T1B

I am sitting here listening to Geraldo is disbelief.

They are talking about AR15s. Geraldo, apparently thinks that scary guns like the AR has some magical ability to turn someone into a killing machine. He was talking about how this magical device actually causes them to go over the edge.

It was pointed out that the single worst mass school shooting, evah was done with a Glock.

He just dismisses it and goes back on his tirade about evil scary looking balck guns.

So, this raises the question, "Who Needs an AR to commit such heinous acts?"

I would ask this to those who ask "Who needs an AR for self defense"

The VT asshole proved that killing people by the gross requires just a few things.....proficiency in the use of a particular weapon, plenty of mags, and an unarmed trapped group of victims.

The idea that banishing a particular type of firearm means that loser shitstains will just give up is moronic.

They can do it with a 9mm. Hell, they can do it with a belt full of 38 revolvers. The AR has a single advantage. Better accuracy at longer range. This is irrelevant in a classroom full of kids cowering in a corner.

smackaholic wrote:I am sitting here listening to Geraldo

You're even dumber than I thought. Way dumber.

The ar also has a bullet that leaves the barrel at a much higher velocity than a 9mil and does way more damage. You really should educate yourself before you post stupid shit.

Because you can kill a lot of people with a glock means we shouldn't ban AR-15s?

They can kill people with a knife as well. More people were killed in Japan by a knife attacker than were killed in this latest school shooting. More people were killed in China at a railway station due to knife attackers than were killed in this school shooting.

Guns aren’t the issue when idiots want to kill.

Knifes have utility that does not involve killing people, the AR has almost no utility outside of killing people. It's like the difference between a hand grenade and dynamite. The dynamite has utility. The grenade not so much. I know thinking in anything but clichés hurts your brain, but you should at least try it from time to time.

smackaholic wrote:....The VT asshole proved that killing people by the gross requires just a few things.....proficiency in the use of a particular weapon, plenty of mags, and an unarmed trapped group of victims.

The idea that banishing a particular type of firearm means that loser shitstains will just give up is moronic.

They can do it with a 9mm. Hell, they can do it with a belt full of 38 revolvers..

Thanks for making my point that all firearms should be banned.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Left Seater wrote:
Guns aren’t the issue when idiots want to kill.

Bingo, we have a winner. It's much easier to blame firearms for the problem than it is to take a deep look at our society and address social deficiencies.







Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Joe in PB wrote:

Left Seater wrote:
Guns aren’t the issue when idiots want to kill.

Bingo, we have a winner. It's much easier to blame firearms for the problem...

They make it easier most of the time, which is why cops carry them. Why do people carry them to protect themselves? Because they are good for killing people.

Joe in PB wrote:

smackaholic wrote:....The VT asshole proved that killing people by the gross requires just a few things.....proficiency in the use of a particular weapon, plenty of mags, and an unarmed trapped group of victims.

The idea that banishing a particular type of firearm means that loser shitstains will just give up is moronic.

They can do it with a 9mm. Hell, they can do it with a belt full of 38 revolvers..

Thanks for making my point that all firearms should be banned.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

He said that? Can you please show me when and where?

Moving Sale wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:

smackaholic wrote:....The VT asshole proved that killing people by the gross requires just a few things.....proficiency in the use of a particular weapon, plenty of mags, and an unarmed trapped group of victims.

The idea that banishing a particular type of firearm means that loser shitstains will just give up is moronic.

They can do it with a 9mm. Hell, they can do it with a belt full of 38 revolvers..

Thanks for making my point that all firearms should be banned.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

He said that? Can you please show me when and where?

It's all over the net, you do a search for once tard.

Moving Sale wrote: Why do people carry them to protect themselves?

Because they are an equalizer vs gang violence/thugs, & for the old & weak.

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you and others of your mindset not want to address the root cause for these tragedies?

Board Bitch wrote: Why do people carry them to protect themselves? Because they are good for killing people.

Hitting the old crack pipe pretty early today I see.

How do you intend to protect yourself from people who may want to kill you..not because you are a tedious leg humping ankle biting piece of shit, but just because you happen to be standing there ??

Moving Sale wrote:Knifes have utility that does not involve killing people, the AR has almost no utility outside of killing people. It's like the difference between a hand grenade and dynamite. The dynamite has utility. The grenade not so much. I know thinking in anything but clichés hurts your brain, but you should at least try it from time to time.

So all knives are the same and have utility that doesn’t involve killing. Huh, so a steak knife is the same as a foot long double edged blade with two s curves in them. Why don’t you hook us up with a common utilization of a double edged dagger with 2 curves.

Don’t hurt yourself we know thinking is beyond your abilities.

I wonder how many here have either:
a) served in the military and have that weapons training and knowledge
b) own guns for sport, competition, or self defense
c) are members of the NRA
d) are or were NRA firearm safety instructors
e) are or were law enforcement officers with training and knowledge
I answer yes to A,B,C, snd D.

Wolfman wrote:I wonder how many here have either:
a) served in the military and have that weapons training and knowledge
b) own guns for sport, competition, or self defense
c) are members of the NRA
d) are or were NRA firearm safety instructors
e) are or were law enforcement officers with training and knowledge
I answer yes to A,B,C, snd D.

I own guns for hunting.

schmick wrote:I have 11 AR 15s. None if them has ever killed a person. They have been used to shoot targets, milk bottles, bowling pins... But never people. But if some liberal cocksucker comes to take my AR 15s from me, that can change.

And I drove drunk almost every day for 5 years. Should we legalize DWI?

BSmack wrote:

schmick wrote:I have 11 AR 15s. None if them has ever killed a person. They have been used to shoot targets, milk bottles, bowling pins... But never people. But if some liberal cocksucker comes to take my AR 15s from me, that can change.

And I drove drunk almost every day for 5 years. Should we legalize DWI?

And if the media proposed an automobile ban to counter the DUI problem, would you be good with that Bri?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Wolfman wrote:I wonder how many here have either:
a) served in the military and have that weapons training and knowledge
b) own guns for sport, competition, or self defense
c) are members of the NRA
d) are or were NRA firearm safety instructors
e) are or were law enforcement officers with training and knowledge
I answer yes to A,B,C, snd D.

A, B, C, and am a member of the National Sporting Clays Association.

[quote="smackaholic"]Geraldo, apparently thinks that scary guns like the AR has some magical ability to turn someone into a killing machine./quote]
It's more than magic...it's science.

Knife v. gun:
How close does one have to be to kill with a knife v. how close does one have to be to kill w/ a gun?

Moving Sale wrote:The ar also has a bullet that leaves the barrel at a much higher velocity than a 9mil and does way more damage. You really should educate yourself before you post stupid shit.

Actually, no. You are correct that the muzzle velocity is considerably higher on an AR-15, but that is not what inflicts the primary damage. High muzzle velocity can enhance damage, but the caliber, type of ammunition, and stability of the round has more effect on the destructive capability than just speed.

5.56 ammo comes in two types, by and large: ball, or solid core bullets and armor piercing, which is a round that has a hardened tip and a narrow face which directs all its’ energy onto a very small place.

9mm ammo, on the other hand, comes in a multitude of types: ball, frangible (breaks into tiny fragments upon impact), hollow point (designed to open like a flower to increase the size of the wound channel), pellet (like a miniature shotgun round), plastic, and many, many others for special applications not normally used in ordinary target practice or self defense.

The 5.56 round is actually purposefully designed to not kill the intended target, although that sounds counter-intuitive on the surface of it. The round itself is little more than a hyper velocity .22 round (hence its’ other nomenclature, the .223) that was built around the idea that a wounded soldier is more of a drag on the combat effectiveness of a unit than a dead one, which for most countries’ armies are ignored rather than gathered up like ours do. By shooting the enemy to incapacitate their ability to fight, yet leaving them alive to either tie up another soldier to attend to them or by letting them scream in agony on the battlefield, it demoralizes our enemies and reduces their war fighting capability. It was given a size and speed which caused it to bounce around inside a body rather than having it become a through-and-through like a 7.62 round. Basic von Clausewitz, right?

The 9mm is a utility round that is inexpensive to manufacture and due to its’ size, lends itself to multiple functions, but merely wounding people is not one of them.

I could go into a long discussion on a round tumbling which causes its’ own damage and ballistics, but in general, the 9mm is not hot enough of a round for that to be an issue when hitting a target.

Anyhow, this should be sufficient to demonstrate what Sale wrote is flatly wrong, but then again, he’s supposedly a lawyer, not a firearms enthusiast, so we shouldn’t expect him to understand such things. After all, he’s more Perry Mason, not Bob Lee Swagger.

Ok, you can stop snickering now, T1B.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Knife v. gun:
How close does one have to be to kill with a knife v. how close does one have to be to kill w/ a gun?

Ask those people in Japan and China if it matters how close. But for the average person with a gun they are going to have to be very close to get kill shots with a gun. As an example my wife’s concealed carry instructor told her never to fire at an attacker or threat that doesn’t also have a gun until that person is inside 10 feet.

Now the mentally insane don’t need accuracy when kids are huddled in a class room corner, or putting 60 rounds into a house in a drive by, or shooting a concert goers, or patrons in a night club, etc.

Left Seater wrote:As an example my wife’s concealed carry instructor told her never to fire at an attacker or threat that doesn’t also have a gun until that person is inside 10 feet.

In California that number is 21 feet or 7 yards, the distance in which an assailant with a knife will have it planted in your chest before a gun can be drawn in defense. Which is why all indoor pistol ranges in California have a 7 yard marking for setting target distance.

Roach wrote:Taking suicide out of the discussion . . . Which we should as that is a "victumless" crime, homicides by rifle are at a really low rate. About 300 per year. Truman, this is a little closer to your earlier estimate . . . 300/300,000,000 = .0001 %

So here is the FBI data on the subject.

And those figures are pretty close to this wiki page.

So it's not about the rifles. It's about emotionalism and fear of guns, about frustration that nothing, seemingly, can be done to prevent school and other shootings, and that some liberals are using that fear to promote their own narcissistic ends.

A level headed take that is very good.

Wolfman wrote:I wonder how many here have either:
a) served in the military and have that weapons training and knowledge
b) own guns for sport, competition, or self defense
c) are members of the NRA
d) are or were NRA firearm safety instructors
e) are or were law enforcement officers with training and knowledge
I answer yes to A,B,C, snd D.

So what?

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Knifes have utility that does not involve killing people, the AR has almost no utility outside of killing people. It's like the difference between a hand grenade and dynamite. The dynamite has utility. The grenade not so much. I know thinking in anything but clichés hurts your brain, but you should at least try it from time to time.

So all knives are the same and have utility that doesn’t involve killing. Huh, so a steak knife is the same as a foot long double edged blade with two s curves in them. Why don’t you hook us up with a common utilization of a double edged dagger with 2 curves.

Don’t hurt yourself we know thinking is beyond your abilities.

I don't speak stupid so I am not sure the point you are trying make. I don't know what you mean by 2 edged dagger with two curves so I don't know its utility.

So you don’t know crap about knives outside of the dinner table. Got it.

Next time don’t speak on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Left Seater wrote:Next time don’t speak on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

He'd be permanently stuck at 10,310 posts.

Joe in PB wrote: It's all over the net, you do a search for once tard.

You said it. I was just wondering if you were talking shit or not. Sounds like you are.

Left Seater wrote:So you don’t know crap about knives outside of the dinner table. Got it.

Next time don’t speak on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

You brought up these knives. If you don't want to explain why they have no utility that's fine.
So to recap: You are just a stupid POS that can't back up a word you say. Got it. Why do you even post when the second someone asks you to back up your take you run away like a scalded cat?

Cadet Bone Spurs says he wants improved background checks.

He can't even get them done on his senior advisors...

Fucking morons.

Moving Sale wrote:

Joe in PB wrote: It's all over the net, you do a search for once tard.

You said it. I was just wondering if you were talking shit or not. Sounds like you are.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

....“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko ... a84e93624b

This is one reason you suck, you bring nothing of substance to the table. There's tons more about Obama and his anti-firearm stance on the net.

So one, decades old, hearsay statement from Mary Rosh? So in other words, you have nothing.

Nothing describes your relevance here and probably everywhere.

Nice white flag tard.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

I believe we have just witnessed a new world record.

Diego just managed to extend his leg, wrap it all the way around Afghanistan, and connect it squarely with his own ass.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:So you don’t know crap about knives outside of the dinner table. Got it.

Next time don’t speak on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

You brought up these knives. If you don't want to explain why they have no utility that's fine.

Hey Board Bitch. You made the claim that knives have utility. The burden is on you to back up your take. I asked you for the utility use of a specific type of blade. You punted as ususal. It is you who is running away.

I told you I don't know what knife you are talking about.
Let's try this a different way, why don't you post a picture of this knife?