Highland park IL 4th of July parade shooting

[Torgus]

A 338 win mag is even bigger. The Bar Rifle is MUCH more deadly then an AR15. Why are you not talking about it? 338win mag takes down moose in 1 shot. It would blow a fucking massive gaping hole in a human. You can survive 223. You don't survive 308, 338, etc. You can't hunt deer, sheep, or goats with 223, it is illegal and not ethical, at least not in my state. You want a min of 30-30 win.





Do you think it is an Assault rifle? Is it not scary enough so you have to call it a "Weapon of War"

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Correct, they don't. That is why Assault Rifles and Machine Guns are banned in the USA. An AR15 is not capable of "firing hundreds of high velocity rounds in a matter of seconds".

"killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds" <-- You can do that with a pistol, a car/truck, homemade IED, etc. Banning all civilian rifles will never stop that fact. You blame the tool not the person with the tool. That is the problem.

My mistake. I must be misremembering the numerous mass shootings in which an AR15 or similar weapon was used to fire a large amount of rounds and ultimately kill and injure many people. That definitely is something that does not occur.

Honestly, the whataboutism of saying a pistol, car, etc can inflict the same damage is just a deflection. I disagree that blaming the tool is not the problem. Any rational person would acknowledge that mass shootings are a multi-faceted problem, with of course the perpetrator bearing ultimately responsibility. But how can one completely ignore the tool of choice in these instances? How can one not step back and wonder if access to these tools which are capable of inflicting mass casualty make it easier for someone to carry out these atrocities?

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

My mistake. I must be misremembering the numerous mass shootings in which an AR15 or similar weapon was used to fire a large amount of rounds and ultimately kill and injure many people. That definitely is something that does not occur.

Honestly, the whataboutism of saying a pistol, car, etc can inflict the same damage is just a deflection. I disagree that blaming the tool is not the problem. Any rational person would acknowledge that mass shootings are a multi-faceted problem, with of course the perpetrator bearing ultimately responsibility. But how can one completely ignore the tool of choice in these instances? How can one not step back and wonder if access to these tools which are capable of inflicting mass casualty make it easier for someone to carry out these atrocities?

hes just correcting you so that maybe next time you jump in a gun debate, you dont look like a fool with your "ARs can fire 100s of rounds in seconds". At best, if you had a massive mag and didnt need to reload, an AR with an upgraded trigger that costs hundreds or more and isnt on your standard ar that you go and buy at the store, you could get 150-180 rounds off in a minute. But anyone that has any kind of experience shooting a rifle knows that is going to be extremely difficult to sustain for even a 30 round mag.

now a full auto m16, that is banned for normal people and could fire 10-15 rounds a seconds, is another story.

[Pablo Chacon]

Maybe some people look at it through the lens of “somebody did something.”

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

hes just correcting you so that maybe next time you jump in a gun debate, you dont look like a fool with your "ARs can fire 100s of rounds in seconds". At best, if you had a massive mag and didnt need to reload, an AR with an upgraded trigger that costs hundreds or more and isnt on your standard ar that you go and buy at the store, you could get 150-180 rounds off in a minute. But anyone that has any kind of experience shooting a rifle knows that is going to be extremely difficult to sustain for even a 30 round mag.

now a full auto m16, that is banned for normal people and could fire 10-15 rounds a seconds, is another story.

lol ok. Again with the pedantic technical corrections which do nothing to counter my point. It's irrefutable that these weapons are capable of firing many rounds in short order. Your picking apart my exaggeration does nothing to change the point I am ultimately making.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

lol ok. Again with the pedantic technical corrections which do nothing to counter my point. It's irrefutable that these weapons are capable of firing many rounds in short order. Your picking apart my exaggeration does nothing to change the point I am ultimately making.

The reason why there's a tendency to [over]correct is because the media uses specific terminology to instill fear. We spend a good chunk of time attempting to inform the uninformed. The "assault weapon" and "weapon of war" rhetoric is entirely a media thing.

[gatorfast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

The reason why there's a tendency to [over]correct is because the media uses specific terminology to instill fear. We spend a good chunk of time attempting to inform the uninformed. The "assault weapon" and "weapon of war" rhetoric is entirely a media thing.

I'm not talking about the media and don't care to get into right wing/left wing media nonsense. I think the media uses terms like "assault rifle" to more easily describe the type of weapon used in simple terms that people will understand. Easier for the average person who probably doesn't know much about guns to understand the term assault rifle rather than the specific make model and specs of the gun which would not resonate with most people. The same way it would be easier to report that an "exotic sports car" crashed in a high speed race rather than saying it was a Pagani Huayra.

Anyway, I stand by my comments that the specifics of each weapon don't impact the overall argument.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

I'm not talking about the media and don't care to get into right wing/left wing media nonsense. I think the media uses terms like "assault rifle" to more easily describe the type of weapon used in simple terms that people will understand. Easier for the average person who probably doesn't know much about guns to understand the term assault rifle rather than the specific make model and specs of the gun which would not resonate with most people. The same way it would be easier to report that an "exotic sports car" crashed in a high speed race rather than saying it was a Pagani Huayra.

Anyway, I stand by my comments that the specifics of each weapon don't impact the overall argument.

No. Just no. They call it an assult rifle or weapon of war to scare people who do not know any better. It is to push an agenda.

What scares people more:

"The shooter used a civilian rifle that the legal to own in all states."

"The shooter used a weapon of war or the shooter used an assault rifle."

To use your car analogy: the driver was using a legally purchased high performance vehicle. Or using your terminology: the driver was was using a vehicle of war made to assault people. BIG difference. It insinuates the vehicle is made to assult and should only be used in a warzone. The words are used to craft a narrative of fear. It is a rifle that is legal just like the vehicle is legal to own if you pass the requirements by LAW.

Which sentence scares people more? The correct one or the one with made up definitions?

I am correcting you guys because this is why it is hard for anyone who has any knowledge on the subject to take you seriously or even have a discussion. You spout facts that are 100% wrong and make no sense. When you make up definitions to fit a narrative that you are trying to push it is disingenuous. In order to have a discussion you can't be making up thing left and right. Get your facts straight first, then we can discuss. If I have to correct you left and right of the blatantly false information you are saying and we can't even begin the discussion. Do you think it is fun having to correct you left and right? It is annoying. You lack knowledge on the subject matter you are trying to speak on.

While you keep saying false information I or someone else will continue to correct you. I am by no means an expert on this subject. Very much a novice. Start posting facts not your feelings or your point of view. I am all for discussions. They can bring new perspective to all of us engaged in the discussion.

Now I have to buy a BAR. See what you did?

[gatorfast]

Yikes, I'll bow out of here at this point. Y'all can continue to debate the semantics of terminology instead of having a real discussion. Not sure why the term "assault rifle" or anything else is such a trigger (couldn't resist the pun). Call it whatever you want, doesn't change the debate. Enjoy your bazookas and machine guns and whatnot.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Yikes, I'll bow out of here at this point. Y'all can continue to debate the semantics of terminology instead of having a real discussion. Not sure why the term "assault rifle" or anything else is such a trigger (couldn't resist the pun). Call it whatever you want, doesn't change the debate. Enjoy your bazookas and machine guns and whatnot.

When you can use the actual names, terms, and definitions not just media talking points it would be great to have a discussion with you. I am sure we both could learn a lot from each other and I bet we actually agree on a number of topics.

Why do you feel the need to say assault rifles or weapons of war when that is not what they are?

If I were to say something 100% non factual about something you are educated about vs. using say...what I heard on fox news, I am sure you would correct me. As I would hope. Through education and thoughtful discussion we can change our point of views or at least try and understand where someone from the other side of the aisle is coming from. That is progress.

Why don't we start a new discussion using the correct names and definitions and go from there?

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

No. Just no. They call it an assult rifle or weapon of war to scare people who do not know any better. It is to push an agenda.

What scares people more:

"The shooter used a civilian rifle that the legal to own in all states."

"The shooter used a weapon of war or the shooter used an assault rifle."

To use your car analogy: the driver was using a legally purchased high performance vehicle. Or using your terminology: the driver was was using a vehicle of war made to assault people. BIG difference. It insinuates the vehicle is made to assult and should only be used in a warzone. The words are used to craft a narrative of fear. It is a rifle that is legal just like the vehicle is legal to own if you pass the requirements by LAW.

Which sentence scares people more? The correct one or the one with made up definitions?

I am correcting you guys because this is why it is hard for anyone who has any knowledge on the subject to take you seriously or even have a discussion. You spout facts that are 100% wrong and make no sense. When you make up definitions to fit a narrative that you are trying to push it is disingenuous. In order to have a discussion you can't be making up thing left and right. Get your facts straight first, then we can discuss. If I have to correct you left and right of the blatantly false information you are saying and we can't even begin the discussion. Do you think it is fun having to correct you left and right? It is annoying. You lack knowledge on the subject matter you are trying to speak on.

While you keep saying false information I or someone else will continue to correct you. I am by no means an expert on this subject. Very much a novice. Start posting facts not your feelings or your point of view. I am all for discussions. They can bring new perspective to all of us engaged in the discussion.

Now I have to buy a BAR. See what you did?

Is this weapon designed to hunt, or to kill people? And as an offensive or defensive weapon, which kind of people does this kill more of, innocent people or bad people?

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

[IMG]https://blog-images.ammoman.com/blog...1-1024x502.jpg[/IMG]

A 338 win mag is even bigger. The Bar Rifle is MUCH more deadly then an AR15. Why are you not talking about it? 338win mag takes down moose in 1 shot. It would blow a fucking massive gaping hole in a human. You can survive 223. You don't survive 308, 338, etc. You can't hunt deer, sheep, or goats with 223, it is illegal and not ethical, at least not in my state. You want a min of 30-30 win.



[IMG]https://www.browning.com/content/dam...#38;quality=75[/IMG]

Do you think it is an Assault rifle? Is it not scary enough so you have to call it a "Weapon of War"

Is that a bolt action or a weapon with a clip? Tell me about this aggressive moose Who haunts your dreams

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Maybe some people look at it through the lens of "somebody did something."

I love how you were not arguing again.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

hes just correcting you so that maybe next time you jump in a gun debate, you dont look like a fool with your "ARs can fire 100s of rounds in seconds". At best, if you had a massive mag and didnt need to reload, an AR with an upgraded trigger that costs hundreds or more and isnt on your standard ar that you go and buy at the store, you could get 150-180 rounds off in a minute. But anyone that has any kind of experience shooting a rifle knows that is going to be extremely difficult to sustain for even a 30 round mag.

now a full auto m16, that is banned for normal people and could fire 10-15 rounds a seconds, is another story.

I believe the M 16 fully automatic was taken out of service in the military and corrected with one that only fired three shots per trigger. They were are firing too many rounds and not hitting enough stuff, The fully automatic the M-16 was not particularly accurate.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

A 338 win mag is even bigger. The Bar Rifle is MUCH more deadly then an AR15. Why are you not talking about it? 338win mag takes down moose in 1 shot. It would blow a fucking massive gaping hole in a human. You can survive 223. You don't survive 308, 338, etc. You can't hunt deer, sheep, or goats with 223, it is illegal and not ethical, at least not in my state. You want a min of 30-30 win.





Do you think it is an Assault rifle? Is it not scary enough so you have to call it a "Weapon of War"

FYI, off subject: did you just see the movie 1917? The guy was pretty proficient engaging in close combat with a bolt action. I thought that was an impressive movie.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Is that a bolt action or a weapon with a clip?

You can educate yourself on this. It is right on the website. You don't need to be spoon fed information like a baby. I assume you are an adult, at least by the definition of age.

Why would it have a clip? No one uses clips anymore they are ancient technology, relatively speaking. Every post you make either shows how little you know or you are just being a troll now.

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Tell me about this aggressive moose Who haunts your dreams

1) You are just posting to be an idiot and at this point just trolling.
2) People hunt moose.
3) I brought up that the different sized calibers as it is important. What the AR15 vs. what the browning is capable of shooting. I mentioned the moose because it is not ethical to hunt much with a .223 round. Not even deer/goats/sheep with .223. I also brought it up because almost no one talks about the browning is capable of being chambered in a much larger round than the AR15 is. It is MUCH more deadly and accurate. Politicians and people like you don't care because it does not look scary and fit the narrative you are trying to push.

Please again review the image below, which one triggers you:

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

Is this weapon designed to hunt, or to kill people? And as an offensive or defensive weapon, which kind of people does this kill more of, innocent people or bad people?

Again, you either don't know what you are talking about or are posting just to post/be annoying/trolling.

The firearm is designed to released the energy in the cartridge and send the bullet out of the barrel.

It is not a defensive or offensive weapon(you know this). It is not designed to hunt or kill people. It is a tool. I can use it to practice, I can use it to compete, I can use it to hunt, I can use it to make a lamp out of. It is illegal to use it to cause bodily harm. Again, you add words(offense/defense) that do not apply in any way shape or form to the discussion. You guys need to stop making shit up left and right.

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

FYI, off subject: did you just see the movie 1917? The guy was pretty proficient engaging in close combat with a bolt action. I thought that was an impressive movie.

Please try and stay on topic. Make a new thread if you want to talk about a movie. This thread is about the horrific Highland Park shooting. Not to talk about how you liked some movie that came out.





Talk about a troll toll.

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

lol ok. Again with the pedantic technical corrections which do nothing to counter my point. It's irrefutable that these weapons are capable of firing many rounds in short order. Your picking apart my exaggeration does nothing to change the point I am ultimately making.

If you knew anything about guns you would realize that is not a pedantic correction, it is an important functional and legal distinction. You can't have an intelligent discussion without a basic understanding of function. Its not just using the wrong word, or understanding more technical aspects like headspace.

Its like coming into a discussion about cars and not knowing what tires are or telling you a F1 car is the same as a honda civic. Then they want to ban your car because they both have engines.

Also nice goal post shifting on rate of fire.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

You can educate yourself on this. It is right on the website. You don't need to be spoon fed information like a baby. I assume you are an adult, at least by the definition of age.

Why would it have a clip? No one uses clips anymore they are ancient technology, relatively speaking. Every post you make either shows how little you know or you are just being a troll now.

1) You are just posting to be an idiot and at this point just trolling.
2) People hunt moose.
3) I brought up that the different sized calibers as it is important. What the AR15 vs. what the browning is capable of shooting. I mentioned the moose because it is not ethical to hunt much with a .223 round. Not even deer/goats/sheep with .223. I also brought it up because almost no one talks about the browning is capable of being chambered in a much larger round than the AR15 is. It is MUCH more deadly and accurate. Politicians and people like you don't care because it does not look scary and fit the narrative you are trying to push.

Please again review the image below, which one triggers you:

Again, you either don't know what you are talking about or are posting just to post/be annoying/trolling.

The firearm is designed to released the energy in the cartridge and send the bullet out of the barrel.

It is not a defensive or offensive weapon(you know this). It is not designed to hunt or kill people. It is a tool. I can use it to practice, I can use it to compete, I can use it to hunt, I can use it to make a lamp out of. It is illegal to use it to cause bodily harm. Again, you add words(offense/defense) that do not apply in any way shape or form to the discussion. You guys need to stop making shit up left and right.

Please try and stay on topic. Make a new thread if you want to talk about a movie. This thread is about the horrific Highland Park shooting. Not to talk about how you liked some movie that came out.





Talk about a troll toll.

OMG! What a lame retort. Remember, the guys arguing in favor of the assault weapons are not victims. The victims are the people shot by these weapons.

And what's really lame is to keep claiming that the people debating with you don't know anything about what they're talking about. It's really very simple, perhaps you cannot comprehend it.

A long rifle, with a clip, that is semi automatic, does not need to be made available to people who commit mass shootings. The only real way to keep them out of bad guys hands is to not make them available at all.

I know it may be useless to try and reach people who are so ingrained in gun porn that they don't comprehend how bad these things are. Reminds me of Alec Guinness at the end of "the bridge over the river Kwai", when he realizes he's helped the Japanese and is thwarting the destruction of the bridge, realizes what he's done. When will you guys have that epiphany?

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

You can educate yourself on this. It is right on the website. You don't need to be spoon fed information like a baby. I assume you are an adult, at least by the definition of age.

Why would it have a clip? No one uses clips anymore they are ancient technology, relatively speaking. Every post you make either shows how little you know or you are just being a troll now.

1) You are just posting to be an idiot and at this point just trolling.
2) People hunt moose.
3) I brought up that the different sized calibers as it is important. What the AR15 vs. what the browning is capable of shooting. I mentioned the moose because it is not ethical to hunt much with a .223 round. Not even deer/goats/sheep with .223. I also brought it up because almost no one talks about the browning is capable of being chambered in a much larger round than the AR15 is. It is MUCH more deadly and accurate. Politicians and people like you don't care because it does not look scary and fit the narrative you are trying to push.

Please again review the image below, which one triggers you:

Again, you either don't know what you are talking about or are posting just to post/be annoying/trolling.

The firearm is designed to released the energy in the cartridge and send the bullet out of the barrel.

It is not a defensive or offensive weapon(you know this). It is not designed to hunt or kill people. It is a tool. I can use it to practice, I can use it to compete, I can use it to hunt, I can use it to make a lamp out of. It is illegal to use it to cause bodily harm. Again, you add words(offense/defense) that do not apply in any way shape or form to the discussion. You guys need to stop making shit up left and right.

Please try and stay on topic. Make a new thread if you want to talk about a movie. This thread is about the horrific Highland Park shooting. Not to talk about how you liked some movie that came out.





Talk about a troll toll.

And lastly, you have really hurt my feelings. You called me a troll. I don't know how I'm going to get over that. I guess I'm just gonna bury my head and hope I can recover from that insult someday……

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

The victims are the people shot by these weapons.

Yes...that is usually how you define a victim. You got that definition right...impressive?

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

long rifles

So short rifles aka SBRs are ok. Got it! What is crazy is there are much more restrictions on short barrel rifles by the ATF than long barrels and for good reason. You must know more than them. Why are long rifles the issue?

Your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject at hand is fascinating. You are literally just 'making it up as you go along'.

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

with a clip

So magazines are ok. Got it!

You think people still use clips. Priceless. You are one of the most uneducated people I have met regarding firearms. It does not surprise me they scare you. Just like the media intended.

Originally Posted by Captain Blood

The only real way to keep them out of bad guys hands is to not make them available at all.

Ah yes! I love this argument. I mean it has a million holes in it but lets explore:

If we ban all guns no one will get shot. Except criminals who will still break the law will have guns and shoot people. We have now removed the guns from the 99% of lawful gun owners who now have no way to protect themselves from the criminals. Yeah this is all starting to make perfect sense.

If we ban all cars no one will die in car accidents.

If we ban all water no one will die drowning.

If we ban all knives, no one will die being stabbed. All stabbings will drop to zero using your logic.

If we ban all explosives, no one will make a home made IED to kill and maim people.

If we ban all drugs, no one will die of an overdose.

Want me to go on? Do you see the faults in your logic yet?










Not 1 single death.






223 Remington is for varmints and small predators. It is inhumane to use 223 to hunt Deer or anything larger. But this is the caliber you are concerned about in the AR15. In fact I bet you don't even care about the caliber do you? AR bad. Big 'clips' bad!!! Black gun bad!

Seriously I may just buy that BAR because of you. My biggest decision is which caliber. I don't need to blow a boxing glove sized exit wound in my deer and lose meat. Maybe I'll pick up an AR while I am at the store for plinking and sunday funday gundays at the range while I am at it. My fear is some day a politician might think like you(uneducated on the topic and scared of the boom stick) and try to ban them.


I actually put time and effort into my replies. Your replies are that of a troll. GeeFwhy

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by Torgus

So short rifles aka SBRs are ok. Got it! What is crazy is there are much more restrictions on short barrel rifles by the ATF than long barrels and for good reason. You must know more than them. Why are long rifles the issue?

Your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject at hand is fascinating.

So magazines are ok. Got it!

You think people still use clips. Priceless. You are one of the most uneducated people I have met regarding firearms. It does not surprise me they scare you. Just like the media intended.

Ah yes! I love this argument. I mean it has a million holes in it but lets explore:

If we ban all guns no one will get shot. Except criminals who will still break the law will have guns and shoot people. We have now removed the guns from the 99% of lawful gun owners who now have no way to protect themselves from the criminals. Yeah this is all starting to make perfect sense.

If we ban all cars no one will die in car accidents.

If we ban all water no one will die drowning.

If we ban all knives, no one will die being stabbed. All stabbings will drop to zero using your logic.

If we ban all explosives, no one will make a home made IED to kill and maim people.

If we ban all drugs, no one will die of an overdose.

Want me to go on? Do you see the faults in your logic yet?










Not 1 single death.






223 Remington is for varmints and small predators. Not even recommended for Deer or anything larger. It is inhumane to use 223 to hunt Deer or anything larger. But this is the caliber you are concerned about in the AR15. In fact I bet you don't even care about the caliber do you? AR bad. Big 'clips' bad!!! Black gun bad!

Seriously I may just buy that BAR because of you. My biggest decision is which caliber. I don't need to blow a boxing glove sized exit wound in my deer and lose meat.

That was a long and lame response to my post

Triggered
Definition:
(especially of something read, seen, or heard) distress (someone), typically as a result of arousing feelings or memories associated with a particular traumatic experience

Example: Torgus was triggered by someone suggesting he's not a victim

Or

Torgus was triggered by someone using a term that he did not like.

Clinging to the semantics to think your argument was won is lame and sad. Further, it's sad to think you may be a registered voter. No wonder our country is in such trouble.

And just in case you're confused:

se·man·tics
/səˈman(t)iks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"

[The Chaddening]

Come and take it