U.S. gun lobby slams anti-gun 'elites' after Florida school massacre

[ilostmypassword]

On 2/24/2018 at 7:01 PM, riclag said:

Actually the NRA is a organization that promotes gun safety for millions of law abiding  gun owners.If anyone should be held liable it should be the law makers who don't enforce the gun laws.

Yes they want everyone to shoot only what they're aiming at. And if that person happens to be an ex felon or a mentally ill person, so be it.

[Redline]

I guess the new definition of elite is someone who brushes their teeth, and has an associate degree 

[KiChakayan]

On 23/02/2018 at 9:16 AM, Langsuan Man said:

It's worse than that, the coward was the School's Resource Officer (SRO) assigned to  this school since 2009 and had enough years on the job to be able to retire instead of facing disciplinary action by the Sheriff (20 years in most jurisdictions but I don''t know about Florida)

 

So much for arming teachers Mr. Trump 

"Coward"? Maybe that's the whole point, what kind of firepower did he have up against an AR 15?

[PhonThong]

On 2/23/2018 at 6:47 AM, JAG said:

It is my understanding, that the "second ammendment" was enacted to allow for a militia to exist to defend the nascent republic from the various threats it faced in its early years, rather than to allow people to own military assault rifles. I understand hunting (don't do it myself), I understand target shooting as a sport. AR15 rifles and the like are weapons designed to put down a lot of fire, to kill people in large numbers. There is no sporting reason whatsoever for owning such a weapon.

Banning them would have no effect upon "individual freedoms" other than the right to slaughter children because you are pissed off with something. It would have no effect upon sporting activities. Mr LaPierre is barking at the moon.

As for arming teachers! Dear God...

It is all but impossible for the general public to own a military assault weapon. AR-15's are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. They just look like a military type weapon.  

Definition:

The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

[JAG]

56 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

It is all but impossible for the general public to own a military assault weapon. AR-15's are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. They just look like a military type weapon.  

Definition:

The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the parents of the many children shot with these weapons over the last decade...

[PhonThong]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the parents of the many children shot with these weapons over the last decade...

No, it will not be of comfort to those who have lost a loved one because of a mass shooting. But, on the other hand, are we such sheep that if the media tells us something untrue, we are just to put our heads in the sand and accept it? 

[JAG]

Just now, PhonThong said:

No, it will not be of comfort to those who have lost a loved one because of a mass shooting. But, on the other hand, are we such sheep that if the media tells us something untrue, we are just to put our heads in the sand and accept it? 

Your assertion of that definition makes not one iota of difference, either to the meaning of what I said, the meaning of any possible media comments, people's reaction to them (sheep or otherwise),  or indeed the appalling and tragic situation the USA finds itself in, apparently unable to do anything about the use of these weapons.

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

No, it will not be of comfort to those who have lost a loved one because of a mass shooting. But, on the other hand, are we such sheep that if the media tells us something untrue, we are just to put our heads in the sand and accept it? 

You already have your heads in the sand about the good effect from gun control. Can't get any more blind than that.

[alanrchase]

No, it will not be of comfort to those who have lost a loved one because of a mass shooting. But, on the other hand, are we such sheep that if the media tells us something untrue, we are just to put our heads in the sand and accept it? 

Definitions get updated.

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%2520rifle&ved=2ahUKEwi7mJC3hNTZAhVHLI8KHQW_DisQFjAeegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0iRkWLLvJvplDtwSH1Y7L9

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[MajarTheLion]

On 2/22/2018 at 7:09 PM, wwest5829 said:

Rightly, I recognize the international community's amazement at the US fixation with guns. If you are not aware, here is the 2nd Amendment wording, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA and its supporters declare that any restrictions is an attempt to take away this "Right to own guns". For those of us with the ability to think, we realize all "Rights" have reasonable limitations to protect the "Rights" of others. For my money, an American's "Right" to own an assualt weapon is outweighed by my "Right" to be secure in my person. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an American, a gun owner and hold a CDWL. I support banning the sale of these weapons and other reasonable restrictions (strong background checks, restoration of stopping those with mental issues from buying guns, etc.).

 

Just curious.... why not start with addressing obvious failures of government before taking away rights of law-abiding citizens?

 

Also, given rifles are 2.5% of gun murders (thus *assault weapons* clearly some number less than that), why is this ban an effective solution?

[MajarTheLion]

On 3/4/2018 at 7:19 PM, JAG said:

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the parents of the many children shot with these weapons over the last decade...

*These weapons* account for less than 2.5% of gun murders. Why aren't you calling for the ban of handguns, which account for TWENTY TIMES MORE murders?

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[Opl]

"A California teacher who was a reserve officer for the local police department and trained in firearms accidentally fired a loaded gun in his classroom on Tuesday. The Sand City police chief said the teacher had been a reserve officer for 11 years and that he was “positive and professional.” "

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/monterey-county-california-teacher-fires-loaded-gun-in-classroom-the-day-before-mass-student-protests.html

 

[lannarebirth]

27 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

*These weapons* account for less than 2.5% of gun murders. Why aren't you calling for the ban of handguns, which account for TWENTY TIMES MORE murders?

I am calling for the ban of all handguns. I think others will too once the media tells them that is the right way to think.

[JAG]

9 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

*These weapons* account for less than 2.5% of gun murders. Why aren't you calling for the ban of handguns, which account for TWENTY TIMES MORE murders?

What a jolly good idea, removing handguns from society as well - all for it, well done!

 

And there was I thinking that you were an enthusiast for a heavily armed society...

[billd766]

On 24/02/2018 at 11:13 PM, HAKAPALITA said:

Criminals advocate Gun Controls, it lessens the chances of a Victim shooting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

So the surviving students at all the school massacres are criminals and not victims in your eyes, simply because they are advocating gun controls?

 

 

On 24/02/2018 at 11:21 PM, lcp0761 said:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the National Rifle Association lashed out at gun control advocates on Thursday, saying Democratic elites are politicizing the latest mass school shooting in the United States to try to erode constitutionally guaranteed gun rights.

 

And this idiot, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre, is saying that ANYBODY who opposes the NRA is an elite.

 

You two deserve each other.

 

 

[heybruce]

On 3/4/2018 at 7:21 PM, PhonThong said:

It is all but impossible for the general public to own a military assault weapon. AR-15's are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. They just look like a military type weapon.  

Definition:

The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

Right.  An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that can be converted to fully automatic with a bump stock and has a 30 round magazine, fires the .223 cartridge designed to give the military maximum firepower with minimum weight and is useless for hunting (too small for big game, to big for small game) and dangerous for home defense (too much penetrating power, it can kill through walls).

 

Why shouldn't people have this weapon?

[HAKAPALITA]

The Students Criminals. ?. Students advocating Gun Conrols, what a load of Cobblers , derived from my remark. I reiterate. A Crim loves to find unarmed Victims, or do they not. Nutters in a School Shooting will find a supply from somewhere regardless of controls 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

The Students Criminals. ?. Students advocating Gun Conrols, what a load of Cobblers , derived from my remark. I reiterate. A Crim loves to find unarmed Victims, or do they not. Nutters in a School Shooting will find a supply from somewhere regardless of controls 

"Students advocating Gun Conrols, what a load of Cobblers"

 

When you can't refute the message, you attack the messenger.

[heybruce]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  Of course when guns are legal and plentiful, outlaws have absolutely no trouble getting guns.  And when any untrained fool who hasn't yet proven himself to be unstable or irresponsible can get a gun, mayhem is guaranteed.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of a neighbor that was shot in the neck by an improperly stored handgun, a high school classmate and basketball player who became a permanent cripple in a gun accident, and a distant relative who used guns all his long life and died when he made the mistake of firing a shotgun without first clearing the barrel.  I don't know anyone who has used a gun in self-defense.

[HAKAPALITA]

They are plentiful now, yet there is a big illegal trade in them.Why is that.?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[PhonThong]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right.  An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that can be converted to fully automatic with a bump stock and has a 30 round magazine, fires the .223 cartridge designed to give the military maximum firepower with minimum weight and is useless for hunting (too small for big game, to big for small game) and dangerous for home defense (too much penetrating power, it can kill through walls).

 

Why shouldn't people have this weapon?

I can do the same thing with a Ruger 10-22 rifle too. It also shoots 22 caliber bullet. ( yes the .223 is a 22 caliber bullet) Has optional 25 round magazines. Does that make it a military style rifle? Bump stocks are available for it also.  Not too big for small game. Still would not consider it a good home defense weapon.  Has the same rate of fire as an AR-15. But, then again, so does every semi-auto on the market today. The only reason the AR-15 is marked as a "bad gun" is that of the way it looks.  Every semi-auto rifle and some shotguns have the same rate of fire. On trigger pull, one round fired.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

They are plentiful now, yet there is a big illegal trade in them.Why is that.?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Because they are plentiful.  Because it is easy to sell a gun for cash, no questions asked, which makes them highly desirable things to steal.  The fools who put up signs that say "Gun owner lives here" are advertising their homes as places with valuable stuff that's easy to turn into cash.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

I can do the same thing with a Ruger 10-22 rifle too. It also shoots 22 caliber bullet. ( yes the .223 is a 22 caliber bullet) Has optional 25 round magazines. Does that make it a military style rifle? Bump stocks are available for it also.  Not too big for small game. Still would not consider it a good home defense weapon.  Has the same rate of fire as an AR-15. But, then again, so does every semi-auto on the market today. The only reason the AR-15 is marked as a "bad gun" is that of the way it looks.  Every semi-auto rifle and some shotguns have the same rate of fire. On trigger pull, one round fired.

Right, a .22 is the same as a .223.

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=e8SYgFwy&id=92C183FF31490E2D8C5416A1E76EB03870A5FC83&thid=OIP.e8SYgFwyG0Q14ETzO66NEQHaEw&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.thefirearmblog.com%2fblog%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2011%2f04%2f22_penny_223-tfb.jpg&exph=578&expw=900&q=.22+vs+.223&simid=608015548539406957&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

 

Any other BS you'd like to share?  Do you want to tell to soldiers and marines that they should use .22's instead of .223's and save the taxpayers money?

 

BTW, a .22 can be used for home defense if you take the trouble to aim before you shoot.  If you prefer a high power "spray and pray" gun for use in a residential area, you have no business owning any kind of weapon.

[PhonThong]

59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right, a .22 is the same as a .223.

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=e8SYgFwy&id=92C183FF31490E2D8C5416A1E76EB03870A5FC83&thid=OIP.e8SYgFwyG0Q14ETzO66NEQHaEw&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.thefirearmblog.com%2fblog%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2011%2f04%2f22_penny_223-tfb.jpg&exph=578&expw=900&q=.22+vs+.223&simid=608015548539406957&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

 

Any other BS you'd like to share?  Do you want to tell to soldiers and marines that they should use .22's instead of .223's and save the taxpayers money?

 

BTW, a .22 can be used for home defense if you take the trouble to aim before you shoot.  If you prefer a high power "spray and pray" gun for use in a residential area, you have no business owning any kind of weapon.

How ignorant are you? I said .22 bullet. Not the whole round. The  AR-15 and M-16 use .223 or .556 Nato. The bullet is either .223 or .224 which is compatible with a .22. So instead of being just a copy an pasting pictures person. You should know what the correct nomenclature of what is being discussed is. So, the fact is, soldiers are indeed shooting .22 bullets at the enemy.  A 22 is a .223 and a .223 is a .224 confusing I know but that's the way it is. Also, it is illegal to hunt deer in the U.S. with a .22 caliber rimfire rifle. But it is legal to hunt deer with a .223 centerfire rifle.

I know you don't want to know any of this, but I will give you the information anyway. That way you can be more informed. Up to you. I really don't care. Because I feel you are one that would rather blame the gun instead of some crazy lunatic with mental health issues.

M-16 Rifle..

 

• .22 Caliber
• Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards ^[4] [5]
• Rifle weight 6 lbs
• Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
• Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
• Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
• Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition (.30-06 M1 Garand)
• Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine 

 

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

How ignorant are you? I said .22 bullet. Not the whole round. The  AR-15 and M-16 use .223 or .556 Nato. The bullet is either .223 or .224 which is compatible with a .22. So instead of being just a copy an pasting pictures person. You should know what the correct nomenclature of what is being discussed is. So, the fact is, soldiers are indeed shooting .22 bullets at the enemy.  A 22 is a .223 and a .223 is a .224 confusing I know but that's the way it is. Also, it is illegal to hunt deer in the U.S. with a .22 caliber rimfire rifle. But it is legal to hunt deer with a .223 centerfire rifle.

I know you don't want to know any of this, but I will give you the information anyway. That way you can be more informed. Up to you. I really don't care. Because I feel you are one that would rather blame the gun instead of some crazy lunatic with mental health issues.

M-16 Rifle..

 

• .22 Caliber
• Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards ^[4] [5]
• Rifle weight 6 lbs
• Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
• Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
• Penetration of US Steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
• Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 Ball ammunition (.30-06 M1 Garand)
• Wounding ability equal to the M1 Carbine 

 

 

Not ignorant at all, that's why I used the term cartridge instead of bullet.  I pointed out that your claim "the .223 is a 22 caliber bullet" is an obvious diversion, in addition to only being accurate in a highly qualified sense.  There is a huge difference between a .22 rifle and a .223 rifle, a difference you attempted to obscure with your claim. 

 

Even your claim is only marginally correct; a .223 can be loaded with the same bullet as a .22, but is usually loaded with something heavier.  When a .223 cartridge is loaded with a .22 bullet it has approximately three times the muzzle velocity and nine times the energy of the bullet loaded and fired from a .22 rifle.

 

But your diversion has been exposed and it is clear for all who wish to be informed that an assault "type" rifle firing .223 cartridges is far more lethal than a .22 rifle.  That is the point that is pertinent for this topic.

 

 

[wabothai]

NRA = Non-sensical rifle Addiction 

Away with ALL guns, and stop whining about your stupid amendments.

 

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

Not ignorant at all, that's why I used the term cartridge instead of bullet.  I pointed out that your claim "the .223 is a 22 caliber bullet" is an obvious diversion, in addition to only being accurate in a highly qualified sense.  There is a huge difference between a .22 rifle and a .223 rifle, a difference you attempted to obscure with your claim. 

 

Even your claim is only marginally correct; a .223 can be loaded with the same bullet as a .22, but is usually loaded with something heavier.  When a .223 cartridge is loaded with a .22 bullet it has approximately three times the muzzle velocity and nine times the energy of the bullet loaded and fired from a .22 rifle.

 

But your diversion has been exposed and it is clear for all who wish to be informed that an assault "type" rifle firing .223 cartridges is far more lethal than a .22 rifle.  That is the point that is pertinent for this topic.

 

 

My claim was, I can do the same with a 10-22 rifle that anyone can do with an AR-15 as far as modifying it.  It won't look as scary so the hype from the media just won't be there.  My claim was and still is, both rounds fire a .22 caliber bullet.  

[FritsSikkink]

There you go gun loving ........:

 

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.eac5096e6ee3

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

Not ignorant at all, that's why I used the term cartridge instead of bullet.  I pointed out that your claim "the .223 is a 22 caliber bullet" is an obvious diversion, in addition to only being accurate in a highly qualified sense.  There is a huge difference between a .22 rifle and a .223 rifle, a difference you attempted to obscure with your claim. 

 

Even your claim is only marginally correct; a .223 can be loaded with the same bullet as a .22, but is usually loaded with something heavier.  When a .223 cartridge is loaded with a .22 bullet it has approximately three times the muzzle velocity and nine times the energy of the bullet loaded and fired from a .22 rifle.

 

But your diversion has been exposed and it is clear for all who wish to be informed that an assault "type" rifle firing .223 cartridges is far more lethal than a .22 rifle.  That is the point that is pertinent for this topic.

 

 

.223 muzzle velocity 3250

.22  muzzle velocity 1750,  not even 2X's

But I do understand where you are coming from.  I have reloaded I don't know how many thousands of  .223 or .556 rounds. 

But the fact remains.  The .223 round was designed from a necked down Remington. .222 Varmint Round.  So it is equivalent to many small game hunting rounds. Which also makes the AR-15 one of the most popular hunting rifles in the U.S.  The Liberal media is just lying through their teeth on this one.