Bushmaster .223

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from undead. Show undead's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

      Lock the guns in a cabinet? I saw this on another site but I've also heard the 'keeping guns locked up' argument here. 

     Remember, the guy killed his mom and stole the guns. You want to explain to me how locking them up is going to stop him from getting his hands on him? I've seen the gun cabinets and all you have to do is break the glass. A safe is not something you break through but the combination has to be around somewhere, and if you've been living in a house for 20 years, you know where it is.

     The guy was hell bent on doing this and locking them up wouldn't have made a difference. Training people is what makes a difference. Train them over and over and over the proper use and rules that go along with weapons. If you do this properly then you won't need to lock up your guns (which I always thought was the stupidest thing in the world to do with them, but that's me).

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'd rather be shot with a 9mm handgun than with a Bushmaster .223. 

    There were no survivors for a reason.

    Yes, there is nothing to stop someone from going on a rampage.  But lets try to make it a little more difficult for them to easily kill so many people.  Let's try to make it a little more difficult than going into his mother's closet to get an weapon that is as close to the perfect killing weapon as you can get.

    Let's make it illegal to own guns that are designed for the specific purpose of hunting down people and killing them in as efficient method as possible.

    We know that there are drunk drivers out there.  But guess what - it's illegal to drink and drive. 

    We know that more people get killed in car accidents than guns - but we have speed limits, and safety equipment in our cars.  We wear seat belt and have air bags in the our cars.

    If the shooter didn't have a Bushmaster .223, fewer kids would have gotten killed.  If that guy in Colorado didn;t have an AR-15, fewer people would have been killed.  If they had only had shotguns, many fewer people would have been killed.

    You're trapped.  You've got to choose to go left or right.  On left is a guy with a .45 hand gun.  On the right is a guy with a Bushmaster .223.  Which way do you run?

    [/QUOTE]

    Let's make it illegal to own guns that are designed for the specific purpose of hunting down people and killing them in as efficient method as possible.

     

    I didn't realize certain guns were made for hunting down people. Is that how they are marketed???

     

    We know that there are drunk drivers out there.  But guess what - it's illegal to drink and drive. 

    We know that more people get killed in car accidents than guns - but we have speed limits, and safety equipment in our cars.  We wear seat belt and have air bags in the our cars.

     

    And it's illegal to murder. 

     

    If the shooter didn't have a Bushmaster .223, fewer kids would have gotten killed.  If that guy in Colorado didn;t have an AR-15, fewer people would have been killed.  If they had only had shotguns, many fewer people would have been killed.

     

    You don't know that. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sometimes your level of obtuseness is truly amazing.

    The Bushmaster .223 was originally design to be used as an assault rifle by the military.  The military doesn't issue assault rifles to it's troops to shoot deer, ducks, or squirrels.  The military uses weapons to kill people. 

    A rifle design to be used as an assault rifle by the military is intended to be used to kill people.  Handguns are intended to kill people.  Some guns are made to shoot deer, ducks, and other game.  Handguns and Assault rifles were designed with the sole purpose of killing people.

    The word ASSAULT is usually enough for most people to understand what it was intended to do.

    And yes, I do know that if the shooter had a gun that held fewer rounds of ammunition. fire fewer rounds per second, and had a lower muzzle velocity, fewer kids would have been killed.  I do know that if the shooter had a double barreled shot gun he would have shot far fewer people.  But thinking it would goes along with your inability to understand what an ASSAULT RIFLE was designed to do.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    I argue it because the avg citizen who buys an AR-15 isn't doing so to hunt down people. THAT is why. I AM for banning it. But I AM against hyperbole too.



    Well here's the thing.

     

     

    Most people don't buy it to hunt down a lot of people. They buy it to feel more empowered or masculine or whatever. Maybe hunters like it too.


    But the ones who are going to commit mass shootings with it do choose it specifically because it was designed to hunt down people. I think that's where he was going.

    [/QUOTE]

    He was making more of a blanket statement.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was making the statement that the AR-15/Bushmaster .223 was designed to be used for killing people.  It was not designed to hunt deer, ducks, or other game.  It's not designed to be used in sharpshooting competitions.  It was designed to be used by boots on the ground to kill the enemy,

    When you see marines walking with their assault rifles at the ready - they are hunting the enemy.

    Unless you are hunting people, there are weapons other than the AR-15 that are more appropriate for what you are trying to do.

    Hand guns were also designed to be used to shoot people.  There are some exceptions - if you are salmon fishing among the bears in Alaska, then a hand gun might be a good thing to have.  But for the most part, the hand gun is designed to shoot people.   I can see it being used for self defense, which is not what the Assault Rifle is intended to do.  But even then, there is no need to have a clip with more that 6 rounds.

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Australia?  That's your proof?



    You asked him for evidence that strict gun controls may reduce violent gun crimes. He gave you proof.

     


    Why does the geographic location matter?

     

     

     

     

    Oh I see. The twit just wants a reaction. He'll only take "proof" from America, even though America doesn't have strict gun control. This will protect the f**ktard from having to think.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because Australians are just nuts.

    seriously, though, what does more gun control have to do with this? Liberals are running around politicizing this tragedy, basing their call for more gun control On a false premise,that it matters. The assailant did not own guns, was denied purchase of guns. So, the existing regulation worked to the extent they could.  No additional regulation could have made that outcome more certain.

    show me the additional gun control idea that would have stopped this.

    Face it.  The conservatives here have shredded the arguments for more gun control.  Not surprising, but I am extremely disappointed that the lefties couldn't leave this tragedy alone, instead costing to use it to advance an unrelated agenda of gun control.  Sickening, really.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Australia?  That's your proof?



    You asked him for evidence that strict gun controls may reduce violent gun crimes. He gave you proof.

     


    Why does the geographic location matter?

     

     

     

     

    Oh I see. The twit just wants a reaction. He'll only take "proof" from America, even though America doesn't have strict gun control. This will protect the f**ktard from having to think.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because Australians are just nuts.

    seriously, though, what does more gun control have to do with this? Liberals are running around politicizing this tragedy, basing their call for more gun control On a false premise,that it matters. The assailant did not own guns, was denied purchase of guns. So, the existing regulation worked to the extent they could.  No additional regulation could have made that outcome more certain.

    show me the additional gun control idea that would have stopped this.

    Face it.  The conservatives here have shredded the arguments for more gun control.  Not surprising, but I am extremely disappointed that the lefties couldn't leave this tragedy alone, instead costing to use it to advance an unrelated agenda of gun control.  Sickening, really.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, your response is sickening. Scotland, Australia, China, & Japan instituted strict gun measures immediately after their tragedies, and the result was NO more incidents. And it's not only the left; Mayor Bloomberg & Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox News, wants gun control measures taken as a result. There are rumblings regarding Republicans in Congress & the Senate. The equity firm invested in this weapon sold out today.

    The 2nd amendment was never meant to have the effect it has had (understandably, it was over 200 yrs ago). I'm not saying abolish it, but the availability of semi-automatic weapons with large magazine clips (much larger than used during WWII) needs to be readdressed. The handgun he used to kill himself was meant for large game. Some of the shots from the rifle went through school walls and then cars in the parking lot! Why does a civilian need these kind of firearms?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    [/QUOTE]

    A stupid ideologcal reponse per usual.  Even conservatives accept that the primary goal of government is to keep people safe from threats external and internal. Let's all arm ourselves to the teeth and live in armed camps...  Quite the "freedom" you expose.  But no freedom from fear.  The logical result of your thought is a Hobbesian nightmare of uncontrolled liberty, selfishness and violence.  You want to live in Somalia... The rest of us would prefer something better.  No right is unlimited, especially one that can cause loss of life.

    [/QUOTE]

    Government can't protect us from every threat.  Heck, government doesn't even try.

    Your stupid ideological rant is that government controls everything.  How stupid is that.

    Throw around as many red herrigs as you like.  It will not change thatthe only thing government will do is to further encumber law-abiding citizens, worsening the problem.

    [/QUOTE]

    Your passivity is astounding.  You are willing to accept the death of innocent children because government "can't protect us from every threat"?  No, it can try to protect us from this threat but your ideology forbids it. There are obvious methods that can be undertaken to limit these assault weapons from our society, but you oppose them.  The government does not control everything, no one wants that.  That's just your stupid ideology talking again. But it can control and regulate this incredibly harmful issue.  Bottomline you like guns better than kids.  That's where your ideology has left you with.  It is a disgusting and dehumanizing place. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]


    As usually skeeter your point of view is in the minority. Thank goodness !

    Anyway name a liberty that you had to give up . BTW don't say candy for Lent neither !

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL, way to go Sis!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    QUOTE]

    Because Australians are just nuts.

    seriously, though, what does more gun control have to do with this? Liberals are running around politicizing this tragedy, basing their call for more gun control On a false premise,that it matters. The assailant did not own guns, was denied purchase of guns. So, the existing regulation worked to the extent they could.  No additional regulation could have made that outcome more certain.

    show me the additional gun control idea that would have stopped this.

    Face it.  The conservatives here have shredded the arguments for more gun control.  Not surprising, but I am extremely disappointed that the lefties couldn't leave this tragedy alone, instead costing to use it to advance an unrelated agenda of gun control.  Sickening, really.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What does gun control have to do with this?  Are you nuts?  A bunch of kids get killed by a nut with an assault weapon and we are NOt supposed to question whether you need that kind of gun?  Conclusion: we are never supposed to question such matters.  We should never have new laws to address issues as we confront them.  We should just sit tight and watch the world go to he11.  Quite the plan.  Go live in Somalia.  It is the perfect place for you.  No rules, no government, just a life of fear.  But you will have your guns for sure...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that there's too much point in arguing, but I think the blanket statement was made in regards to what the AR-15 was designed to do: Hunt a lot of people down.

    And that is what it was designed to do regardless of the varying intent behind purchasers of it. It's an M-16 that isn't fully automatic, plain and simple.

    Killing people is its purpose. Fortunately, most people don't share that purpose in buying one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually it's purpose is defense against multiple targets in an urban or mid range environment.

    For that environment do you not think he could have been much more lethal with a couple of pistol gripped pump shotguns with 00 buckshot and a belt full of clips? I am sure he would have been at least as lethal since the victims were grouped.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter - way back when there was no need for assault rifles because assault rifles didn't exist.

    Please explain how giving up assault rifles is the same as giving up liberty?

    Isn't losing your life the ultimate loss of liberty?  I can certainly live with slightly less liberty if it means fewer people dying in mass shooting sprees.

    [/QUOTE]

    DWL:  

    Give up liberty on your say so? Ah....No.

    When the assault weapons ban was repealed, violent crime invovling guns dropped.

    I can certainly live with less crime.  More guns mean less crime.  Makes you wonder why Holder is sending guns into Mexico, eh?

    You see, your premise that more guns means more crime is simply wrong.  Learn from your mistake.  There is no reason to give up your liberty for no return. Consider:

     

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

     - Ben Franklin

     

    Would you not agree?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter - way back when there was no need for assault rifles because assault rifles didn't exist.

    Please explain how giving up assault rifles is the same as giving up liberty?

    Isn't losing your life the ultimate loss of liberty?  I can certainly live with slightly less liberty if it means fewer people dying in mass shooting sprees.

    [/QUOTE]

    DWL:  

    Give up liberty on your say so? Ah....No.

    When the assault weapons ban was repealed, violent crime invovling guns dropped.

    I can certainly live with less crime.  More guns mean less crime.  Makes you wonder why Holder is sending guns into Mexico, eh?

    You see, your premise that more guns means more crime is simply wrong.  Learn from your mistake.  There is no reason to give up your liberty for no return. Consider:

     

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

     - Ben Franklin

     

    Would you not agree?

    [/QUOTE]

    The mistake is yours; the international data says otherwise.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that there's too much point in arguing, but I think the blanket statement was made in regards to what the AR-15 was designed to do: Hunt a lot of people down.

    And that is what it was designed to do regardless of the varying intent behind purchasers of it. It's an M-16 that isn't fully automatic, plain and simple.

    Killing people is its purpose. Fortunately, most people don't share that purpose in buying one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually it's purpose is defense against multiple targets in an urban or mid range environment.

    For that environment do you not think he could have been much more lethal with a couple of pistol gripped pump shotguns with 00 buckshot and a belt full of clips? I am sure he would have been at least as lethal since the victims were grouped.

    [/QUOTE]

    A backbutted argument if I ever saw one. Perhaps pump shotguns and clip hoarding should be banned as well.

    How about using instead a home made dirty bomb? Or an incendiary packet with 12 inch nails? 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To live in a free society you have to be willing to give up some liberties !

    [/QUOTE]

    We keep giving up liberties, and the problem keeps getting worse.  At some point, one comes to the conclusion that your point of view is wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter - way back when there was no need for assault rifles because assault rifles didn't exist.

    Please explain how giving up assault rifles is the same as giving up liberty?

    Isn't losing your life the ultimate loss of liberty?  I can certainly live with slightly less liberty if it means fewer people dying in mass shooting sprees.

    [/QUOTE]

    DWL:  

    Give up liberty on your say so? Ah....No.

    When the assault weapons ban was repealed, violent crime invovling guns dropped.

    I can certainly live with less crime.  More guns mean less crime.  Makes you wonder why Holder is sending guns into Mexico, eh?

    You see, your premise that more guns means more crime is simply wrong.  Learn from your mistake.  There is no reason to give up your liberty for no return. Consider:

     

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

     - Ben Franklin

     

    Would you not agree?

    [/QUOTE]

    You're a nut.  If AR-15s were in existence in Franklins day, the 2nd amendment would have never been written.

    banning AR-15s has no impact on Liberty.  Zero.  None.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that there's too much point in arguing, but I think the blanket statement was made in regards to what the AR-15 was designed to do: Hunt a lot of people down.

    And that is what it was designed to do regardless of the varying intent behind purchasers of it. It's an M-16 that isn't fully automatic, plain and simple.

    Killing people is its purpose. Fortunately, most people don't share that purpose in buying one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually it's purpose is defense against multiple targets in an urban or mid range environment.

    For that environment do you not think he could have been much more lethal with a couple of pistol gripped pump shotguns with 00 buckshot and a belt full of clips? I am sure he would have been at least as lethal since the victims were grouped.

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  That's why it went into service in Vietnam.  It's not a defensive weapon.  It's an assault rifle.  Don't you even know what assault means?  Christ, the intent of the weapon is in the name And youre still in denial about it.  I can't believe how stupid you people are.

    Right.  Pistol grip shotguns and belt full of clips are as dangerous as an AR-15.  First, I believe that pistol grip shot guns are illegal.  Secondly, you obviously know nothing of guns and certainly have never fire a shotgun.  He wouldn't have hit anything.  And after he fired, he would have had to reload, at which point the teachers would ave jumped him.

    i can't believe I'm engaging in this discussion.  You're clueless on ths issue and the more you write, the more it shows.

    shotguns don't use clips, you empty headed twit.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Actually it's purpose is defense against multiple targets in an urban or mid range environment. For that environment do you not think he could have been much more lethal with a couple of pistol gripped pump shotguns with 00 buckshot and a belt full of clips? I am sure he would have been at least as lethal since the victims were grouped.

    Geepers, you freakin whacko wingnuts just make shiite up as you go. 

    The M-16 was never intended for urban environments. It was designed as a stand off weapon with better accuracy at greater range than the AK47/74.

    No assualt rifle is ever designed for defense, that's what a bayonet is for.

    The M-16 was adapted for urban environments by shortening it's barrel length. That new generation of weapon is now in service as the M4.

     

    My gawd you freakin winbgnuts just spout whatever ridiculous baloney that you think aligns with your dumb arguments.

    Use fvcking FACTS for gawds sake. Is that too freakin hard?

    [/QUOTE]

    wasnt talking abot an m-16 leftnut! go back to school

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Actually it's purpose is defense against multiple targets in an urban or mid range environment. For that environment do you not think he could have been much more lethal with a couple of pistol gripped pump shotguns with 00 buckshot and a belt full of clips? I am sure he would have been at least as lethal since the victims were grouped.

    Geepers, you freakin whacko wingnuts just make shiite up as you go. 

    The M-16 was never intended for urban environments. It was designed as a stand off weapon with better accuracy at greater range than the AK47/74.

    No assualt rifle is ever designed for defense, that's what a bayonet is for.

    The M-16 was adapted for urban environments by shortening it's barrel length. That new generation of weapon is now in service as the M4.

     

    My gawd you freakin winbgnuts just spout whatever ridiculous baloney that you think aligns with your dumb arguments.

    Use fvcking FACTS for gawds sake. Is that too freakin hard?

    [/QUOTE]

    wasnt talking abot an m-16 leftnut! go back to school

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Bushmaster .223

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    wasnt talking abot an m-16


    WHOOOOSH

    [/QUOTE]

    If you only knew as much as you think you do!

     

    Know the difference in an AR-15 and a M-16?

     

Share