Batman Slapping Robin

Exactly. An armed population is one that can potentially over throw a government that becomes corrupt and tyrannical, ironically something many democrats were actively considering after Donald Trump's inauguration last year.

Lol. Yea, good luck with that. You really think the "armed population" is going to overthrow US Army, commanded by you know who. That's a good one. :D

With all due respect to the brave men and women in our armed forces, the Vietcong kicked our asses with rifles, IUD's, and shit smeared bamboo sticks during Vietnam and various insurgent groups in the Middle East have given us all kinds of Hell in our most recent wars. Never underestimate an angry and passionate group of people, that's how this country got started after all.

Why aren't the terrorists in the Middle east defeated yet? The same reason why an armed population would work. Guerilla tactics baby!

Middle-East is the paradise on Earth, right on.

What does that have to do with anything? You obviously don't know anything about the 2nd amendment. Gun free zones have no guns except for the guns being used for illegal use.

What does the Florida shooting have to do with anything? Really?? People are dying. Innocent people. Kids! And for what? So a small fraction of us can play with toys? Let's be for real here. No one outside of the military needs an assault weapon. I don't care what your profession is. Something has to be done here. Things just can't continue the way they are. And if you really think you and your measly gun collection is going to overthrow this tyrannical government whose military is #1 in the world, then you are truly living in la la land. Peace out.

I'm done talking to you since you seem to have zero grasp of what I'm saying. If the school didn't go against our 2nd amendment the chance that 17 people die is next to non existent. Teachers would be allowed to carry and we'd have armed guards in the hallways.

I don't want to carry a gun to my class, dude! I don't want to have something that dangerous around my kids where they could possibly get a hold of it.

The parkland school had an armed guard on the other side of the campus. Do you think schools have the funding to hire a guard for every hallway? Ask Trump about that. And what are they supposed to carry? Assault rifles, too?

Don't you see how unrealistic you're being? Why should we all have to go through so much trouble just so a fraction of us can have their toys? It's a toy. Your guns are toys. Are you in the military? Because if you're not you're playing soldier in a fantasy world.

Maybe you should teach or have someone trained in such things, teach your kids about guns and gun safety and the proper way to fire and handle guns. That's the best way to do it.

I know, blame Trump for everything. That seems to be the montra these days. Trump has nothing to do with this. And the state could get rid of the guns free zones which are putting everyone in more danger than need be. That's where all these shootings happen. They don't happen where everyone is packing.

If you think guns are toys then I'm done trying to debate this with you. Guns are not toys, they're tools. And the fact you think they're toys is kind of disturbing.

Tools for war? Tools for killing? I appreciate you engaging in this debate because I think it's an important one and I'm still struggling to make sense of it.

I don't like sitting in class and having to formulate escape plans in my mind in case there's an active shooter. The job is stressful enough.

Do you know what the difference between a regular riffle and an assault riffle is? It's purely cosmetic. So the logic there doesn't follow?
If you are for a complete gun ban, I disagree with you, but I at least follow your logic.
There are valid reasons to own a gun.
-Hunting (the riffle used has the exact same capabilities as an "assault" riffle.
-A woman with an abusive ex stalker (or do you think she should accept that she'll get raped and/or murdered by an ex who thinks he owns her, because the police cannot do anything until after the crime)

So the country has a problem with too many people falling victim to gun violence and your logic is more people need guns? I don't see the logic there, either.

I never said we need more guns. (I'm not the person you were originally replying to)
I was responding to the remark about assault riffles and giving a reason why a complete gun ban is a no go (in my opinion).
However, criminals are more likely to attack the helpless. This is why most shootings occur in "gun free" zones. They KNOW no law abiding citizen will be able to shoot back. These cowards tend to avoid areas where there is even a possibility that they could be retaliated against. So if legal guns are allowed, potential shooters know there is a possibility that someone might shoot back, and are less likely to attack. And while a good guy with a gun may or may not be able to help in an active shooter situation (stopping the shooter earlier in the attack, thus reducing the number of casualties, but not eliminating them), they certainly aren't going to exacerbate it by killing more innocent people. However someone hellbent on killing will still fing their gun on the black market (like addicts do with drugs).

Hmmm... I recall that in April 1775 a group ordinary citizens with squirrel guns declare against the largest country in the world with the most powerful army in the world... whooped them pretty good too!

That's awesome!

The template is called hohoho.

I'm just not so sure about these home-grown militias who think they're going to defeat the army, navy, air force and the marines... They might be able to hold down their little town for a while but roll in a tank or two with 360 degree turrets and then what?

maybe make ppl understand the whole situation...who the hell thought its ok for North Americans to be stupid as a pile of briks? The world is still the same dumbasses, wy would you want the vast majority of your VOTING population to have no damn idea what's going on...? you're only as strong as your weakest link...ur weakest link knws more about UFOs than real world events! F**k man! Batman needs more hands and a foot!!

Lot of helpless people then in the U.S.

There are sheep, there are wolves, and there is the sheep dog. There are always more sheep then the wolves, and there are always more wolves than the sheepdog. But the sheepdog still protects the sheep. We all have our place in society, where is yours?

Contrary to the popular belief, AR does not mean "Assault rifle," it stands for Armalite Rifle which is the company that makes it. Thus you have AR-15. (model 15)

[image deleted]

I agree with the statement that civilians don't need automatic weapons, but what the heck is up with not having semi-auto? I don't want to load a gun like a musket.

By the way, the top is a S&W Model 39 and the bottom is an M16A1 I believe, it maybe a different one but, it's an M16.

Bump stocks, yes.
However, AR-15s are not functionally any different than other guns which would remain legal. They would be banned based solely on cosmetic factors.
Let's pretend most street racers use red cars. We could ban red cars to prevent street racing. Red cars aren't functionally different than other cars, but may be more likely to be used in street racing, and nobody "needs" a red car.

The ones the military use are not the exact same weapon available to the public. For one, they are FULLY automatic rather than SEMI automatic. A huge and important difference (which is why I agree banning bump stocks is a good idea, because they turn semi automatic weapons into, functionally, fully automatic weapons.)

So then maybe all high velocity guns need to be banned?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/amp

So what is a "high velocity gun" that needs banning? Almost all ammo breaks the sound barrier when fired and I have never heard of a firearm referred to as high velocity and low velocity guns.

You convinced me! Lol

It was a question... what is a high velocity gun?

The AR-15 fires bullets at 3300 feet per second. A bullet from a 9mm travels less than half of that speed, at about 1250 feet per second. An AR-15, because of the bullet's high rate of velocity, causes more damage to the human body than a normal handgun does, which is why it's used in the military and popular with mass shooters, apparently. Of course then again there's the metal storm which fires more bullets per second but with a less consistent rate of velocity.

The velocity is determined on the powder charge in the casing, the weight of the projectile (bullet), and the length of the barrel (the time the expanding gas has to apply force to the projectile). A .22lr round fired out of a pistol is going to have less muzzle velocity than the exact same .22lr round fired out of a rifle. And the 9mm round you are referring to as low velocity and the 5.56mm (A15 bullets) are both NATO rounds that are used internationally by militaries. So I don't understand how a 9mm that is called the 9mm Para Bellum (which translates to "For War") is an acceptable low velocity round when it's NATO sister round is the 5.56mm. And it is comparing a pistol to rifle, which has two completely separate roles in the military and in the civilian world. So this velocity argument you raise seems to be null. Did I miss anything?

Yea you did. The damage to the human body, which was my entire point which you purposefully overlooked with your feigned ignorance to try to catch me saying something wrong. Are you denying the AR-15 causes a wath of destruction in the body due to his high velocity bullets? Or are you just pea cocking for the sake of trying to show that you know more about guns than I do? Because it's obvious why soldiers would carry both large guns and smaller ones: different situations. That's beside my point.

Nothing gets shot without taking damage, that is the whole point of hurling a piece of metal through the air even at low velocities, as you put it. It was not over looked on purpose, I simply did not address a point to that is blatantly obvious, but your issue with the velocity has less effect as to how a round fragments or mushrooms on impact versus the design of the projectile.