Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted with Progressives

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with Progressives
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Nov 7, 2017 8:59 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880530 wrote:Both sides use these events immediately, there is not monopoly on the left. Once some crackpot shoots a place up, the gun lovers are out in force saying, "Oh, now the libs are going to blame guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people" etc.

Not having access to assault weapons would make a difference. We have nut jobs here that use them in all of these big events. There's a reason they don't bring a handgun. You cannot buy similar weapons in most other western countries. Assuming there are proportionally the same number of nut jobs in those countries as in ours, why then to we have more of these events on a massive scale then elsewhere?
First bit of information you seem to not understand.

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon, it is semi-auto fire which is just like most hand guns and hunting rifles.

The difference between an AR-15 and a say Ruger Mini 14 hunting rifle?

They fire the same round (.223)
They have the same rate of fire. (Fast as one can pull the trigger)
They have the same types of available clips.

The difference? An AR-15 looks scary, the Ruger Mini 14 looks like a hunting rifle.
Nov 7, 2017 8:59am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:24 AM
like_that;1880534 wrote:The picture of not having 2nd amendment rights vs a tyrannical government.



If you're going to go full retard with posts like the one you just posted, it is only seems reasonable to counter them with this.
I don't know where you picture is from. But I don't think you actually believe that without personal gun ownership, out country would immediately descend into chaos.
Nov 7, 2017 9:24am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:30 AM
jmog;1880540 wrote:First bit of information you seem to not understand.

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon, it is semi-auto fire which is just like most hand guns and hunting rifles.

The difference between an AR-15 and a say Ruger Mini 14 hunting rifle?

They fire the same round (.223)
They have the same rate of fire. (Fast as one can pull the trigger)
They have the same types of available clips.

The difference? An AR-15 looks scary, the Ruger Mini 14 looks like a hunting rifle.
I appreciate your technical knowledge. I don't want to get lost in the semantics. My point is that a weapon that fires like the ones that have been used in the most severe of these mass shootings is not something that should be available - whatever the name of it is. There is a reason these guys choose the weapons they do when they carry these things out. If someone showed up with a handgun, they could still kill people yes. But the opportunity for them to shoot as accurately with as many bullets is greatly diminished. There would likely be more of a chance of the perpetrator being attacked while in the act since his firing wouldn't be as accurate. Not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than what we have today.

If these more powerful weapons are okay, where do you stop - and why do you stop? Do you allow shoulder held rocket launchers? Why not?
Nov 7, 2017 9:30am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:34 AM
iclfan2;1880535 wrote:A truck killed 84 people in Nice, did you forget that?.
No I didn't. There will always be ways to kill people available to these people. The cost to society of eliminating automobiles because they are dangerous is incalculable. They are produced for a multitude of uses that allow the functioning of the world. Assault/powerful weapons are made for one purpose. They are military grade weapons.
Nov 7, 2017 9:34am
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:43 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:No I didn't. There will always be ways to kill people available to these people. The cost to society of eliminating automobiles because they are dangerous is incalculable. They are produced for a multitude of uses that allow the functioning of the world. Assault/powerful weapons are made for one purpose. They are military grade weapons.
So contrary to what you said, crazy people do find other ways to kill people. Let's not even start with bombs.

Banning "assault rifles" doesn't ban all rifles. Just scary looking ARs. You could still have the same amount of magazine capacity, and same accuracy. Pistols can also get extended magazines. You're basically calling for an entire ban on all long guns, which will never happen. And then if you "ban" these things or even high capacity magazines, what happens to the millions already on the street? Calling for laws that wouldn't actually change anything seems pointless. Like explained above, maybe start enforcing the laws that already exist.
Nov 7, 2017 9:43am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:48 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880546 wrote:I don't know where you picture is from. But I don't think you actually believe that without personal gun ownership, out country would immediately descend into chaos.
Venezuela. They banned guns, and now Maduro is arming 400K of his supporters.

I don't think our country would immediately descent into chaos at this moment, but who says it couldn't happen in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? It happened very quickly in Venezuela and we have a good chunk of other examples throughout the world where it happened pretty quickly as well. You know, where 100M people have died? By all means though, please go on using a lazy a misinformed "muh founding fathers and duh militia 200 years ago" argument to try and make a severely flawed point though.

Also, still waiting for an answer. When "assault" (I assume in this case for you the AR-15) weapons are banned and gun crime statistics don't change (just like there was actually MORE gun crime when the federal assaults weapons ban was in effect from 1994-2005), what will be your next proposed solution? Try to mock people's defense of the 2nd amendment, by showing a lack clear lack of understanding of the amendment?
Nov 7, 2017 9:48am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:49 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880547 wrote:I appreciate your technical knowledge. I don't want to get lost in the semantics. My point is that a weapon that fires like the ones that have been used in the most severe of these mass shootings is not something that should be available - whatever the name of it is. There is a reason these guys choose the weapons they do when they carry these things out. If someone showed up with a handgun, they could still kill people yes. But the opportunity for them to shoot as accurately with as many bullets is greatly diminished. There would likely be more of a chance of the perpetrator being attacked while in the act since his firing wouldn't be as accurate. Not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than what we have today.

If these more powerful weapons are okay, where do you stop - and why do you stop? Do you allow shoulder held rocket launchers? Why not?
Again, gun crime was HIGHER when these type of guns were banned. The data simply does not support your argument.
Nov 7, 2017 9:49am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:52 AM
like_that;1880550 wrote:Also, still waiting for an answer. When "assault" (I assume in this case for you the AR-15) weapons are banned and gun crime statistics don't change (just like there was actually MORE gun crime when the federal assaults weapons ban was in effect from 1994-2005), what will be your next proposed solution? Try to mock people's defense of the 2nd amendment, by showing a lack clear lack of understanding of the amendment?
This is always the lefty go-to with any righty thought and even some middling thought.
Righty's do it to the lefty's too, though I don't think it's as trendy to do so. And by that, I mean mainstream/prevalent.
Nov 7, 2017 9:52am
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:53 AM
like_that;1880550 wrote:Try to mock people's defense of the 2nd amendment, by showing a lack clear lack of understanding of the amendment?
This is why the media looks so silly when they talk about guns (so instead mock an amendment that they also don't know the fact of). They have no grasp on stats, what guns are/ do, or anything related to a gun. Not one left news source has a gun guy they can go an get facts from. It is so funny when the gun experts from other sites just destroy their opinions on twitter because they are based on absolutely nothing. Lets not forget this guy who got "a slight case of PTSD" after firing an AR, what a wuss.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
Nov 7, 2017 9:53am
S

superman

Senior Member

3,582 posts
Nov 7, 2017 9:55 AM
Liberals:Trump is literally Hitler.
Also Liberals: We should ban guns and trust the government to do what's right.
Nov 7, 2017 9:55am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:22 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880547 wrote:I appreciate your technical knowledge. I don't want to get lost in the semantics. My point is that a weapon that fires like the ones that have been used in the most severe of these mass shootings is not something that should be available - whatever the name of it is. There is a reason these guys choose the weapons they do when they carry these things out. If someone showed up with a handgun, they could still kill people yes. But the opportunity for them to shoot as accurately with as many bullets is greatly diminished. There would likely be more of a chance of the perpetrator being attacked while in the act since his firing wouldn't be as accurate. Not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than what we have today.

If these more powerful weapons are okay, where do you stop - and why do you stop? Do you allow shoulder held rocket launchers? Why not?
If you believe, in a close setting, that an AR-15 is more accurate and easier to change targets quickly than a handgun, then you really should do more research.

The longer the barrel the longer the distance away from the target. The AR-15 is a great weapon for longer range targets (not sniper level distance). A semi-auto handgun is much better for close quarters in a building targets. You can re-acquire "new" targets MUCH faster with a hand gun than you can a rifle.

2 semi-auto hand guns would be much more deadly in numbers than an AR-15 inside of a church building.

By your own statement here you believe that all semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed?
Nov 7, 2017 10:22am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:27 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:No I didn't. There will always be ways to kill people available to these people. The cost to society of eliminating automobiles because they are dangerous is incalculable. They are produced for a multitude of uses that allow the functioning of the world. Assault/powerful weapons are made for one purpose. They are military grade weapons.
AR-15's are not military grade weapons, they just LOOK like military weapons. It is all cosmetic, they "look cool".

You should really do some research on that actual weapon before calling it military grade weapon. No US Armed Force distributes an AR-15 as their weapon. Look up the M4 and before that the M16.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and a typical semi-auto hunting rifle other than cosmetic appearance.
Nov 7, 2017 10:27am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:37 AM
jmog;1880563 wrote:AR-15's are not military grade weapons, they just LOOK like military weapons. It is all cosmetic, they "look cool".

You should really do some research on that actual weapon before calling it military grade weapon. No US Armed Force distributes an AR-15 as their weapon. Look up the M4 and before that the M16.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and a typical semi-auto hunting rifle other than cosmetic appearance.
Why is it the weapon of choice for many of these mass shooters?
Nov 7, 2017 10:37am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:42 AM
If the guns aren't the factor, how do you explain these large mass shootings not happening elsewhere? Mental health? There are mentally ill people everywhere in the world? Poverty? Our rate of poverty is lower than many other countries that don't have these types of mass shootings. So what is it? If its not the fact that we own more guns per capita of any country in the world (by a long shot), then what is it that causes these?
Nov 7, 2017 10:42am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:54 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880566 wrote:If the guns aren't the factor, how do you explain these large mass shootings not happening elsewhere? Mental health? There are mentally ill people everywhere in the world? Poverty? Our rate of poverty is lower than many other countries that don't have these types of mass shootings. So what is it? If its not the fact that we own more guns per capita of any country in the world (by a long shot), then what is it that causes these?
Well, since the mass majority of gun deaths are gang related and then suicide related, I would have to say it's more war on drugs and mental health issue than the actual gun itself. There are over 5M owners of AR-15s and you're proposing to ban them because .00014% of the owners (not even sure if they all had them legally), used them for pure evil. End the war on drugs, and I am willing to bet we will see less gun crime. BTW, the US barely makes the top 100 in terms of homicide rates. Plenty of countries ahead of the US, that have much stricter gun laws.

Also, still waiting on response...
like_that;1880550 wrote: Also, still waiting for an answer. When "assault" (I assume in this case for you the AR-15) weapons are banned and gun crime statistics don't change (just like there was actually MORE gun crime when the federal assaults weapons ban was in effect from 1994-2005), what will be your next proposed solution? Try to mock people's defense of the 2nd amendment, by showing a lack clear lack of understanding of the amendment?
Nov 7, 2017 10:54am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:56 AM
Just a few random points here.

The term "assault rifle" is not a term used in the military or by anyone I'm aware of in the pro-firearm community. All indications are that it's a made-up term used for the purpose of inciting the "antis".

The .223 and 5.56 cartridges used in an AR-15 are middle of the pack rifle rounds, not remotely the "death rays" portrayed. If the AR was banned, there would be any number of alternatives available for criminal purposes, the only losers being those of us who enjoy legally owning and shooting the AR platform (seems that the claim that they're only for killing is a factual untruth).

In every mass shooting, when someone arrives at the scene with roughly equal firepower, the killer either flees or kills himself. The killing stops. Is making this equalizer harder to get really a step forward in reducing the carnage? Doesn't seem so.

My screen handle was referenced earlier in terms of acknowledging issues with the current background checks. I'm aware of two. One, sometimes information that would disqualify an applicant doesn't get into the system. That happened in the case of the POS in Texas. Second, of the tens of thousands of rejections made annually, only a hundred or so people who lied on the form (a felony) are prosecuted each year. IOW, the system is as good as how well it's used, not that it's legally lacking in some way where legislation is needed.
Nov 7, 2017 10:56am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:59 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880565 wrote:Why is it the weapon of choice for many of these mass shooters?
The longer distance like Vegas it makes sense for a semi-automatic rifle.

For inside a building like this church or the Colorado theatre, or Sandy Hook, I would say because the perpetrators don't really understand what they are doing (aka they are out of their mind). Those cases are to really "look cool" while doing it (hence the flack jacket for the guy at the church but ran as soon as anyone stood up to him).

Any semi-auto hunting rifle would have been the same damage at these shootings. In some of the cases multiple semi-auto hand guns would have been worse.

Heck, in a congested area in a church a semi-auto/self loading shotgun would be FAR WORSE than an AR-15.

Anytime a shooter is up in a building to shoot targets at a distance like Vegas, an AR-15 or semi-auto rifle makes the most sense, but the school and church shootings its because the shooter really didn't know what they were doing (thank God for the people inside).
Nov 7, 2017 10:59am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Nov 7, 2017 10:59 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880566 wrote:If the guns aren't the factor, how do you explain these large mass shootings not happening elsewhere? Mental health? There are mentally ill people everywhere in the world? Poverty? Our rate of poverty is lower than many other countries that don't have these types of mass shootings. So what is it? If its not the fact that we own more guns per capita of any country in the world (by a long shot), then what is it that causes these?
Are you trying to say that mass shootings or mass killings are happening elsewhere?
Nov 7, 2017 10:59am
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Nov 7, 2017 11:02 AM
jmog;1880540 wrote:First bit of information you seem to not understand.

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon, it is semi-auto fire which is just like most hand guns and hunting rifles.

The difference between an AR-15 and a say Ruger Mini 14 hunting rifle?

They fire the same round (.223)
They have the same rate of fire. (Fast as one can pull the trigger)
They have the same types of available clips.

The difference? An AR-15 looks scary, the Ruger Mini 14 looks like a hunting rifle.
common sense posts arent going to go well when dealing with full tards on here that dont understand what guns are or what guns do
Nov 7, 2017 11:02am
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Nov 7, 2017 11:07 AM
iclfan2;1880549 wrote:So contrary to what you said, crazy people do find other ways to kill people. Let's not even start with bombs.

Banning "assault rifles" doesn't ban all rifles. Just scary looking ARs. You could still have the same amount of magazine capacity, and same accuracy. Pistols can also get extended magazines. You're basically calling for an entire ban on all long guns, which will never happen. And then if you "ban" these things or even high capacity magazines, what happens to the millions already on the street? Calling for laws that wouldn't actually change anything seems pointless. Like explained above, maybe start enforcing the laws that already exist.
Jesus the whole idea that the term "assault rifle" acutally means something is ridiculous. THESE GUNS ARE NO DIFFERENT THEN MY MARLIN .22 HUNTING RIFLE.

these reason why the body count is high is because these places are soft zones, the people cower and hide waiting to be shot. Put another gun in that church and he may have got a few people...not 20+
Nov 7, 2017 11:07am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 12:34 PM
jmog;1880570 wrote:Are you trying to say that mass shootings or mass killings are happening elsewhere?
No, I'm not meaning that. Poorly phrased. What I mean is that in other developed countries, the large mass shootings are either much rarer or nonexistent unlike here.
Nov 7, 2017 12:34pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 12:35 PM
Spock;1880572 wrote:Jesus the whole idea that the term "assault rifle" acutally means something is ridiculous. THESE GUNS ARE NO DIFFERENT THEN MY MARLIN .22 HUNTING RIFLE.

these reason why the body count is high is because these places are soft zones, the people cower and hide waiting to be shot. Put another gun in that church and he may have got a few people...not 20+
Okay, it's not the guns. Then what is it that is driving these huge mass shootings here? Why are they not happening in any way comparable in other western countries?
Nov 7, 2017 12:35pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Nov 7, 2017 12:38 PM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880592 wrote:Okay, it's not the guns. Then what is it that is driving these huge mass shootings here? Why are they not happening in any way comparable in other western countries?
Are you purposely ignoring data and events given to you?
Nov 7, 2017 12:38pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Nov 7, 2017 12:47 PM
like_that;1880593 wrote:Are you purposely ignoring data and events given to you?
I am not ignoring anything on purpose. I'm just wondering what makes these events so much more common here than in other similar countries. If it is not the prevalence of guns, fine. But then what is the reason?
Nov 7, 2017 12:47pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Nov 7, 2017 12:48 PM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880598 wrote: But then what is the reason?
Since guns can’t shoot themselves, we must have shittier people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nov 7, 2017 12:48pm