Revisiting the AR-15
-
Here we go again with the AR-15. It is a weapon platform designed specifically to be carried by the United States military. The rights were sold to Colt which started marketing them to civilians and law enforcement. It is and always will be an assault rifle. Changing the select fire feature doesn't make it any less deadly.
-
- most reasonable Maher video I've seen posted in a while (oh, it's 4 years old, that makes sense... his angle has changed. Crazy to think they're talking about a mass shooting and ARs and you could drop into damn near any point since then and it would still be very relevant....)
- argument is basically "we need more guns so we can protect ourselves from the people that have guns." It is just lost on me how people don't get the faulty logic here.
- Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem. There are four ways to approach a problem: Absolution, Resolution, Solution, Dissolution. At best arming teachers is a resolution, but it isn't addressing any underlying issue.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
- most reasonable Maher video I've seen posted in a while (oh, it's 4 years old, that makes sense... his angle has changed. Crazy to think they're talking about a mass shooting and ARs and you could drop into damn near any point since then and it would still be very relevant....)
- argument is basically "we need more guns so we can protect ourselves from the people that have guns." It is just lost on me how people don't get the faulty logic here.
- Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem. There are four ways to approach a problem: Absolution, Resolution, Solution, Dissolution. At best arming teachers is a resolution, but it isn't addressing any underlying issue.
Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem.
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
-
Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem.
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
And using the logic of the attending write-up to the video, if criminals have AR-15s then you should too, well dammit I want the field to be uneven if they come in with AR-15s. I want a BAR to up the ante and right now I can't own one without jumping through hoops of all kinds to even be considered for home ownership.
And BTW the 2nd amendment came along out of our history when all while males were required to be in a Militia (hence the first part of the amendment) and as a part of that was the additional requirement of having to own a military weapon of that time period in your home. So if you want to go down and join the National Guard, then they ought to let you carry the M-16 at home, not just a simple little AR-15. But at the moment those M-16s are kept in armories.
-
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
And using the logic of the attending write-up to the video, if criminals have AR-15s then you should too, well dammit I want the field to be uneven if they come in with AR-15s. I want a BAR to up the ante and right now I can't own one without jumping through hoops of all kinds to even be considered for home ownership.
And BTW the 2nd amendment came along out of our history when all while males were required to be in a Militia (hence the first part of the amendment) and as a part of that was the additional requirement of having to own a military weapon of that time period in your home. So if you want to go down and join the National Guard, then they ought to let you carry the M-16 at home, not just a simple little AR-15. But at the moment those M-16s are kept in armories.
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
I know all the right wingers would say yes to this question, but would you be ok with a unknown person with unknown training with guns being in the same room with your child?
-
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
And using the logic of the attending write-up to the video, if criminals have AR-15s then you should too, well dammit I want the field to be uneven if they come in with AR-15s. I want a BAR to up the ante and right now I can't own one without jumping through hoops of all kinds to even be considered for home ownership.
And BTW the 2nd amendment came along out of our history when all while males were required to be in a Militia (hence the first part of the amendment) and as a part of that was the additional requirement of having to own a military weapon of that time period in your home. So if you want to go down and join the National Guard, then they ought to let you carry the M-16 at home, not just a simple little AR-15. But at the moment those M-16s are kept in armories.
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
And using the logic of the attending write-up to the video, if criminals have AR-15s then you should too, well dammit I want the field to be uneven if they come in with AR-15s. I want a BAR to up the ante and right now I can't own one without jumping through hoops of all kinds to even be considered for home ownership.
And BTW the 2nd amendment came along out of our history when all while males were required to be in a Militia (hence the first part of the amendment) and as a part of that was the additional requirement of having to own a military weapon of that time period in your home. So if you want to go down and join the National Guard, then they ought to let you carry the M-16 at home, not just a simple little AR-15. But at the moment those M-16s are kept in armories.
But M16's are auto and AR15's are not. Just scary looking semi automatics.
-
Man Tex, you really are brainwashed by the Austin progressives.,?
-
Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem.
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
Teachers are human too. What if a teacher flips out and shoots his students? Are teachers qualified in close combat with firearms? Will they be able to disarm someone with a gun without shooting a student that's in the line of fire? Will they even be required to be trained to carry a gun? And in a school no less?
You have a gun right? Or more than one?
WSS
-
And since now in Texas you are no longer required to have training or a concealed license to carry, can untrained teachers carry one in schools?
I know all the right wingers would say yes to this question, but would you be ok with a unknown person with unknown training with guns being in the same room with your child?
I know all the right wingers would say yes to this question, but would you be ok with a unknown person with unknown training with guns being in the same room with your child?
I don't like the fact that Texas became an open carry state with no required training or license to carry it. Too many wannabe "heroes" out there make it dangerous for the rest of us who know what we are doing with firearms and keep up the required continued training for renewal of the LTC. Since I go to Colorado every year I like to carry in the wilderness just for protection from an irate momma bear whose cubs she may think I want to harm. Colorado has reciprocity with Texas and just yesterday in Estes Park family observed someone carrying openly which Colorado now accepts too. I'm not that stupid. Why mark myself as the primary threat to some crazy with a gun? So the answer to the question is "No!", I don't want an unknown person with unknown abilities around my grandchildren in school. There should be a law requiring training & proof of proficiency for CC only since you don't want a teacher having a open carry gun taken away by surprise to use on others.
Man Tex, you really are brainwashed by the Austin progressives.,?
But M16's are auto and AR15's are not. Just scary looking semi automatics.
1. LOL! to the first. Just call me Beto Cornyn.?
2. And to the 2nd that's why I said I wanted a full auto BAR. I don't want a level playing field with anyone invading my house with AR-15s. LOL! But since I don't own either they will just have to settle up with a 20 gauge semi-auto 5 shot Remington with buckshot in it. That kinda evens things out a bit, especially if more than one comes in as a group as proposed by cal.
-
-
- most reasonable Maher video I've seen posted in a while (oh, it's 4 years old, that makes sense... his angle has changed. Crazy to think they're talking about a mass shooting and ARs and you could drop into damn near any point since then and it would still be very relevant....)
- argument is basically "we need more guns so we can protect ourselves from the people that have guns." It is just lost on me how people don't get the faulty logic here.
- Arming teachers doesn't solve a problem. There are four ways to approach a problem: Absolution, Resolution, Solution, Dissolution. At best arming teachers is a resolution, but it isn't addressing any underlying issue.
- argument is basically "we need more guns so we can protect ourselves from the people that have guns." It is just lost on me how people don't get the faulty logic here.
Please explain why his logic is faulty.
-
One problem in considering that there may or may or not be any kind of real solution to any problem we have is as follows:
I don't know why but people tend to focus on some minor issue and make a mountain out of that particular molehill in this case the AR-15 a weapon that really really plays a tiny part in the school shooting scenario. But that's where the battle line is drawn and people obsess over it. Remember the fire storm over the bump stock? Which had been used how many times?
WSS
-
- argument is basically "we need more guns so we can protect ourselves from the people that have guns." It is just lost on me how people don't get the faulty logic here.
Please explain why his logic is faulty.
Please explain why his logic is faulty.
I'll use the same analogy I used in another thread.
Your final product in manufacturing plant is arriving at the customer with quality issues. One option is to implement more inspection at the end of the line. This will make it more likely you'll catch the quality issue before it gets to the customer. It doesn't actually reduce them number of quality issues though. Another option, and a preferable one, is to address the process that is causing the quality issue and correct it. That way you're reducing the number of quality issues. You're reducing Occurrence instead of increasing Detection.
More guns is just detection / inspection. It isn't addressing the underlying cause of the issue.
-
Please explain why his logic is faulty.
I'll use the same analogy I used in another thread.
Your final product in manufacturing plant is arriving at the customer with quality issues. One option is to implement more inspection at the end of the line. This will make it more likely you'll catch the quality issue before it gets to the customer. It doesn't actually reduce them number of quality issues though. Another option, and a preferable one, is to address the process that is causing the quality issue and correct it. That way you're reducing the number of quality issues. You're reducing Occurrence instead of increasing Detection.
More guns is just detection / inspection. It isn't addressing the underlying cause of the issue.
I'll use the same analogy I used in another thread.
Your final product in manufacturing plant is arriving at the customer with quality issues. One option is to implement more inspection at the end of the line. This will make it more likely you'll catch the quality issue before it gets to the customer. It doesn't actually reduce them number of quality issues though. Another option, and a preferable one, is to address the process that is causing the quality issue and correct it. That way you're reducing the number of quality issues. You're reducing Occurrence instead of increasing Detection.
More guns is just detection / inspection. It isn't addressing the underlying cause of the issue.
That doesn't make his logic faulty. It just means his most pressing concern isn't about fixing the root cause. If you live in a neighborhood with an armed shithead in it that is a potential threat to you when you go outside, then that's obviously what your primary focus is going to be on. Anything that reduces your ability to protect yourself against said shithead is a nonstarter. I can tell someone til I'm blue in the face why they shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but the people working a shit job for 60 hours a week value the stress relief it gives them over the potential downsides that they'll see decades later. That's just human nature.
He and I would likely be completely on board with fixing the root causes if it could be done in a way that does not reduce our ability to protect ourselves.
-
The AR-15 is just a more glamorous hate object.
The truth is, the left wants to intimidate and find out where all good Americans' guns are.
case in point:
-
I'll use the same analogy I used in another thread.
Your final product in manufacturing plant is arriving at the customer with quality issues. One option is to implement more inspection at the end of the line. This will make it more likely you'll catch the quality issue before it gets to the customer. It doesn't actually reduce them number of quality issues though. Another option, and a preferable one, is to address the process that is causing the quality issue and correct it. That way you're reducing the number of quality issues. You're reducing Occurrence instead of increasing Detection.
More guns is just detection / inspection. It isn't addressing the underlying cause of the issue.
That doesn't make his logic faulty. It just means his most pressing concern isn't about fixing the root cause. If you live in a neighborhood with an armed shithead in it that is a potential threat to you when you go outside, then that's obviously what your primary focus is going to be on. Anything that reduces your ability to protect yourself against said shithead is a nonstarter. I can tell someone til I'm blue in the face why they shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but the people working a shit job for 60 hours a week value the stress relief it gives them over the potential downsides that they'll see decades later. That's just human nature.
He and I would likely be completely on board with fixing the root causes if it could be done in a way that does not reduce our ability to protect ourselves.
That doesn't make his logic faulty. It just means his most pressing concern isn't about fixing the root cause. If you live in a neighborhood with an armed shithead in it that is a potential threat to you when you go outside, then that's obviously what your primary focus is going to be on. Anything that reduces your ability to protect yourself against said shithead is a nonstarter. I can tell someone til I'm blue in the face why they shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but the people working a shit job for 60 hours a week value the stress relief it gives them over the potential downsides that they'll see decades later. That's just human nature.
He and I would likely be completely on board with fixing the root causes if it could be done in a way that does not reduce our ability to protect ourselves.
We've enacted laws that address the issue of second hand smoke. Other than that, an individual's choice regarding smoking isn't going to directly affect you (generally). No one is going on a mass second hand smoke rampage at a mall.
Unless you're speaking towards someone making a choice that is better in the short term that inevitably hurts them long term.
And this isn't so much about focusing more on short term fixes than long term, it's that we aren't focusing at all on actual long term improvements. It isn't "arm everyone now and then we'll look at these other measures". It's "arm everyone now and then problem solved".
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
That doesn't make his logic faulty. It just means his most pressing concern isn't about fixing the root cause. If you live in a neighborhood with an armed shithead in it that is a potential threat to you when you go outside, then that's obviously what your primary focus is going to be on. Anything that reduces your ability to protect yourself against said shithead is a nonstarter. I can tell someone til I'm blue in the face why they shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but the people working a shit job for 60 hours a week value the stress relief it gives them over the potential downsides that they'll see decades later. That's just human nature.
He and I would likely be completely on board with fixing the root causes if it could be done in a way that does not reduce our ability to protect ourselves.
We've enacted laws that address the issue of second hand smoke. Other than that, an individual's choice regarding smoking isn't going to directly affect you (generally). No one is going on a mass second hand smoke rampage at a mall.
Unless you're speaking towards someone making a choice that is better in the short term that inevitably hurts them long term.
And this isn't so much about focusing more on short term fixes than long term, it's that we aren't focusing at all on actual long term improvements. It isn't "arm everyone now and then we'll look at these other measures". It's "arm everyone now and then problem solved".
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
WHAT first step, vague one??? what YOU decide, because you politically and emotionally don't like guns?
-
That doesn't make his logic faulty. It just means his most pressing concern isn't about fixing the root cause. If you live in a neighborhood with an armed shithead in it that is a potential threat to you when you go outside, then that's obviously what your primary focus is going to be on. Anything that reduces your ability to protect yourself against said shithead is a nonstarter. I can tell someone til I'm blue in the face why they shouldn't smoke cigarettes, but the people working a shit job for 60 hours a week value the stress relief it gives them over the potential downsides that they'll see decades later. That's just human nature.
He and I would likely be completely on board with fixing the root causes if it could be done in a way that does not reduce our ability to protect ourselves.
We've enacted laws that address the issue of second hand smoke. Other than that, an individual's choice regarding smoking isn't going to directly affect you (generally). No one is going on a mass second hand smoke rampage at a mall.
Unless you're speaking towards someone making a choice that is better in the short term that inevitably hurts them long term.
And this isn't so much about focusing more on short term fixes than long term, it's that we aren't focusing at all on actual long term improvements. It isn't "arm everyone now and then we'll look at these other measures". It's "arm everyone now and then problem solved".
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
We've enacted laws that address the issue of second hand smoke. Other than that, an individual's choice regarding smoking isn't going to directly affect you (generally). No one is going on a mass second hand smoke rampage at a mall.
Unless you're speaking towards someone making a choice that is better in the short term that inevitably hurts them long term.
And responsible gun owners aren't going on mass rampages at the mall either. An individual's choice regarding self-defense isn't going to directly affect you (generally). The government shouldn't punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.
And this isn't so much about focusing more on short term fixes than long term, it's that we aren't focusing at all on actual long term improvements. It isn't "arm everyone now and then we'll look at these other measures". It's "arm everyone now and then problem solved".
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
Mississippi Board of Education just took the first step today and removed the ban on teachers carrying firearms. This is a first step, albeit one you don't like. I believe all of us are on the same page in saying that we want to see a reduction in all gun crime. No one is saying that the problem of mass shootings is now solved. They're still going to happen. This will hopefully be a deterrent that makes schools less attractive targets for mass shooters.
-
simple point - "a knife caused" this mentally messed up attacker to go after a REP gov candidate, Lee Zeldin - NY, because knives are so easy to buy":
-
We've enacted laws that address the issue of second hand smoke. Other than that, an individual's choice regarding smoking isn't going to directly affect you (generally). No one is going on a mass second hand smoke rampage at a mall.
Unless you're speaking towards someone making a choice that is better in the short term that inevitably hurts them long term.
And responsible gun owners aren't going on mass rampages at the mall either. An individual's choice regarding self-defense isn't going to directly affect you (generally). The government shouldn't punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.
And this isn't so much about focusing more on short term fixes than long term, it's that we aren't focusing at all on actual long term improvements. It isn't "arm everyone now and then we'll look at these other measures". It's "arm everyone now and then problem solved".
This improvement process has to start with a first step and that first step isn't going to solve everything magically overnight. But we refuse to even take that first step.
Mississippi Board of Education just took the first step today and removed the ban on teachers carrying firearms. This is a first step, albeit one you don't like. I believe all of us are on the same page in saying that we want to see a reduction in all gun crime. No one is saying that the problem of mass shootings is now solved. They're still going to happen. This will hopefully be a deterrent that makes schools less attractive targets for mass shooters.
And responsible gun owners aren't going on mass rampages at the mall either. An individual's choice regarding self-defense isn't going to directly affect you (generally). The government shouldn't punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.
Mississippi Board of Education just took the first step today and allowed teachers to carry. This is a first step, albeit one you don't like. I believe all of us are on the same page in saying that we want to see a reduction in all gun crime. No one is saying that the problem of mass shootings is now solved. They're still going to happen. This will hopefully be a deterrent that makes schools less attractive targets for mass shooters.
But the potential for an individual to cause mass harm and death exists with a gun but not with a cigarette. Ultimately, my internal calculus on personal freedom changes given the potential harm that freedom can cause to others.
No, I don't think allowing teachers to carry really does anything. At worst, it will make people complacent in thinking they solved the problem and it will only delay actual improvements. Fundamentally we agree on the outcome we want, but disagree on how to get there.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login