The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 02:58 PM   #76
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Anyone who'd argue (all else being equal) that a .223 is more lethal than a .243 is completely mistaken. (I'll hold the name-calling)
No one has argued that...

Are you completely incapable of reading comprehension?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:12 PM   #77
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Wait a minute.

What does ammunition capacity have to do with anything? Are we really to believe that how much ammunition you can carry has any effect whatsoever on how many people you can effectively kill at a time?

You don't say.
Needless to say (or at least I wouldda thought so) the ammo carrying capacity needed for a few weeks out in the rice paddy is a bit different from some crazy deciding to spend his last hour or so going down in a blaze of anti-glory. You should be glad those guys don't use .243's. But please keep arguing that it would make sense to ban one yet not the other because it usually comes in black. Makes my life easier.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:20 PM   #78
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
It's okay folks, cut's got this.

Those little children died for your rights, correct? Let's hear it again, say it with me: "Those little children dying is a small price to pay for my right to own an assault rifle."

Tree of liberty, fertilized, blood...you know the rest.
I just feel that when only 400 Americans get killed by rifles a yr that we should be concentrating on other things to save more kids lives. I realize a kid getting shot is provocative and one just drowning in a pool not so much. You don't see national news covering kids drowning. But its way more of a threat to young kids then rifles.

i agree with you handguns need some work. The problem with handguns is they are the weapon of choice among felons. Thats why rifles just really not an issue. Sure a few times a yr someone will snap with them. Once a decade some police dept gets in a shootout like the Hollywood one a few yrs back. Hell maybe even twice a decade but still not enough where legislation can help.

You just can't legislate 400 people getting shot with rifles. Its such a small number there isn't much to work with people. Hell the number is so low you could ban all rifles and still maybe have 400 deaths from them.

Lets push govt to legislate in areas that really need attention.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:28 PM   #79
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Fed is trying to make some wierd point that an ar-15, in .223 has a combination of firepower, calibar size, small recoil that enables it to be slightly more deadly then say a .308 which has more firepower but a person may not squeeze and many rounds on target in the same amount of time.

I will conceed that but not sure what it proves when the amount of people killed by rifles is so very low. They just aren't really a problem. No one can prove or logically show that legislation on ar-15s could possible make us safer. How can people be scared of only 400 people a yr being killed by rifles? more people drown.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:29 PM   #80
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Tell that to the people in Newtown, Aurora, Oregon...
wow 3 incidents. What a epidemic.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:59 PM   #81
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Needless to say (or at least I wouldda thought so) the ammo carrying capacity needed for a few weeks out in the rice paddy is a bit different from some crazy deciding to spend his last hour or so going down in a blaze of anti-glory. You should be glad those guys don't use .243's. But please keep arguing that it would make sense to ban one yet not the other because it usually comes in black. Makes my life easier.
No one has attempted to argue that.

Reading comprehension: you need a lot more practice.

Moron.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 04:48 AM   #82
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 07:28 AM   #83
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.
MSNBC told them it was a huge problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 07:32 AM   #84
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No one has attempted to argue that.

Reading comprehension: you need a lot more practice.

Moron.
Nobody really has any idea what you're arguing. You mostly just nip at heels and make meaningless comparisons.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 09:53 AM   #85
Dukes
Ring of Famer
 
Dukes's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
more people are beaten to death by someone hands and feet then are killed by rifles in a yr in the USA. How can anyone look at a rifle, that causes about 400 deaths a yr, and say wow this is a huge problem in the USA? People just don't care around rifles and shoot people with them. Its very very rare. But we have almost 300 million people so yeah hundreds will be shot with rifles each yr. Still not enough to warrant legislation.
Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.
Dukes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:54 PM   #86
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody really has any idea what you're arguing. You mostly just nip at heels and make meaningless comparisons.
LMAO Cutlet is not confused, nor I would venture is anyone else. Just you, which either means you really are that dumb or are just being purposefully obtuse.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:58 PM   #87
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Fed is easy to figure out just listen. he is saying he feels an ar-15 has a combination of attributes that makes it more deadly in someones hands then say a larger more powerfull weapon, that would have more recoil.

I also dont get why he is making that point though because he doesn't tie it in to how it should affect gun control.

Also still waiting for a liberal to prove 400 rifle deaths a yr is enough to warrant this much attention. Govt would be better off looking at things where more deaths occur if saving lives is the goal.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:59 PM   #88
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes View Post
Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.
Mostly dems right now eager for any big social/domestic issues they can use to kee attention off failed foreign police, failed economic policy.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 02:28 PM   #89
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed is easy to figure out just listen. he is saying he feels an ar-15 has a combination of attributes that makes it more deadly in someones hands then say a larger more powerfull weapon, that would have more recoil.
More correctly: the class of weapons we call "assault rifles" use rounds and a platoform (rifle) that enable unmatched -- among currently legal weapons -- rate of (controllable) fire + lethality.

Quote:
I also dont get why he is making that point though because he doesn't tie it in to how it should affect gun control.
Like I said, I'm just trying to see how many of you folks can actually accept reality. Most folks can't/won't admit that an "assault rifle" like the AR-15 (but certainly not limited to that one model) is more deadly than a semi-automatic pistol, because they are "both semi-auto!, yuk yuk". Dozens of threads just here on the mane have people claiming that. It's ridiculous and that as well as lots of other idiocy (e.g. Beavis thinking that calibre was the definitive determinant of a weapons power/lethality) betrays a stunning level of ignorance about the topic at hand.

How can you have a reasonable conversation about what/if something should be done until all the participants are reasonably well informed about the topic?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 02:31 PM   #90
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Fed can you accept reality that only 400 people get killed by rifles. And probably only a small % of those are assault style platforms. So they are more deadly does that in itself mean it needs legislation?

Certianly you agree that the fact more people get beat to death then die from rifles means this really isn't that big of a problem right? If you are going to argue 400 rifle deaths enough for the govt to start legislating on then I think you are reaching big time just to try and win the argument.

Peoples points are just that its easy to kill unarmed people with a gun. Doesn't matter if its a handgun or a rifle. My point handguns are the most deadly is based on the facts. Rate of fire, platfrom this pales in comparison to ABLE TO HIDE IN YOUR WAISTTBAND.

The only way to make us safer is harsher penalties for felons caught with weapons.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 03:01 PM   #91
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fed can you accept reality that only 400 people get killed by rifles. And probably only a small % of those are assault style platforms. So they are more deadly does that in itself mean it needs legislation?

Certianly you agree that the fact more people get beat to death then die from rifles means this really isn't that big of a problem right? If you are going to argue 400 rifle deaths enough for the govt to start legislating on then I think you are reaching big time just to try and win the argument.
You're trying to compare crimes (individual murders) of opportunity to mass murders. Murders of individual people (often without premeditation) to carefully planned mass murder. The comparison is not valid.

Of course a whole lot more people get killed by pistols and fists, there are a lot more people with pistols and fists and a whole lot more people with motive (with or without premeditation) to kill! No matter what weapons are available, the rate of these types of crimes won't be affected (the NRA stooges are quite right about that much at least).

But, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible in, say, a theatre or school, they don't try to beat them to death or take just a pistol.

Quote:
Peoples points are just that its easy to kill unarmed people with a gun. Doesn't matter if its a handgun or a rifle. My point handguns are the most deadly is based on the facts.
Again, you're comparing apples or oranges. You're aggregating the actions of a huge number of people (the entirely of gun violence in the country) to the actions of a single individual wanting to commit mass murder.

The reason assault weapons are getting a lot of attention right now is because they've been used to commit mass murder a lot recently. And as I've said, the capabilities of assault weapons to enable that type of crime are a legit concern.

Quote:
Rate of fire, platfrom this pales in comparison to ABLE TO HIDE IN YOUR WISTTBAND.
So, you are now going to argue that collapsible stocks are a problem after all huh? After all, if I can collapse the stock, I can more easily hide my weapon!

Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 09:11 AM   #92
frerottenextelway
█████
 
frerottenextelway's Avatar
 
█████

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: █████
Posts: 8,479

Adopt-a-Bronco:
██
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukes View Post
Which leads you to the simple question. What is their motivation for gun control? If it were about saving lives there's hundreds of other objects and chemicals that kill thousands of more people a year.
Oh stfu, first off the "400" number is more than every other first world nation, combined, for all guns, or pretty damn close. Second off, there is extensive regulation on pretty much everything that causes death, except for guns despite that being constitutionally required to be heavily regulated.
frerottenextelway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 09:30 AM   #93
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You're trying to compare crimes (individual murders) of opportunity to mass murders. Murders of individual people (often without premeditation) to carefully planned mass murder. The comparison is not valid.

Of course a whole lot more people get killed by pistols and fists, there are a lot more people with pistols and fists and a whole lot more people with motive (with or without premeditation) to kill! No matter what weapons are available, the rate of these types of crimes won't be affected (the NRA stooges are quite right about that much at least).

But, when someone wants to kill as many people as possible in, say, a theatre or school, they don't try to beat them to death or take just a pistol.



Again, you're comparing apples or oranges. You're aggregating the actions of a huge number of people (the entirely of gun violence in the country) to the actions of a single individual wanting to commit mass murder.

The reason assault weapons are getting a lot of attention right now is because they've been used to commit mass murder a lot recently. And as I've said, the capabilities of assault weapons to enable that type of crime are a legit concern.



So, you are now going to argue that collapsible stocks are a problem after all huh? After all, if I can collapse the stock, I can more easily hide my weapon!

In this very thread, we have Beavis and cut inadvertently admitting that ammunition capacity, recoil, weapon size, weapon caliber, and background checks are at least contributing factors to the lethality of a weapon.

Yet, the only two arguments we will still hear from them are "but it's my right..." and "then only the criminals will have..." There is no "good faith" in discussions on gun control.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 06:19 PM   #94
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,126

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Hey Cutlet: If people had ready access to rocket launchers, there would likely be a small number of murders committed with those weapons (probably even less than with assault rifles). Almost entirely in mass murder situations.

In addition, they would likely be damn fun to "target practice" with (I know I would get one hell of a kick out of it!). They would certainly provide a huge defensive capability (much more than just a lead slinger!) against looters and other mobs. They would be a weapon absolutely required for any armed rebellion (can't fight tanks and airplanes with lead slingers alone).

So, should rocket launchers be legalized? Why or why not?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 08:06 PM   #95
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I just feel that when only 400 Americans get killed by rifles a yr that we should be concentrating on other things to save more kids lives.
It amazes met that parents stuff their kids at McDonalds. Talk about killing your kids. Forget the the guns.
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 11:21 PM   #96
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,304
Default

Fed it is a legitmate argument. We have only 400-600 deaths a yr from rifles. That doesn't even count the difference between assault and regular. I feel it's legitmate to argue there isn't a huge need here for govt intervention into the gun marketplace.

If they want to push backgrond checks, closing the gun shows not having to check etc etc i can support that. I just don't see a big problem here. We had a couple high profile assault gun rampages that i bet we won't see often. At least i hope not. Our govt has way bigger fish to fry then wasting a lot of political capital and time on gun control.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Denver Broncos