Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[atrib]

No points for guessing right.

You are no fun.

Well, you claim to have used an AR15, but you don't seem to know the difference between a .22 caliber rifle cartridge and the 5.56 NATO cartridge used by the AR15, so I thought I would post a picture. The difference is NOT subtle, so I am wondering why you appear to confuse the two. Did you not load the magazine yourself on the AR15 you used? What .22 caliber rifles have you used, and did you not load the cartridges yourself in those either? Or even look at the cartridges?

 

[Elixir]

The person who introduced me to the AR15 made me take it home and drill with plastic “shells” for a few days, loading mags, cycling them through the chamber etc, before I ever fired a live round. Hard to believe a qualified shooter would just hand a loaded assault rifle to someone who never handled one before.

 

[Elixir]

 

[bilby]

The 5.56 NATO round is only a good choice for hunting, if the deer in your area are likely to be wearing body armour, or taking cover in buildings.

It's illegal to use military jacketed bullets for hunting in the UK, and illegal to use hunting bullets (which are required to be soft points) for military purposes, under the terms of the Geneva conventions. There's no lawful overlap in British law between military and civilian rifle ammunition; They are not interchangeable.

Military ammunition is designed to penetrate cover and/or body armour. Hunting ammunition is designed for unprotected targets. Only the US civilian market fails to make a legal distinction between the two designs (the US military are bound by the Geneva Conventions, and hunting ammunition is prohibited from use by US armed forces).

Assault rifles and handguns aren't designed for killing animals other than humans, and nor is their ammunition.

Banning such weapons and ammunition from civilian use need not limit game hunters one iota, though it might force them to use more suitable and effective equipment than they currently claim to be using.

 

[Gospel]

Kyle Rittenhouse was protect by hunting laws even though we all good well damn know that said law was NOT for hunting humans. Don't get it twisted, he had a right to protect himself but he should have faced punishment not for murder, or manslaughter but for under aged and unlawful possession with no protection from hunting laws.

 

[Derec]

View attachment 41630

Not this shit again. Assault rifles are selective fire rifles. AR15s are not assault rifles. Salvador Ramos did not have an assault rifle, and neither did any of the school shooters we have been talking about.

 

[Elixir]

View attachment 41630

Not this shit again. Assault rifles are selective fire rifles. AR15s are not assault rifles. Salvador Ramos did not have an assault rifle, and neither did any of the school shooters we have been talking about.

^oh no not this shit again.
Whatever that there thing what makes one person able to hold off a hundred cops while they murder children - that there thing is oughta what nobody can have without registration, training and licensing.
Call it a kitten if it makes you feel better.

 

[Oleg]

Whatever that there thing what makes one person able to hold off a hundred cops while they murder children

Cowardice?

 

[Elixir]

Whatever that there thing what makes one person able to hold off a hundred cops while they murder children

Cowardice?

No, I don't think that alone can do it, though you could try. Superior firepower can, though.

 

[Derec]

that there thing is oughta what nobody can have without registration, training and licensing.

I think that should happen with all guns, including handguns.

Call it a kitten if it makes you feel better.

The term "assault rifle" has a specific meaning and it does not include semiautomatic rifles. Also, "federal kitten ban" would cause some confusion.

 

[Derec]

Kyle Rittenhouse was protect by hunting laws even though we all good well damn know that said law was NOT for hunting humans.

Kyle Rittenhouse was protected from the trumped up murder charges by the fact that he was defending himself from some felonious Antifas, one of them a pervert.

The only thing the hunting provision protected him from was the misdemeanor underage possession charge. Not the big ticket charges.

Don't get it twisted, he had a right to protect himself but he should have faced punishment not for murder, or manslaughter but for under aged and unlawful possession with no protection from hunting laws.

Blame the state legislators for writing the law in a confusing way.

P.S.: Fun fact, when I googled for the image of a "sex offender with a record" to find that gif the #1 result is no other than Joseph Rosenbaum.

 

[Derec]

Banning such weapons and ammunition from civilian use need not limit game hunters one iota,

It would certainly limit self defense though.

 

[Derec]

Well, you claim to have used an AR15, but you don't seem to know the difference between a .22 caliber rifle cartridge and the 5.56 NATO cartridge used by the AR15, so I thought I would post a picture.

I know the difference, but as I said, I did not want to go into too many details. I admit I should have been more clear.

Why belabor the point when I have already explained it? Are you trying to avoid the bigger point?

Which is:
1. Rifles other than AR15-style rifles use .223R/5.56NATO cartridges and have the same firepower. Those rifles would not be affected by the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
2. Some rifles affected by this ban use different ammo, for example AK47, which including the semi-auto version uses 7.62x39. That is because the "assault weapons" definition largely go by what these weapons look like.

 

[bilby]

Banning such weapons and ammunition from civilian use need not limit game hunters one iota,

It would certainly limit self defense though.

Not really; Guns aren't defensive in nature, so they cannot be used for self defence.

What the NRA calls "self defence" turns out to in fact be "threatening to kill people who you find frightening", which is a completely different thing.

Most countries don't allow people to own guns solely for the purpose of threatening to kill other people.

 

[Derec]

Your statement that AR15s are not distinct from other .22 rifles is false.

So I should have said "other .223R rifles". So sue me.
My larger point stands. There are rifles not affected by either the 1994-2004 or recently passed by House "assault weapons ban" that fire the same cartridge and have a similar barrel length and thus have similar ballistics and firepower.

Why are you so hung up on the omitted "3"? It is not my fault whoever designates calibers does not understand significant figures.

That was my whole fucking point. The .223R/5.56 NATO ammo, or anything that can inflict similar damage in humans in such an efficient manner, does not belong in civilian hands.

Maybe. So why is that not the approach the House took? Why ban some .223R rifles but not others?
That was my point that you have evaded with your hyperfocus on details.

No. You said rifles need longer range. You clearly have no knowledge regarding the development and mission of the M4/M16/AR15 platform

We are talking about mass shootings at schools in this thread. Not about "development and mission of the M4/M16/AR15 platform" and the reference to the range was based on the former, not latter.

Just not as efficiently, or in the numbers you can achieve with an AR15. Especially when the shooter is a novice.

This guy was a novice. He achieved numbers just with two handguns.

Take it up with the DA.

The DA city attorney does not post here. This is a discussion forum.
What do you think? Do you think a city for example should enforce the gun laws they pass?

 

[Derec]

Not really; Guns aren't defensive in nature, so they cannot be used for self defence.

Of course they can be. If somebody invades your home or place of business and you shoot the thug, then defense has been accomplished.

What the NRA calls "self defence" turns out to in fact be "threatening to kill people who you find frightening", which is a completely different thing.

Or shooting their arm off.
And I disagree. Best defense is a good offense.

So what counts as self-defense for you then? Karate?

Most countries don't allow people to own guns solely for the purpose of threatening to kill other people.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason.

 

[Elixir]

What the NRA calls "self defence" turns out to in fact be "threatening to kill people who you find frightening", which is a completely different thing.

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

Most countries don't allow people to own guns solely for the purpose of threatening to kill other people.

Most countries don’t have a mythos of “pioneer spirit” and independence that gives their citizenry a false sense of subduing nature through their personal ferocity and badassedness.
Americans still think they ”discovered” this land, and wrested its goods from nature by the brute force of their awesome strength, which is personified by guns. Yay freedom, liberty and firearms!

 

[Gospel]

Kyle Rittenhouse was protect by hunting laws even though we all good well damn know that said law was NOT for hunting humans.

Kyle Rittenhouse was protected from the trumped up murder charges by the fact that he was defending himself from some felonious Antifas, one of them a pervert.

The only thing the hunting provision protected him from was the misdemeanor underage possession charge. Not the big ticket charges.

Don't get it twisted, he had a right to protect himself but he should have faced punishment not for murder, or manslaughter but for under aged and unlawful possession with no protection from hunting laws.

Blame the state legislators for writing the law in a confusing way.

P.S.: Fun fact, when I googled for the image of a "sex offender with a record" to find that gif the #1 result is no other than Joseph Rosenbaum.

That contributed absolutely nothing to what I've said. In fact that response sounded like an AI generated Fox Entertainment News sound bite more than anything. You seem to agree with the purpose of my statement which was (for the reading impaired) that hunting laws should not have been used to release him from unlawful possession of a firearm. Sure it was used as such, no shit sherlock, I'm saying that it should not have been. You seem to agree, but rather than do that you went into another one of your usual bullshit rants regardless of the fact I already said he had every right to defend himself.

 

[Derec]

Unfortunately the US is populated by a lot of cowering weenies whose only source of security is the ability to wield lethal force against others through no strength of their own.

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property using their body strength alone.
I am glad people can shoot home invaders, carjackers, robbers etc.

 

[bilby]

I do not think we should require people to defend their life and property

Me either. We should have a society to do that.

I can understand that you need the ability to react with lethal force to threats, if you live in a shithole with almost zero societal protections, like Somalia or Texas, but in the civilised world, the ability to deploy lethal force is no more necessary to a regular citizen than the ability to knap a flint axe, or build your own home, or grow your own food.

We moved on from this shit a while back.