Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Adam Lanza Used a Weapon that LOOKED like an Assault Rifle
  • Subject: Adam Lanza Used a Weapon that LOOKED like an Assault Rifle
Subject: Adam Lanza Used a Weapon that LOOKED like an Assault Rifle

Key


Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.

  • 12.18.2012 8:44 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.


Pls state your argument so I can jump in

  • 12.18.2012 8:44 PM PDT

Original Account-Sargeantomeg4-Intrepid Mythic Member-01/06/08 to 02/29/12


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.
>implying strawman


Posted by: Sergeant omega

How is this, which isn't an assault weapon based on the definition of one less lethal than this?


[Edited on 12.18.2012 8:46 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 8:45 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.


Pls state your argument so I can jump in


Right now we're arguing because Snipe thinks the phrase "assault weapon" means something.

  • 12.18.2012 8:47 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.


Pls state your argument so I can jump in


Right now we're arguing because Snipe thinks the phrase "assault weapon" means something.


-___________________-

  • 12.18.2012 8:49 PM PDT

Original Account-Sargeantomeg4-Intrepid Mythic Member-01/06/08 to 02/29/12


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Sergeant omega
EXPLAIN HOW IT IS MORE LETHAL THAN A SEMI AUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE! HOW HOW HOW?
Nice strawman argument you got there.


Pls state your argument so I can jump in


Right now we're arguing because Snipe thinks the phrase "assault weapon" means something.


-___________________-
That and not answering my question.

  • 12.18.2012 8:49 PM PDT

Key

It is a strawman argument, as I've said nothing about lethality.

I'm saying there is no reason to have a gun that fits those characteristics in that article of an assault weapon. You can hunt very effectively without the use of a gun that falls under the definition of assault weapon. Sure, you can just as easily kill a man with a regular hunting rifle as you could an "assault weapon", but that's irrelevant to my point, as I'm not talking about lethality. I'm talking about a lack of necessity. You do not, ever, under any circumstances, for home defense, hunting, or otherwise need a weapon that falls under the category and description of "assault weapon" as per that article.

  • 12.18.2012 8:52 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
It is a strawman argument, as I've said nothing about lethality.

I'm saying there is no reason to have a gun that fits those characteristics in that article of an assault weapon. You can hunt very effectively without the use of a gun that falls under the definition of assault weapon. Sure, you can just as easily kill a man with a regular hunting rifle as you could an "assault weapon", but that's irrelevant to my point, as I'm not talking about lethality. I'm talking about a lack of necessity. You do not, ever, under any circumstances, for home defense, hunting, or otherwise need a weapon that falls under the category and description of "assault weapon" as per that article.


Can you please tell me the definition of an assault weapon?

  • 12.18.2012 8:52 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
It is a strawman argument, as I've said nothing about lethality.


And is there any reason not to have one?

  • 12.18.2012 8:53 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates

Ok, I can't keep quiet anymore.


The term Assault Weapon is a false term used to describe the features of a military style rifle. It is a scare tactic to make people think that your average joe has the same exact rifle that the military has.

Under the 1994 crime bill, this is illegal while this isn't.

Lets go over the reasons why one is illegal and the other is perfectly legal.

Now, I am going to speak on a California Assault weapons ban level, which is far more strict.

As classified by California, an assault weapon is any semi-automatic center fire firearm that has any or all of the following features:

conspicously protruding pistol grip
Collapsing stock
Bayonet lug
Flash suppressor
Ability to accept magazines larger than 10 rounds.



Now what makes the second picture perfectly legal is the fact that the pistol grip and stock are essentially connected, it has a pinned flash suppressor, no bayonet lug, and no collapsible stock. Yet it has the same function and presumed lethality of an "Assault Weapon." In fact, since it has none of the "evil features" that make up the definition of "assault weapon" it is the only rifle, sans a registered assault weapon, that can legally accept a magazine larger than 10 rounds.



Assault weapon bans are a ban on aesthetics rather than function. An AR-15 is functionally no different than a semi-auto hunting rifle in 30-06 or .300 win mag. The only difference being that it fires a smaller round.



So, anti-gun people. What makes an AR-15 so much more deadly? Is it because it's black? Do black things look scary to you? What do you have against black?

  • 12.18.2012 8:54 PM PDT