OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer

[CarpHunter]

Ha, now that is hysterically inaccurate. Dayton was an antifa program, New Zealand was extremely left, parkland, and the baseball shooter were dems....on and on and on learning left or extreme left.

I'll preface this with a question. Are you a liar, or ignorant?

Dayton, shooters motives are still not clear. Altho he did post extreme far left posts on social media, including support for antifa. There's no evidence those beliefs contributed to the shooting. By "program" are you suggesting a conspiracy?

New Zealand. The shooter was a far right extremist. Interacting with and donating to neo nazi groups. As well as stating anti immigrant and anti semitic ideals in his own manifesto. His victims were targeting specifically because of his far right ideology, due to both their racial and religious backgrounds. He states this in his manifesto, as well as anything trump for his anti immigrant and anti Muslim statements.

Parkland. Again, shooter was right wing extremist. Posting anti black, anti jew, anti Muslim, and anti immigrant posts. Including statements of wanting to kill Mexicans, Jews, and gays. Police found multiple weapons and magazines with swastikas carved into them.

And finally the baseball shooting. Yes he was a Democrat. However it wasn't a mass shooting. The only person to die was the shooter.

So again, are you a liar or ignorant?

[cale]

The reality is trained police have firing accuracy under 20% during gun fights that happen within a 4 yard range. Without having someone shooting back that accuracy only goes up to 30%. At any range, and weather or not people are firing back does accuracy go over 50%. Yet you're saying your better than trained law enforcement.

"Trained" police, as opposed to those untrained ones....?

The average cop shoots a recert once a year and will never fire their weapon in an actual event. Someone who shoots on the regular is most definitely capable of being a better shot than the average cop.

[CarpHunter]

"Trained" police, as opposed to those untrained ones....?

The average cop shoots a recert once a year and will never fire their weapon in an actual event. Someone who shoots on the regular is most definitely capable of being a better shot than the average cop.

Shooting paper targets doesn't make you a great shot under duress. The same as hitting a heavy bag doesn't make you a great fighter. You can practice for both types of self defense, it comes down to execution under pressure. Do you act or do you lock up. That you can't practice for.

Every one thinks they can fight, right up until they get punched. Then you know. Even the best fighter can freeze, the same as the best soldier can freeze. These are people who are accustomed to acting under pressure in the most extreme of conditions. Day in day out. Yet your arguing that a person who bought a gun because their already afraid, thus the gun, are going to react accordingly, let alone aim with any accuracy. With no experience under that level of stress. Laughable.

No bs, go test yourself. Find a local boxing, mma, or bjj gym, tell them you wanna test how you'd react under pressure like that. Most will do it, without malice, or actually try to hurt you. A major drill for any of those is being put under extreme pressure. It might be eye opening.

[myinfernalbmw]

That's on me. We're using the concept of inflated dick size to allude to several different things.

First, the placebo of feeling safer having a gun. You having a gun gives you a sense of security that you are lacking without one. The reality is having that gun makes you no more safe. It's a placebo. You'd be safer buying a security door or simply living in a less dangerous area. If i don't want my shit stolen, I buy a safe, not a gun.

Second, the added sense of manliness the gun gives you. To put it in another context. What your saying is you, having never trained or having any experience could walk into the ufc and beat Jon Jones. Becoming champ. The reality is trained police have firing accuracy under 20% during gun fights that happen within a 4 yard range. Without having someone shooting back that accuracy only goes up to 30%. At any range, and weather or not people are firing back does accuracy go over 50%. Yet you're saying your better than trained law enforcement.

Side note, what's your goal with a 9mm ar? To piss the intruder off? Cause that ain't gonna stop them.

Since my last comment got flagged as spam and hasn't been approved in two days, I'll repeat the jest of it-

This is like dealing with my socially retarded cousin. He won't have an ounce of actual knowledge on a subject, but somehow interjecting his opinion based on seemingly nothing always seems like the right move. The real kicker is that he doesn't bother to try to come up with even a half assed attempt at a coherent thought, but that won't stop him from arguing that he's right. Your ignorance is on full display. The irony is that you don't realize how stupid you sound, and yet you keep on flapping your jib.

I am going to give you another chance to tell me WHY the AR is not a good choice for home defense and what is a better choice and WHY. It's strange that so many law enforcement agencies and out military use 9mm for duty since it's so ineffective. 5.56 is too powerful, but 9mm is too weak. Please share your vast knowledge in ballistics so I can make a better caliber choice for feeling like a badass.

[cale]

Shooting paper targets doesn't make you a great shot under duress.

Now accept this applies to the majority of police officers who are also vastly under trained in the use of a firearm.

Yet your arguing that a person who bought a gun because their already afraid, thus the gun, are going to react accordingly, let alone aim with any accuracy. With no experience under that level of stress. Laughable.

No I'm not, I said the person who actually makes an effort to become a better shooter by practicing frequently is going to be better at shooting then the cop who requal's once a calendar year. The only argument I'm making here is that putting cops on a pedestal of performance is silly.

[CarpHunter]

Since my last comment got flagged as spam and hasn't been approved in two days, I'll repeat the jest of it-

This is like dealing with my socially retarded cousin. He won't have an ounce of actual knowledge on a subject, but somehow interjecting his opinion based on seemingly nothing always seems like the right move. The real kicker is that he doesn't bother to try to come up with even a half assed attempt at a coherent thought, but that won't stop him from arguing that he's right. Your ignorance is on full display. The irony is that you don't realize how stupid you sound, and yet you keep on flapping your jib.

I am going to give you another chance to tell me WHY the AR is not a good choice for home defense and what is a better choice and WHY. It's strange that so many law enforcement agencies and out military use 9mm for duty since it's so ineffective. 5.56 is too powerful, but 9mm is too weak. Please share your vast knowledge in ballistics so I can make a better caliber choice for feeling like a badass.

Oh, so your part of the 20% staring at the ceiling tuning out.

[CarpHunter]

Now accept this applies to the majority of police officers who are also vastly under trained in the use of a firearm.



No I'm not, I said the person who actually makes an effort to become a better shooter by practicing frequently is going to be better at shooting then the cop who requal's once a calendar year. The only argument I'm making here is that putting cops on a pedestal of performance is silly.

I do accept this about police. Can you accept that an average citizen with a gun who has received even less training would do worse, not better?

If you have two people who have equal range time, and are equal marksman at the range. Put them both in the same stressful situation, the difference is in the experience with stressful situations and the training to deal with that stress. Not in marksmanship. Giving the edge to the person with that additional experience and training. Which would be the police.

So if the police average below 30% accuracy, with that additional experience and training, it's a safe assumption that the average gun owner would be even less accurate than the police. Not better. You point out that most police have to pass qualification once a year to carry a gun. How often does the average gun owner have to qualify? Um, never. So your saying that people who never have to prove they are qualified with a firearm are more qualified than those that do? Sounds more like fantasy and ego talking than logic and reality.

Ultimately what's silly is that you don't put police on a pedestal and hold them to that standard. Instead constantly lowering the bar and then bitching about poor quality. You guys set the bar, if your cops are poorly trained and of low quality that's on you guys.

[R3Z3N]

New Zealand. The shooter was a far right extremist. Interacting with and donating to neo nazi groups. As well as stating anti immigrant and anti semitic ideals in his own manifesto. His victims were targeting specifically because of his far right ideology, due to both their racial and religious backgrounds. He states this in his manifesto, as well as anything trump for his anti immigrant and anti Muslim statements.

Parkland. Again, shooter was right wing extremist. Posting anti black, anti jew, anti Muslim, and anti immigrant posts. Including statements of wanting to kill Mexicans, Jews, and gays. Police found multiple weapons and magazines with swastikas carved into them.

And finally the baseball shooting. Yes he was a Democrat. However it wasn't a mass shooting. The only person to die was the shooter.

New Zealand shooter claimed to be far right, and also wanting to use the weapon to get it further removed from the country. How asinine but it worked on a political level. However, while claiming to be far right, he didn't even know what he was, as he couldn't have been further from his own beliefs. There was nothing right leaning about him. That was full on progressive asinine.

Parkland, another fool who was in no way right leaning. None of those view points are conservative nor right leaning (however anti immigration is another topic, but neither right nor wrong, just a political stance on how to run a country)

The baseball shooter, yes another Democrat trying to commit a mass murder. I am glad he did not succeed.

[R3Z3N]

To answer OP, this is all you need.

[digger]

thats pretty funny.

Q: why do you need an AR15
A: i dont need to demonstate a need for it to be a right

the guy fails to realise that people agree with it being a right to own one otherwise they would simply be taken off them. the argument is there actually a legimiate need. not a "well its going to protect me or my family property better than a wodden spoon". well no shit sherlock but thats not a legimate reason to any rational individual. the US is not a warn torn country with great unrest. sure some areas have high crime but using some of those weapons against an intruder who could very well have the same kind of weapons doesnt make a whole lot of sense as its going to go pear shaped one way or another.

One of the important questions is why do people still think they need a second amendament?

[myinfernalbmw]

Oh, so your part of the 20% staring at the ceiling tuning out.

Thank you for continuing to contribute.

thats pretty funny.

Q: why do you need an AR15
A: i dont need to demonstate a need for it to be a right

the guy fails to realise that people agree with it being a right to own one otherwise they would simply be taken off them. the argument is there actually a legimiate need. not a "well its going to protect me or my family property better than a wodden spoon". well no shit sherlock but thats not a legimate reason to any rational individual. the US is not a warn torn country with great unrest. sure some areas have high crime but using some of those weapons against an intruder who could very well have the same kind of weapons doesnt make a whole lot of sense as its going to go pear shaped one way or another.

One of the important questions is why do people still think they need a second amendament?

What is funny is how people keep asking for a "legitimate" reason when you've already decided there isn't one.

Even funnier that we even bother to entertain the idea that anyone could be convinced over the internet.

[z31maniac]

Even funnier that we even bother to entertain the idea that anyone could be convinced over the internet.

If I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, why even bother to respond? And then respond multiple times to multiple people?

[myinfernalbmw]

If I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, why even bother to respond? And then respond multiple times to multiple people?

I foolishly thought that you were asking for a conversation. I should have known better. Why start a thread under the pretense that you were looking for an actual discussion when you're just going to shitpost every response?

[2mAn]

I found this quite depressing. Friend posted it the day of the two shootings

[cale]

^ About 30 seconds on google and I can confidently say that's bullshit. Absolutely the US pales everyone else on that list, but it's a dishonest representation of where the other countries stand, and it's intentionally dishonest.