that accuracy of the weapon isn't nearly as important as the number of bullets it can deliver that wins battles.

When it comes to war or killing humans, all guns are not the same. What do you think would happen if 100 men armed with breech loading muskets did battle with 10 men armed with M-16s? If all guns are the same then 100 men would defeat 10. But we know that isn't the case and surely you can admit that.

4 Replies

@sceletera,

sceletera wrote:

Do you have evidence that the military didn't do any research before they changed to the M-16? Everything I have read shows they did and were looking for specific characteristics in a gun. One thing they discovered is that accuracy of the weapon isn't nearly as important as the number of bullets it can deliver that wins battles.

A semi-auto AR-15 does not deliver bullets any faster than it would if it didn't have pistol grips.

sceletera wrote:

When it comes to war or killing humans, all guns are not the same.

Rifles with pistol grips are pretty much the same as rifles without pistol grips.

sceletera wrote:

What do you think would happen if 100 men armed with breech loading muskets did battle with 10 men armed with M-16s?

That is a difference a bit more significant than pistol grips verses no pistol grips.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You seem to have a fascination with pistol grips. Did you know all pistols have pistol grips?

1 Reply

@sceletera,

Well, when the topic of discussion is a law that focuses on pistol grips.

Since you're running out of steam on this argument, wanna try me on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

http://able2know.org/topic/1591-66#post-6609488

2 Replies

@sceletera,

You are really kind and patient.

1 Reply

@sceletera,

Quote:

Do you have evidence that the military didn't do any research before they changed to the M-16? Everything I have read shows they did and were looking for specific characteristics in a gun. One thing they discovered is that accuracy of the weapon isn't nearly as important as the number of bullets it can deliver that wins battles.

Here's a hint, I was in the Army and you get a brief history of military fire arms while in basic training. There were several reasons for switching over to the M-16, more ammo was a consideration, but that was only because they were using lighter and smaller bullets. The purpose behind the 5.56 isn't actually to kill. Fighting theory says you can kill 1 soldier and leave the rest of his buddies still in the fight. A lighter bullet doesn't kill, it is meant to do major damage and leave the soldier wounded, resulting in his buddies having to remove him from the fight to get treatment for his wounds, that is taking guns off the fighting line. The 5.56 round is meant to "tumble" and do damage instead of just killing.

Quote:

When it comes to war or killing humans, all guns are not the same.

Tell that to the people who have been killed with guns. Did it matter that it was a .22 to the back of the head or a 7.62 to the gut if they think there is a difference. How many people have been killed in war with the AR-15?

Quote:

What do you think would happen if 100 men armed with breech loading muskets did battle with 10 men armed with M-16s?

That depends, is it 10 Navy Seals or 10 schmoes? Those dude with muskets could shoot a lot better than most modern day Americans, remember they actually hunted for their own food so they had to be better shots.

Quote:

If all guns are the same then 100 men would defeat 10. But we know that isn't the case and surely you can admit that.

I do admit that, why do you think I wouldn't want to be left armed only with a bolt action rifle in the event we ever have to fight against our govt, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention specific guns because of what you just mentioned, it's why there is no mention of hunting or sport shooting. You should really read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for a better understanding of what was actually intended with the 2nd Amendment. It was actually the Anti-Federalists who made sure the 2nd was written as it is.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

You are really kind and patient.

All he did was pursue an obviously untrue argument despite being repeatedly proven wrong on the facts, occasionally resorting to lies and personal attacks for good measure.

That is typical leftist behavior, but not really anything to do with kindness or patience.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

You didn't answer the question about the difference between the Ruger Ranch Rifle and the AR-15? What about them puts one on the list and not the other? The Mini-14 wasn't mentioned.

0 Replies

@sceletera,

Okay, we'll look at all of the mass shootings since 2004, after the federal ban expired. And yes, I've included your list of six.

Since 2004:

Orlando nightclub: 50 killed. Both rifle and pistol used.

Sandy Hook: 28 killed. Both rifle and pistol used.

Sutherland Springs Church: 27 killed. Rifle used.

San Bernardino: 14 killed. Both rifle and pistol used.

Orange County, Florida: 5 killed. Pistol used.

Fort Lauderdale airport: 5 killed. Pistol used.

Roseburg, Oregon: 9 killed. Pistol used.

Chattanooga, Tennessee: 5 killed. Both rifle and pistol used.

Charleston, South Carolina: 9 killed. Pistol used.

Isla Vista, California: 6 killed. Pistol and knife used.

Washington, D.C.: 12 killed. Pistol and shotgun used.

Santa Monica, California: 5 killed. Rifle and pistol used.

Minneapolis, Minnesota: 6 killed. Pistol used.

Aurora, Colorado: 12 killed. Pistol and rifle used.

Oakland, California: 7 killed. Pistol used.

Seal Beach, California: 8 killed. Pistol used.

Tuscon, Arizona: 6 killed. Pistol used.

Manchester, Connecticut: 8 killed. Pistol used.

Minnesota: 9 killed. Pistol used.

Goleta, California: 6 killed. Pistol used.

Meridian, Mississippi: 6 killed. Shotgun and rifle used.

Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania: 5 killed. Shotgun, bolt action rifle, and pistol used.

Salt Lake City, Utah: 5 killed. Pistol and shotgun used.

Blacksburg, Virginia: 32 killed. Pistol used.

Omaha, Nebraska: 8 killed. Rifle used.

Dekalb, Illinois: 5 killed. shotgun and pistol used.

Binghampton, New York: 13 killed. Pistol used.

Fort Hood, Texas: 13 killed. Pistol used.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
____________________________________________________________________________________________

I split the number on those killings done with both rifle and pistol. It comes out to 95 killings done with rifles, and 212 killings with pistols. It does not appear that rifles are preferred by mass shooters.

1 Reply

I'm sorry, I mistakenly omitted the Las Vegas shooting which would add another 58. It was done with three rifles and one pistol.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know