The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
But once you pull a gun and fire on an intruder, chances are high they are gonna retreat and run for their lives. (i know, i know...I'm dealing with a crowd of posters in this thread that have a blood lust and need to kill anything that wrongs them if it's allowed by law)

But in both scenarios, guess what? YOU LIVE.

It seems pretty irresponsible to use such a powerful weapon in an urban environment.

Maybe they run or maybe they fight back which I seen happen. That's why you shoot to stop the person and keep shooting until you put them down.
 
I'm going on because it's the weapon of choice of people who wanna just go to a public place and shoot shit.

I'd like to see the tools they can get their hands on tapered down some. a pistol can do damage, sure...but it's not comparable with an AR.

Va tech shooter killed 30 plus with 2 handguns, the most " successful " mass shooter to date off the top of my head.

As someone already mentioned, chances are if you're gonna be killed by a gun it's gonna be a handgun in a robbery or an assault, not a mass shooting. If you look at the numbers the only conclusion you can possibly arrive at is that your stance is grounded in baseless emotion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Va tech shooter killed 30 plus with 2 handguns, the most " successful " mass shooter to date off the top of my head.

Was it 30 people that were in a coma? And didn't have the ability to run away from the first sign of trouble?
 
Va tech shooter killed 30 plus with 2 handguns, the most " successful " mass shooter to date off the top of my head.
The most prolific mass shooting in Canada, done with a straight stocked hunting rifle.

The secret to their success? No one could fight back.
 
Was it 30 people that were in a coma? And didn't have the ability to run away from the first sign of trouble?[/QU

WTF is one to make of this question?

It was 30 defenseless people in their early 20s and at the height of their physical ability cornered in a building .

Any other dumbfuck questions?
 
The most prolific mass shooting in Canada, done with a straight stocked hunting rifle.

The secret to their success? No one could fight back.

Fighting back doesnt exactly help either. The first ft hood shooter got into a gunfight with a police officer and won.
 
Fighting back doesnt exactly help either. The first ft hood shooter got into a gunfight with a police officer and won.

You stand a damn site better of a chance fighting back then just getting shot not fighting.
 
Fighting back doesnt exactly help either. The first ft hood shooter got into a gunfight with a police officer and won.

Is the fact that these mass murderers go to places where they expect to meet the least resistance up for dispute?
 
It depends on the person and the situation as to the type of weapon.

In this case it was a pistol that the guy killed the intruder with.

You still have to take into account the backstop you will have with the round you will be using.

If I have more then one person to deal with I want a little more fire power and it depends on distance if I would rather have a short shotgun.

In a more rural area situation a semi auto ar would make sense.

The problem with a pistol is in a stress situation people even with training miss their target more then with a long gun.

I live in a very rural area and I have a fairly decent collection. My home defense weapon is still a double barrel shotgun.
 
Is the fact that these mass murderers go to places where they expect to meet the least resistance up for dispute?

Somewhere is always going to be the softest target. Making every building a hardened bunker with a garrison of armed guards is not exactly feasible.
 
Needing to carry a gun makes you a pussy ass coward. And most of you need it, itt
seems.

Must be hard being such a pussy that you feel the need to carry.
Or it could be some people are just too pussified to carry a gun.
 
Somewhere is always going to be the softest target. Making every building a hardened bunker with a garrison of armed guards is not exactly feasible.

Who said anything about hardened bunkers? What's the problem with just allowing people the option to defend themselves?
 
Last edited:
Va tech shooter killed 30 plus with 2 handguns, the most " successful " mass shooter to date off the top of my head.

As someone already mentioned, chances are if you're gonna be killed by a gun it's gonna be a handgun in a robbery or an assault, not a mass shooting. If you look at the numbers the only conclusion you can possibly arrive at is that your stance is grounded in baseless emotion


Also if it's a situation where the shooting is inside I'd much rather the shooter have a rifle than a handgun as it is easier to wrestle away like that American did on that train.
 
Who said anything about hardened bunkers? What's the problem with just allowing people the option to defend themselves?

The general idea is that mass shootings are extremely unlikely to actually happen, whereas things like accidents are statistically much more likely to be an issue. Thats why businesses commonly ban firearms at work.
 
People are so focused on the Ar15 but more people are killed each year with fists,blunt objects,etc. than all rifles.
Combined.
 
No.

There is a difference in priorities versus combat and shooting competitions...for fuck sakes.

LOL. Is this two accounts I'm dealing with?

Fast target acquisition and accuracy is the most important thing in competition.

You said it is clumsy. You are wrong. You said you have to hold your elbow out.... false.

Combat situations covers a hell of a lot.

Certain aspects I guarantee you that this would be preferred.

Preview-Springfield-Armory-M1A-Scout-Squad-7.62mm-Gun-Review.jpg

12142139_559843164182009_1402519795_n.jpg
 
The general idea is that mass shootings are extremely unlikely to actually happen, whereas things like accidents are statistically much more likely to be an issue. Thats why businesses commonly ban firearms at work.

Well its good to read your position at least isn't laid on a foundation of emotion. They're extremely rare, sure, but in so long as people have a concern it could happen to them (or any other crime for that matter) they have a right to be armed to protect themselves. I'm frankly astonished that's even a debate. We've seen what happens when you broadcast that everyone is defenseless. The fact that these mass shootings generate the body counts they do if anything helps the gun advocate's case.

The cop out with accidents is easily corrected by holding the person who NDed liable. Most of the time the victim of an ND in that case is going to be the operator anyway, unless of course he's brandishing, which is a crime anyway.

Now, the right of the business to discriminate who or what they're going to allow into their establishment takes precedence, I agree, but until those two come into conflict your right to arm yourself remains.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top