Current Events > Imagine being stalked by a killer with an AR and seeing dead friends

(+) Yeah! (+)

@DyingPancake posted...

he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Quote where I said that.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Youre correct that I didnt respond the best. Im sorry for that, @GregShmedley

The reason people get like this, though, is because its supremely difficult to be someone on the side of gun control who says lets be fair and not ban all guns, just the ones frequently used in mass shootings, and the response is constantly well handguns are just as dangerous! Like, fine, ban them too then. Were trying to make a concession and its still an all or nothing proposition with you guys. People on my side of the aisle are frequently accused of trying to take away everyones guns, but when we suggest just limiting the most frequently used type in massacre settings, thats also not an acceptable answer.

It gets the feeling of
Liberal: Ban all guns
Conservative: Thats ridiculous, we need to defend ourselves
Liberal: Fair enough, ban or at least limit the ones these people keep using to kill people en masse in a hurry
Conservative: No, thats infringing on my rights
Liberal: Okay, whats your suggestion
Conservative; Improve mental healthcare
Liberal: Alright, I guess thats a start, at least... lets get that legislation going
Conservative: No

It leads to the frustration I posted with this morning.

You can't say one side is "all in or nothing" when that's literally what you are proposing. Hell thats what this whole topic is proposing

And you and I both know thats not how a conversation here works. Look at any of the countless gun topics and count up how many people want to ban guns vs how many want to acutally talk about the problem. You know which one is going to be more prevalent by a mile
---

ledbowman posted...

@DyingPancake posted...

he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Quote where I said that.

ledbowman posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

@ledbowman posted...

Quote where I said ban guns. I said ban the AR-15.

Ban a gun that isn't used in 99.99% of firearm murders and wasn't even used in the most deadly school shooting, and is functionally no different from any other semiautomatic rifle. And also is used in fewer murders than hammers are.

Great plan.

Ban all semi-autos.

---

DyingPancake posted...

Hell thats what this whole topic is proposing

Quote where.
---

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

@DyingPancake posted...

he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Quote where I said that.

ledbowman posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

@ledbowman posted...

Quote where I said ban guns. I said ban the AR-15.

Ban a gun that isn't used in 99.99% of firearm murders and wasn't even used in the most deadly school shooting, and is functionally no different from any other semiautomatic rifle. And also is used in fewer murders than hammers are.

Great plan.

Ban all semi-autos.

Where does that say full ban on guns?
---

My perfect world solution, @DyingPancake, if I had to give an answer RIGHT NOW, would be ban rifles, limit handguns to a car-esque license and registration process for self defense.

But thats the thing. That is pretty far left on the issue, and I fully understand that. Just because that is my stance doesnt mean Im unwilling to meet in the middle on it. Theres an assumption that because people like me find most guns unnecessary, that if you give an inch, well take a mile. Thats not inherently true. Compromise is possible. I would absolutely settle for rigorous background checks, licensing, and improved mental health care and leaving it at that without banning a specific weapon. We can meet in the middle with a little good faith on both sides.
---

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

@DyingPancake posted...

he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Quote where I said that.

ledbowman posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

@ledbowman posted...

Quote where I said ban guns. I said ban the AR-15.

Ban a gun that isn't used in 99.99% of firearm murders and wasn't even used in the most deadly school shooting, and is functionally no different from any other semiautomatic rifle. And also is used in fewer murders than hammers are.

Great plan.

Ban all semi-autos.

Where does that say full ban on guns?

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos
---

Also FWIW I say all this while weighing over someday purchasing a handgun to keep in my house for self-defense. Im not a ban all guns, period guy.
---

Ben_Ruggiero posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Ben_Ruggiero posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Remove the AR and the killer just uses another tool.

Id like to see the dude kill 17 people and wound many more in two minutes with a knife, or even a handgun tbh

You should read up on the attacks in China

The one that left... *counts on fingers* one dead?

Lol. You need to educate yourself. Try googling knife attacks in China.

I literally just went over this a few days ago.

The first major stabbing rampage had 24 people stabbed and 0 dead. ZERO dead.

It inspired 2 years of copycat killing sprees, all of which the attackers had nothing but hammers, knives, or hatchets and ended up producing a grand total of 35 dead. 35 dead IN TWO YEARS WORTH OF SPREE KILLINGS. The most deadly of these attacks produced 8 dead, less than half of the recent Florida shooting and we end up with more people dead in just ONE spree killing than China did OVER TWO YEARS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%9312%29
---

DyingPancake posted...

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos

DyingPancake posted...

I love how earlier in the topic TC said he didn't want to ban all guns, but now that it has been shown that he knows jack shit about the subject he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Ben_Ruggiero posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Ben_Ruggiero posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Remove the AR and the killer just uses another tool.

Id like to see the dude kill 17 people and wound many more in two minutes with a knife, or even a handgun tbh

You should read up on the attacks in China

The one that left... *counts on fingers* one dead?

Lol. You need to educate yourself. Try googling knife attacks in China.

I literally just went over this a few days ago.

The first major stabbing rampage had 24 people stabbed and 0 dead. ZERO dead.

It inspired 2 years of copycat killing sprees, all of which the attackers had nothing but hammers, knives, or hatchets and ended up producing a grand total of 35 dead. 35 dead IN TWO YEARS WORTH OF SPREE KILLINGS. The most deadly of these attacks produced 8 dead, less than half of the recent Florida shooting and we end up with more people dead in just ONE spree killing than China did OVER TWO YEARS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%9312%29

I asked that guy what he was talking about days ago and he fled, never seen again, so
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

My perfect world solution, @DyingPancake, if I had to give an answer RIGHT NOW, would be ban rifles, limit handguns to a car-esque license and registration process for self defense.

But thats the thing. That is pretty far left on the issue, and I fully understand that. Just because that is my stance doesnt mean Im unwilling to meet in the middle on it. Theres an assumption that because people like me find most guns unnecessary, that if you give an inch, well take a mile. Thats not inherently true. Compromise is possible. I would absolutely settle for rigorous background checks, licensing, and improved mental health care and leaving it at that without banning a specific weapon. We can meet in the middle with a little good faith on both sides.

That can't be a solution though. A ban just isn't a viable answer. If you want to find some kind of solution thats not the way to go about it. Even if its for one type of gun. And rifle's in general? Thats going to lead to other problems that don't even have anything to do with gun violence

I mentioned this in another topic but if you ban rifiles then you're going to see a huge shift in hunting and start to see an actual problem in deer overpopulation, many families who rely on hunters each year to help provide thousands of pounds of meat to them are going to have a cut in their donations, and you will drastically be cutting the funding to wildlife conservation that not only helps protect our wildlife but also our outdoor programs and funding for expansion and upkeep of our parks and gamelands

Its an option not even worth considering honestly
---

Wow this bullshit topic is still going ?
---

DyingPancake posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

My perfect world solution, @DyingPancake, if I had to give an answer RIGHT NOW, would be ban rifles, limit handguns to a car-esque license and registration process for self defense.

But thats the thing. That is pretty far left on the issue, and I fully understand that. Just because that is my stance doesnt mean Im unwilling to meet in the middle on it. Theres an assumption that because people like me find most guns unnecessary, that if you give an inch, well take a mile. Thats not inherently true. Compromise is possible. I would absolutely settle for rigorous background checks, licensing, and improved mental health care and leaving it at that without banning a specific weapon. We can meet in the middle with a little good faith on both sides.

That can't be a solution though. A ban just isn't a viable answer. If you want to find some kind of solution thats not the way to go about it. Even if its for one type of gun. And rifle's in general? Thats going to lead to other problems that don't even have anything to do with gun violence

I mentioned this in another topic but if you ban rifiles then you're going to see a huge shift in hunting and start to see an actual problem in deer overpopulation, many families who rely on hunters each year to help provide thousands of pounds of meat to them are going to have a cut in their donations, and you will drastically be cutting the funding to wildlife conservation that not only helps protect our wildlife but also our outdoor programs and funding for expansion and upkeep of our parks and gamelands

Its an option not even worth considering honestly

I know a lot of deer hunters and none of them hunt with semi-auto rifles.
---

Even if you NEED semi-autos to hunt deer, and if we assume banning semi-autos is 100% not an option, then lets compromise and at least work on our background checks and the process of getting your hands on one.
---

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos

DyingPancake posted...

I love how earlier in the topic TC said he didn't want to ban all guns, but now that it has been shown that he knows jack shit about the subject he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Since we were talking about semi's specifically the context should have been obvious, but yes you got me on saying "all". I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess some people need a little extra push

It's not like you're really saving face though. Banning all semi's is still make literally no sense and is just as ridiculous
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Even if you NEED semi-autos to hunt deer, and if we assume banning semi-autos is 100% not an option, then lets compromise and at least work on our background checks and the process of getting your hands on one.

You said rifles in general though. When you're talking about banning something you've got to be clear. Its a pretty serious bullet (pun) point

Depending on what needs to be added to an already existing background check I could agree, but its gotta be something reasonable and crystal clear
---

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos

DyingPancake posted...

I love how earlier in the topic TC said he didn't want to ban all guns, but now that it has been shown that he knows jack shit about the subject he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Since we were talking about semi's specifically the context should have been obvious, but yes you got me on saying "all". I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess some people need a little extra push

It's not like you're really saving face though. Banning all semi's is still make literally no sense and is just as ridiculous

What are semi-autos needed for besides killing many people as easily as possible?
---

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos

DyingPancake posted...

I love how earlier in the topic TC said he didn't want to ban all guns, but now that it has been shown that he knows jack shit about the subject he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Since we were talking about semi's specifically the context should have been obvious, but yes you got me on saying "all". I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess some people need a little extra push

It's not like you're really saving face though. Banning all semi's is still make literally no sense and is just as ridiculous

What are semi-autos needed for besides killing many people as easily as possible?

Question has literally been answered in this topic already
---

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

ledbowman posted...

DyingPancake posted...

I didn't say a full ban on guns did I? I said a full ban. Which is what you want with semi-autos

DyingPancake posted...

I love how earlier in the topic TC said he didn't want to ban all guns, but now that it has been shown that he knows jack shit about the subject he's talking about his emotions have got the best of him and now he wants a full ban

Since we were talking about semi's specifically the context should have been obvious, but yes you got me on saying "all". I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess some people need a little extra push

It's not like you're really saving face though. Banning all semi's is still make literally no sense and is just as ridiculous

What are semi-autos needed for besides killing many people as easily as possible?

Question has literally been answered in this topic already

There's 170 posts. Please remind me.
---

---

I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but are any psych evals necessary to purchase a firearm?
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

27_Sandman_40 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Junkratprime03 posted...

I don't just want AR-15's banned. I want them banned, and I want there to stringent restrictions on most other firearms. If you can't drive a car you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

But this will fall on deaf ears because you aren't interested in having an honest to goodness conversation about firearm registration.

Ok then, can you show a study that empirically shows gun bans will reduce homicides? Because I can show that there's no connection at all, and that there could even be a negative impact:

Hasnt been quoted at all yet so trying again.

You forgot this one:

From the same /pol/ infograph dump you got the rest of them from

Eruption_Now posted...

From the same /pol/ infograph dump you got the rest of them from

I thought so.
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but are any psych evals necessary to purchase a firearm?

No. Any legal demand for one would likely be unconstitutional.
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

ledbowman posted...

Eruption_Now posted...

From the same /pol/ infograph dump you got the rest of them from

I thought so.

Care to argue against them instead of attacking the source?

Its not even a source, its regurgitated. The sources are properly cited in the graphs.

Care to somewhat explain them instead of copypasting a shitload of pictures and then expecting everyone else to meticulously comb through them and painstakingly research a counter argument? I'm not gonna do all that shit if you're just copying shit from 4chan.

I am a trauma surgeon, and I've seen what AR-15s can do.

An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose. The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4), has become the most commonly used rifle in US mass shootings; the recent shootings in Parkland and Las Vegas, for instance, testify to the effectiveness of this weapons design. It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order; in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but its unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made.

Given that, there is no reason that these weapons should be broadly available to the civilian population. But, given that they are, lets all understand how they are designed to kill people, not simply to shoot targets for fun.

The effectiveness of these weapons comes, first and foremost, from their ability to deliver relatively small sized, high velocity bullets in rapid sequence into a body, inflicting lethal damage.

The killing potential of a gun is primarily based on the amount of energy imparted by the bullet when it strikes the body. The bullets kinetic energy is equal to half of the bullet weight multiplied by the speed of the bullet when fired, squared in other words, the velocity that a gun can impart on a bullet is the dominant factor in determining its killing potential.

The 9mm handgun is generally regarded as an effective weapon; its bullet travels at 1,200 feet per second and delivers a kinetic energy of 400 foot pounds. By comparison, the standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 foot pounds.

Tissue destruction of the AR-15 is further enhanced by cavitation, which is the destruction of tissue beyond the direct pathway of the bullet; this occurs with high velocity bullets because their kinetic energies are over 2,500 foot pounds.

To compare again, a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon. Wounds like this, as one sees in school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland where AR-15s were used, have high fatality rates.

The AR-15 is, by design, easier to shoot accurately and rapidly than a a typical hunting rifle because it mitigates recoil. The standard AR-15 bullet, as previously stated, carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 and 4000 foot pounds, meaning it has greater recoil. The excessive recoil of a hunting rifle precludes rapid firing on target, because of the obligatory motion of the gun and its impact on the shooter. But the moderate energy of the AR-15 allows shooting on target literally as rapidly as the trigger can be pulled, while providing ample bullet speed to inflict lethal wounds.

The efficiency of the AR-15 is further compounded by large capacity ammunition magazines that permit feeding 30 or more bullets into the rifle without reloading.

Mass shootings with high fatalities are fundamentally the result of the combination of a deranged individual who wants to end the lives of a large number of random humans and his or her ability to access an assault rifle. And while there is no real debate about the need for improved mental health care in the United States, any discussion of limiting civilians access to assault rifles has been a political non-starter for far too long. Were not likely to be able to institutionalize every person who might be willing to commit a heinous crime, but we can take away their access to the most lethal weapon for doing so with a stroke of a pen.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346
---

Lol kanjo showing his racist tendencies again
---

ledbowman posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346

Didn't get shit on enough with that pos article, huh?

There are 30-round magazines available for pretty much every semi-automatic rifle, and the other ones are deadlier.
---

darkjedilink posted...

There are 30-round magazines available for pretty much every semi-automatic rifle, and the other ones are deadlier.

Oh man you totally just destroyed my point
---

darkjedilink posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but are any psych evals necessary to purchase a firearm?

No. Any legal demand for one would likely be unconstitutional.

Maybe we should rethink a bit of the constitution then, because ensuring that someone purchasing a gun is of sound mind probably wouldn't be a bad idea
---

ledbowman posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346

I needed a good laugh and some bs this morning, thanks for this.

Love how this article is the biggest feelings over facts anti gun propoganda, they going to start parading victims around too soon with this shit ?
---

Offworlder1 posted...

feelings over facts

Explain.
---

Ten deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history (c. 1950 onwards)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
---

ledbowman posted...

Offworlder1 posted...

feelings over facts

Explain.

Hey @Offworlder1 do you have any substance or are you just projecting that it's you who's feelings over fact?
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

#1 I didnt copy anything from 4chan

So where did you copy them from? Or are you gonna tell me you put them all together yourself and it's just a coincidence the same exact combination of graphs is all over 4chan?

27_Sandman_40 posted...

#2 The whole point of graphs is to explain data easier than dialogue. If you need me to explain a literal graph (where most of them even went out of their way to make DESCRIBE them), then I literally cant help you. Youve been hand held your entire life, youre going to have to do this on your own.

You're the one trying to get away with having a shitload of graphs make your argument for you. Just be honest, you don't want to take the time to explain them all because there's a shitload of them. The point of that image is to overwhelm any rebuttals with a sheer overload of information, a technique known as the Gish Gallop or the Shit Spread. So no, if you can't make your own points I'm not gonna go out of my way to discern them. You can't just vomit out a bunch of graphs on me and then tell me to prove it all wrong. Maybe it would be different if you had actually put all the graphs together yourself.

Shit ya'll flipping out over an AR-15, just wait until the new AR 670-1 hits the streets!

ledbowman posted...

and then being told the AR isn't the problem.

I don't get it. Are we supposed to agree with you? Because I would agree with the person who said that. The killer is the one who killed people. The killer is responsible for murdering everyone.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

ledbowman posted...

and then being told the AR isn't the problem.

I don't get it. Are we supposed to agree with you? Because I would agree with the person who said that. The killer is the one who killed people. The killer is responsible for murdering everyone.

AR allowed him to kill 17 more easily.
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

I copied them from a post in this topic. Unlike you I bothered to read it.

I dont want to take the time to explain them because you havent proven to me or anyone else in this topic that you will actually read our arguments instead of ignoring and deflecting. I am not going to waste my time arguing something so blatantly obvious, especially when its going to end up with you disappearing or deflecting again like you are now.

The reason I read those graphs is because I have an open mind and am willing to change stances on an issue. I dont know how exactly I feel about legislating guns, if at all. Im constantly changing based off the arguments and data I hear. So when I begin to read a post like that, Im conceding to the fact that my preconceived notions might be wrong so therefore its open to be changed. You refuse to read the graphs, you think they are a lot, because subconsciously you are unwilling to change. Your opinion is so blindfolded that literally nothing is going to change it and it is a waste of time trying to have an intellectual discussion with you.

The graphs are properly cited. I never heard of the show graphs without further summary for children fallacy, but apparently I violated that one. I guess my argument is therefore fallacious. Oh well.

The poster you copied from, copied them from 4chan. I can understand graphs just fine, but it is annoying when someone copies and pastes an argument instead of stating it in their own words and then spams it over and over again, demanding a response that will require way more effort simply because it actually requires original thought. Maybe you were easily impressed, but when I see ten graphs spliced together in one image to create a narrative my instinct is to question it. I would have that same reaction if it was supporting my argument as well. If you want to debate about an issue then use your own words, don't copy and paste shit and then drop the mic like you said something profound.

But by all means keep being proud of yourself because you changed your mind. If you want to change my mind you're gonna have to do more than repost someone else's propaganda. And if you want to give up, that's fine. But know that it's not because I'm close-minded, but because you can't articulate your own argument and instead seek out others to make it for you.

By the way, I'm not the one deflecting, I believe gun control is the answer to the epidemic of mass shootings in our country. The people you are agreeing with are simply trying to poke holes in that solution, they don't spend any time offering real alternative solutions of their own. They will never run out of excuses to not take action, because the basic truth is they view what happened in Parkland as an acceptable price for their right to own guns. And if you agree with that then we really do have nothing to say to each other, because I disagree with that on the most fundamental level, and nothing will ever change my mind in that respect.

ledbowman posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

ledbowman posted...

and then being told the AR isn't the problem.

I don't get it. Are we supposed to agree with you? Because I would agree with the person who said that. The killer is the one who killed people. The killer is responsible for murdering everyone.

AR allowed him to kill 17 more easily.

Literally any firearm would have done it.
---