This was your first post. You came back a few pages later to do your weird "ok" and random-jab stalking you were doing after you got upset I called PWCC a fraud ring. Then you flipped around and this position that you don't own one because you are lazy and don't want to learn to use it safely (which is a reasonable and good decision), turned into proposing complete and total de facto bans on everyone else, nuclear weapons, and more. You seem to be shifting back to trying to sound reasonable again, but the sequence does not sound like this is entirely sincere at all.

Many people in here disagree with me; some with worse points than I think you have made. I believe them all to be sincere.

You don't have to find them convincing. Many of us will disagree. My primary position is that we should disagree on rational grounds, and that claims to fact, which are distinct from opinions, should be actually true instead of complete fiction.

I think an 18 year old should have the right because they are an adult. The line between adult and child is arbitrary; not everyone ages the same or matures the same (many of us never do). I am distinctly uncomfortable with arbitrary law, but I don't see a better way to do it. Whether the age of adulthood is 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 I think an adult should be able to fully exercise their rights as an equal citizen. A 3 year old isn't old enough, an adult is. What exact year we draw the line is arbitrary, but I do not see how we should restrict core constitutionally protected liberties to a second class of adulthood. If an 18 year can enlist and be given a machine gun, I do not see why they can't have a neutered civilian version.

A factor is that the civilian AR-15 is not mechanically special, it's a neutered down version of the best tech of 60 years ago. It holds a special place as scary in the narrative, but it is not any more 'dangerous' if misused than dozens of other platforms.

Not piling on but agree - would generally like a response to this. Don’t downplay the AR15 - it has been the weapon of choice in many mass shootings.

I’m convinced, based on your comment history in this thread, that you’re unable to form and articulate a thought on your own.

If it’s not a link to some random tik tok/Twitter/Facebook/propaganda/opinion talking head/etc that you agree with, it’s you railing against people/media doing the same exact thing that you disagree with. 100% projection on your part.

I assume you missed this one?
Maybe go read the covid threads and your opinion of me may change?
If not, I honestly don't care what you think, honestly.

Yeah, like I said, “unable to form or articulate a thought on your own.”

Is it any worse than letting a teenage driver have a cellphone in their hands?

Cell phones are WAY worse. I do a lot of walking and see those morons all the time. I watched a moron reading his phone t-bone a guy on a motorcycle recently.:(

5

Distracted driving is definitely a problem. But for context, in 2020 (the most recent year where all data has been aggregated), there were 3,000 distracted driver deaths in America. There were 20,000 murders by gun in America that year.

Another one today:

Missouri shopper shoots, kills armed robber holding knife to clerk's neck


An unassuming customer saved a gas station clerk's life Saturday morning in Missouri after a robbery suspect put a knife to the employee's neck.

scammer alert...what a maroon....

In many states it is illegal to text or have handheld cellphone use while driving.

I wish I could say the same for allowing 18 year-olds to buy AR-15s or similar weapons.

.

LOL, nice try at yet another troll post. My comment you quoted was a response to a 18 year old being able to buy a gun that easily could be used to hunt deer.

Huh? That gives context to the issues we’re talking about. Cell phone can also be used for non-nefarious purposes. Try to keep up.

Will it have any effect besides making it depressed, troubled but otherwise law abiding 21 year olds doing the same thing?

Most of the recent mass shooters have had a history of problematic behavior. Which because of either rules designed to protect people or police not wanting to do the paperwork, never get into the system that does background checks. Strengthen the data available, and you make the backround checks work better.

He proposed banning anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds or semi-automatic earlier. It’s not about age at all, he’s already on record with a ban on most post-civil war items for any age. The 18 year old thing seems to be a rhetorical point different from his proposal.

Is it also a good idea to let those same unformed minds that make bad choices help select the people who run our country?

I know people who I trusted more at 12 than most adults. They showed me how to load the clay bird flinger for trap shooting safely. Semi confined space, and a strong enough machine to mess up anyone if they did it wrong. He knew the right way and showed me all the safety points of what to do or not do.

I also know adults, and far too many of them who should probably be restricted from owning forks or any other sharp implement.

It shouldn't be about the age, but the individual. and even when those individuals make threats and get a talking to from the police, those events don't get into the system the background checks work from. That's the very first and possibly most important point of failure in our current system.

You seem to be somewhat obsessed with my "proposed ban"

What I was attempting to do was to discuss some of the reforms that certain states have proposed. I was under the impression that New Jersey and/or New York had proposed banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun with magazines that exceed 5 rounds.

Sorry I didn't make it more clear that states are only talking limiting the magazine of semi-automatic weapons.

In hopes of clarifying a few things.

From this pic,
which would you ban?
Which one is the military rifle.

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=33618

If you say you'd ban all three, fair enough, it's at least an opening for a serious discussion.

If you'd only ban the black one, that's perhaps an opening to a different discussion. Maybe about how certain people are attracted to items with a certain look and if that's a potential indicator of how they might act.
Also how a certain look may repel someone and what their attitudes and actions might be.

I'm not proposing any bans, and I am an ardent 2A supporter. However, there is a reason guns like the AR-15 are often the weapon of choice for deranged mass murderers: the great damage done to human flesh when hit by a bullet fired from one. Many Americans have no idea the carnage that responders saw in the Uvalde or Sandy Hook classrooms.

To pretend all guns are the same, or to pretend that a frying pan is the same as an AR-15, is tantamount to refusing to have a debate.

Yes but yet a large % of people still do it.

They are used because they look scary. They actually use little baby 223 ammo. That is the smallest caliber you can legally shoot a deer with where I live and larger more powerful cartriges are recommended for hunting.

Ahh yes, the "laws don't work so why have them" argument.

I would prefer to live in a society where there are enforceable laws. Even if they don't always act as a deterrent, at least there are consequences when people get caught.

Granted, many active shooters have a death wish and will never have to face sentencing.

But you do realize that the Uvalde shooter legally purchased an AR-15 on his 18th birthday? I would argue that if he needed to wait until he was 19, 20, or even 21 to legally purchase the gun, that he may not have attained the gun when he was 18. Similarly, if we had to wait a couple of weeks to obtain the weapon after applying for one, there is a chance he would have calmed down by then.

NOBODY says laws don't work so why have them, well maybe morons do. Many say criminals do not obey laws. There is a huge difference.

Some people might buy one because of the look, sure. School shooters want them because of the damage they do with that "little baby" ammo.

But don't take my word for these things:

From a Trauma Center Radiologist

From the FBI

I don't want to get shot with a BB gun but 223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds.

I have personaly shot many rifles including AR-15s. My 30-06 makes them look like a BB shot by a Daisy Red Rider.

Have you personaly fired any rifles or are you just finding info on the internet? Nothing wrong with that just trying to understand you POV on the 223 round.

My point was about the guns, not the ammo. And yes, I have. What do you think about how the Uvalde shooter obtained his weapons and ammo? Should something about that be changed? In addition to the shooter himself (and the cowardly, inept local cops) who bears responsibility for all the murdered schoolchildren?

I honestly do not follow that stuff or even care. I am glad there are people that do care but I don't.

Fair enough! Such direct honestly on this thread is refreshing

5.56 is a lethal round, like any bullet. It is also one of the LEAST powerful rifle rounds. Go to your gun store and try to find a centerfire rifle caliber on the shelf that has less 'power'.

It's around 1,700-1,800 joules for standard ammunition. 7.62x51 is about 3,500. .30-06 is just shy of 4,000, for comparison to the major US rifle cartridges.

5.56 fired from an AR-15 is, of course, no less or more lethal than a 5.56 from any other arm with the same barrel length.

There is a reason 5.56 is not used for hunting anything more than a deer, and even then a heavier and different loading is used.

If someone wants to propose banning all rifle rounds or some strict regulation that is not a ban on them, then propose it. Pretending the AR-15 (a platform, not a cartridge) should be regulated differently or banned because it's standard chambering is extra powerful is just, time 5,002 here, absolutely factually wrong.

Who is pretending? The 10 year federal assault weapons ban has been mentioned on this thread. Was that pretend? Who on this thread is calling for guns to be banned now, other than your straw man?

"regulated differently or banned" is what I said, as you even quoted. Both have been proposed in this thread, several times. You surely know this.

Some on this page have proposed banning them, in this thread, very explicitly and directly. Several, including you, have suggested they are somehow more lethal than other rifles, which is simply false. You made the claim that 5.56 that is specially powerful (923, factually untrue), and said you don't propose a ban (928), then intimated support for some kind of stricter regulation for certain ages (930). "Regulated differently or banned" seems to encompass your own words and those of others in the recent debate in this thread.

Speaking of bans is a straw man? It's been the primary subject for the last several hundred posts and multiple, including some of the major participants, have proposed them. Again, every post is public record so you can validate this yourself.

You want to talk about the 1994 ban and simultaneously claim ban talk is a straw man? You are asking if I think the 1994 AW ban was "pretend" and then in the next sentence label talking about bans a straw man? You should at least put a few sentences before spinning a 180...

Why would you think that I think the 1994 ban was pretend, and was not a historical event that happened?

Man, all you are doing is obfuscating over and over. Did you have any reaction to the numerous articles that have been shared on this thread? That might give people a break.

Yes, answering your questions that you chose to ask, in all their directly contradictory glory, is obfuscating. I'm sorry you completely contradicted yourself one sentence to the next and made a claim that is simply untrue, while you ignored the "or" to try and twist what I actually said (again, transcript!) to be easier to take down.

As I've said before, I think arguing by authority is irrational and silly and I am more interested in people's actual idea's than in whatever opinion article they've linked, on both sides. From a TikTok from a conservative to an op-ed by a liberal, I don't see as evidence for one side or another; it's someones opinion who is not here to answer questions, go into detail, or engage in dialectic. I wrote extensively about one earlier, but okay, here's your two:


I genuinely do not know what you are looking to hear about the first one. It is a brief transcript of an FBI statement that they did not follow up on a tip about the Parkland shooter. Maybe they should have! There's not much beneath the obvious surface to engage with on this. What is our idea here we want to dive into? 'If the FBI has credible information that someone might be planning a massacre, should they look into it?'. Obviously. Not a single person has implied that they should not.


The second is what you seem to have used for the false claim that 5.56 is specially or abnormally powerful, when it is one of the weakest of all rifle calibers. Read what the author actually claims, besides the appeal to emotion. They are comparing 5.56 to "thousands of handgun injuries"; all very carefully phrased to subsequently use "gunshot wounds" and similar phrasing after specifically stipulating only handguns as the framework of comparison. The trauma she feels over seeing the carnage is, I'm sure, real and would be experienced by any decent person. Her pretense as a 'trauma center radiologist' that she was stunned to see rifle wounds are more severe than handgun wounds is, of course, extremely unlikely to be true. I would think people who work in gunshot injuries are aware of what the vast majority of Americans are aware of. I would hope every single person here already knows that a rifle cartridge is more powerful than a pistol cartridge. That is, literally, what makes it a rifle class cartridge and not a pistol one. If the gun that fires this cartridge should be treated differently, as some have said and you heavily implied in 930, then one must hold that the same is true for every gun that is MORE powerful; which is essentially every single arm chambered for a rifle cartridge, or the position is contradictory and illogical.


You can measure the energy a cartridge produces, you can don't have to take my word for it. Any person who knows anything about the subject will tell you the same, as the people in this thread with some firearms experience have done. 5.56x45mm, the standard chambering of an AR-15, is a low-level rifle cartridge. It is not very effective over much distance, it's low recoil is a result of this relatively weak cartridge. When I am teaching someone new to shoot, a 5.56 is the first gun they get to shoot after a .22lr plinker, because of this. This article does not even claim what you have interpreted it to mean in 923. 5.56 is not the standard of choice for mass murderers because it has some unique ability or power or damage to humans. It's because it has been the standard, most commonly encountered and used rifle cartridge for decades, and it's not really even close. Yes, rifle rounds are more powerful than pistol rounds. Do we not all already know this?

Right, it's all "fake news" unless it confirms your personal beliefs. Got it. It's particularly bizarre that you say you are interested in people's ideas when your constantly deflecting, posturing and disingenuous posts confirm over and over that the opposite is true. But have fun with your "take downs" as you describe them. Have a great night!

Don’t forget calling people trolls when they don’t agree. I’m done after someone made fun of the type of bullet used to kill children. Good luck everyone.

This is Bubba. Do you want to try to teach him? I can guarantee that he won't won't say we need gun laws we already have. He hates guns but knows the difference between them.

Like an assualt rifle he looks kinda scary but really isn't. He is now old with bad hips and in his old age has lost 16 pounds.

NOBODY made fun of any bullet but YOU are the only one to make racist remarks so please stay gone.

Right. I came on this thread optimistic that members with very different views could have a reasonable discussion, but the results haven't been altogether encouraging. When someone starts throwing out personal insults out of nowhere, it's time to disengage.

What's most concerning to me, and part of a broader discussion, of which the subject of this thread is a part, is the way Americans are so quick these days to demonize their fellow citizens, often for nonsense reasons. Not a great sign for the future.

Have you personally changed your opinion on the subject? Seriously you posted a link comparing hand gun wounds to a low powered rifle round to prove how powerfull a rifle round is. How is that not trying to be deceptive? Also how is the post I quoted not calling others names? At least be honest about your opinions.

Changed my opinion on what exactly? I don't know what you mean by calling others names. I don't think I've done that on this thread.

Edit: And..."trying to be deceptive"? Seriously? This is exactly what the last paragraph of my previous post was referring to.

Your opinions on current gun laws. Isn't that the main point of this thread? Sadly most posters know so little about the subject they have asked for laws we already have. Then they post about guns with comments that are very far from true. If you like G911s posts or not at least he is posting facts and is consistant on his views.

If this isn't a back handed remark I am sorry. is the way Americans are so quick these days to demonize their fellow citizens, often for nonsense reasons. Not a great sign for the future.

Wait, so after telling me you aren't interested in the subject and don't follow it, you now want to know my opinions? Why is that?

About the remark you quoted, do you not agree that such instances are more common today than they were in the past? It isn't a personal dig, and it's not about gun laws or the politics surrounding them.

No, I said I was not interested in a specific shooting.

I do care about the subject as I own guns. I have not shot one in about a decade but 3 of the 6 have special meaning to me.

I personally am tired of anti gun people using mass shootings to try to make more gun laws that only hurt honest gun owners.

It is a fact. An indisputable fact. I am sorry a 5.56 is not a magical death ray and you are factually wrong. Good luck!

I hate to re-engage but your yet again ridiculous post called for a response. You demeaned the shooter’s choice of ammo. You know, the shooter that killed a bunch of children, before you readily admitted you don’t pay attention to such things. It’s pretty awful. As for my “racist” posts, if your views are informed by being a minority or even a younger person growing up in an urban environment, send me your address and I will send you a great card free of charge. I think it would be better if we all just recognized we come from different environments a d experiences and we were not so quick to absolutely demonize the other side.

He looks like a handsome feller to me. And probably does not consider mechanical truth to be fake news ;)