Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[Undertoad]

And you assumed I was a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump...

I am fine with gun control. Honestly.

If you go back in the thread, I was pointing out that, if it's harder for one side to make progress on this movement, it's not the rabidity, it's the Constitution.

That was our topic. That was "the conversation" we were furthering. But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with. Not me, but a caricature opponent.

Good luck with all that. Don't pretend it's real conversation. Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.

Not clear which 'you' is discussed.

Meanwhile where was this week's mass killing?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And you assumed I was a ...

No. No, I didn't. I said those people exist and cause difficulty.

Go back and read it, you're wrong. Twice in this thread you've made wildly wrong assumptions *that you're so pompously certain are correct*

You have an objectivity problem.

[sexobon]

You're killing us with your ignorance of what constitutes a true sportsman.

Shouldering a firearm, firing, lowering the firearm and repeating the procedure may not allow for a quick enough follow-up shot if necessary. Only a complete ignoramus expects one shot to work every time with real world variables. The method described; however, can still be done with a semi-automatic. A true sportsman does practice. Practice often costs money in range time. Sportsmen don't want to spend that time at the range they're paying for reloading. They don't need to practice reloading. They're there to practice shooting and time is money. They also know that shot placement is more important than caliber and that NATO rounds are economical fodder for practice.

Tw, you're cranky-stupid again, go take a nap.

[Flint]

But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with.

[Undertoad]

OK fine. So your point to me about rabidity and gun control is what. What's your point, out of all the posts you've made.

[Flint]

Why don't you tell me, buddy? Wait, you already did. You packaged the answer right there inside the question. What's my point about the thing that you just told me is what I'm talking about? Masturbator.

[Undertoad]

Alrighty. Well you win, I'm out.

[Flint]

wait is was rabidity

[fargon]

The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.

[tw]

Originally Posted by fargon

The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.

Minor difference exist. But the bottom line remains. Its purpose is to kill people. Even the .223 was designed for that purpose.

These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.

So what was the massacre of the week?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.

I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. It is a common tactic used when control advocates use sloppy terminology like "assault rifle". My rifle shoots a larger round than the AR-15. It is meant to kill large game with one round. The heavy kick is a reminder of the seriousness of what I'm engaged in. Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. ...

Griff, his eyes open.

Allow me to demonstrate how important this is:

[Rhetorical] What is the purpose of military small arms and ammunition?

[Paraphrasing] XoB says it's to wound and thereby further burden the opposition with caring for the wounded.

[Paraphrasing] Tw says it's only to kill.

The purpose of military small arms and ammunition is to incapacitate, to render someone who was a combatant a noncombatant, whether they live or die is secondary. This is evidenced by the Laws of Land Warfare.

If you shoot and wound an opponent; but, they continue hostilities, you can legally continue to shoot them until they cease hostilities even if it kills them. Wounding is not the primary objective.

If you shoot and wound an opponent who then ceases hostilities, you cannot legally continue to shoot them until you have killed them. Killing is not the primary objective.

Military small arms and ammunition are designed around incapacitation in adherence with the Laws of Land Warfare and reflected in their tradeoffs in lethality for other considerations (e.g. non-maiming ammunition).

There's been many a soldier who's wished that their small arms were designed only to kill; but, that's not the way it is in reality.

There are rare exceptions for elite military units that have narrowly defined missions which require the assured instant incapacitation that killing an opponent provides. They use specialized firearms and ammunition.

US policy and the international agreements to which we're signatory prohibit designing military small arms and ammunition only for killing; unless, there's a consensus that a specific situation falls outside the parameters of conventional warfare.

Claims that military small arms and ammunition are designed only for killing are categorically discredited; but, that doesn't stop the ignorant from making those claims nor does it stop whacko leftist extremist propagandists from preying on the ignorant who can't be bothered to learn facts.

As Griff said, learn basic facts. It will help keep those like tw from preying on you for their own self aggrandizement.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.

So you also believe military armaments need not be in civilian hands. For the same reason grenade launchers and 155 mm howitzer also are not needed. IOW we are saying a same thing.

Military weapons are designed to kill people - despite those silly denials. Killing is their purpose. Those large caliber rounds fired from large magazines on semi and fully automatic weapons are not useful (ie have no purpose in hunting). Those are only widely available because the NRA's purpose is to increase industry profits.

What was this week's mass murder?


I don't need no stink'in airline ticket. I have an AR-15. Next stop: Cuba.

[Happy Monkey]

That does not appear to be the case.