What is meant when people say 'guns don't kill people; people do'?

[Handyman62]

You should back track this conversation to the AR 15 message.

First off the US military doesn't use the AR-15, they use the M-16. And yes it is possible to get an M-16, but it requires a lot of government hoops (government red tape) to be jumped through and the general population either can't or are unwilling to jump through those hoops.

The M-16 was designed & built specifically for the military. The AR which stands for Armour lite rifle and not assault rifle is similar to the M-16 but the AR-15 is a consumer grade rifle. The AR-15 can be customized to be almost the exact same weapon as the M-16 but that requires a lot of expensive custom upgrades and depending on how far you want to take will also require a lot of hoops (government red tape) to jump through.

 

[arthurfleminger]

There seems to be some discussion as to whether or not the AR 15 was designed for the military and if it was used by the US Military.

Was the AR-15 designed for the military? Yes. ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. So, the military never purchased the AR-15 and has never used the AR-15.

I was in the US Army right at the time that it transitioned from the M1 Garand to the lightweight M16 rifle, the standard issue for infantryman. While the AR15 has many similarities to the M16, the AR15 was never used by the military. In fact, many of the features of the AR15 were incorporated into the design of the M16 rifle.

And, BTW, many think that the letters 'AR' stand for 'Assault Rifle', they don't. 'AR' are the initials of the original manyfacturer of the weapon, ArmaLite.

There are many rifles on the market today. The reason that the AR-15 is the favorite is because it automatically ejects a round of ammo and reinserts another when fired, as opposed to bolt action rifles.

If the goverrnment is successful in outlawing the AR-15, then the bolt action rifles will be next. They can also be considered assault weapons. During all of WWII, the German army's principle infantryman's weapon was a bolt operated rifle.

So, if the government gets rid of one, it'll be looking around the corner to get rid of the next.......etc.....etc.....etc....
That's the way Big Brother works. And, look around, there isn't one facet of American life that that the government, fed/state/local, isn't trying to control. And they do have all the power/money to do so.

 

[ZNP]

If the goverrnment is successful in outlawing the AR-15, then the bolt action rifles will be next.

The government has tried to outlaw alcohol, how did that work out? Now imagine if they had tried to outlaw whiskey but no other alcohol? It would have been a huge catastrophe, even bigger than it was.

If you outlaw something that people want you will have a black market and that will increase the corruption. If they prevent the manufacture of it all that will happen is the manufacturing will move to Mexico. If you outlaw the semi automatic AR -15 they will make a single shot AR 15 in the US and a "conversion pack" in Mexico.

Also, what about all those AR 15s that people already own? You'll never be able to get them back. Suppose they have a list of everyone that owns an AR 15 those people will simply trade their gun with a friend. Then they will report their AR 15 stolen.

If anyone has a plan to eliminate AR 15s try explaining how you would do that?

 

[I_am_Canadian]

First off the US military doesn't use the AR-15, they use the M-16. And yes it is possible to get an M-16, but it requires a lot of government hoops (government red tape) to be jumped through and the general population either can't or are unwilling to jump through those hoops.

The M-16 was designed & built specifically for the military. The AR which stands for Armour lite rifle and not assault rifle is similar to the M-16 but the AR-15 is a consumer grade rifle. The AR-15 can be customized to be almost the exact same weapon as the M-16 but that requires a lot of expensive custom upgrades and depending on how far you want to take will also require a lot of hoops (government red tape) to jump through.

Wow,

 

[hornetguy]

You turn up at my place at night with a baseball bat, I would simply close the door and ring the police.

You make it sound so civilized.... shut the door, ring the police, have a cup of tea whilst waiting....
And if I simply kicked down your door and beat you and your family to death before the police showed up.... ?
I am all for letting law enforcement handle situations, but the unfortunate reality is that most bad situations are over and done with before law enforcement even arrives.
If a threat was at my door, I would call law enforcement, then I would be waiting with one of my shotguns or one of my AR's in case they do just what I was talking about. If they kick in my door before law enforcement arrives, it's my job to eliminate the threat.

I agree with your notion of single shot or 3 round bursts (thank you for serving, by the way) but to say that the military doesn't need full auto capability is living in a Pollyanna world. Your M60 is a full auto weapon, and is fired that way most of the time, from what I've read.

You obviously don't understand that many people love to shoot targets.... or just get out in the country and "plink" at random targets. It is a very popular sport. Thomas Jefferson recommended it...

The fact that YOU don't think anyone needs a semi-auto firearm for any reason doesn't make it valid. I've seen some amazing groups shot with AR rifles... guys that really work at accurizing them... I knew a guy that would tape a dime to his target at 100 yards and hit it every time. He gave them away as "souvenirs" to friends of his. AR-10's are regularly used in 1000 yard shooting matches. I have hunted deer with my AR-10. I know MANY people that hunt hogs with them. It is one of the most versatile platforms for multiple caliber shooting that there is.

You don't like em? Fine... don't get one. Don't try to tell me that I cannot.

 

[Magenta]

And if I simply kicked down your door and beat you and your family to death before the police showed up.... ?

Just a friendly reminder to be careful with this kind of talk

 

[ChristianTonyB]

There seems to be some discussion as to whether or not the AR 15 was designed for the military and if it was used by the US Military.

Was the AR-15 designed for the military? Yes. ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. So, the military never purchased the AR-15 and has never used the AR-15.

I was in the US Army right at the time that it transitioned from the M1 Garand to the lightweight M16 rifle, the standard issue for infantryman. While the AR15 has many similarities to the M16, the AR15 was never used by the military. In fact, many of the features of the AR15 were incorporated into the design of the M16 rifle.

And, BTW, many think that the letters 'AR' stand for 'Assault Rifle', they don't. 'AR' are the initials of the original manyfacturer of the weapon, ArmaLite.

There are many rifles on the market today. The reason that the AR-15 is the favorite is because it automatically ejects a round of ammo and reinserts another when fired, as opposed to bolt action rifles.

If the goverrnment is successful in outlawing the AR-15, then the bolt action rifles will be next. They can also be considered assault weapons. During all of WWII, the German army's principle infantryman's weapon was a bolt operated rifle.

So, if the government gets rid of one, it'll be looking around the corner to get rid of the next.......etc.....etc.....etc....
That's the way Big Brother works. And, look around, there isn't one facet of American life that that the government, fed/state/local, isn't trying to control. And they do have all the power/money to do so.

The people making the decisions are your elected officials, you've selected them to watch over the health and wellbeing of you and the rest of the populace. You are basically saying they are incompetent, and are out to get you. If that is truly the case, wouldn't you want to take yourself and your family, and get out of there. I wouldn't leave my family in such a threatening situation, and lawless place. Is America that bad?

In terms of weapons ownership in Australia, the total number of weapons now registered is similar to that prior to the outlawing of SLRs and pump action weapons in 1996. So weapons ownership has increased since the removal of those weapons from the hands of the public, not decreased.

All we, and other countries have done is restrict access to a type of weapon often used to kill many in quick time. As far as I am aware, there's been no thought or proof of any government here wanting to ban the lawful ownership of bolt action repeater or single fire guns since those restrictions were put in place in 1996.

Seems to me that there is so much fear mongering and conspiracy theories flying around in the States, it's hard for rational people to get a handle on reality.

 

[ChristianTonyB]

You make it sound so civilized.... shut the door, ring the police, have a cup of tea whilst waiting....
And if I simply kicked down your door and beat you and your family to death before the police showed up.... ?
I am all for letting law enforcement handle situations, but the unfortunate reality is that most bad situations are over and done with before law enforcement even arrives.
If a threat was at my door, I would call law enforcement, then I would be waiting with one of my shotguns or one of my AR's in case they do just what I was talking about. If they kick in my door before law enforcement arrives, it's my job to eliminate the threat.

I agree with your notion of single shot or 3 round bursts (thank you for serving, by the way) but to say that the military doesn't need full auto capability is living in a Pollyanna world. Your M60 is a full auto weapon, and is fired that way most of the time, from what I've read.

You obviously don't understand that many people love to shoot targets.... or just get out in the country and "plink" at random targets. It is a very popular sport. Thomas Jefferson recommended it...

The fact that YOU don't think anyone needs a semi-auto firearm for any reason doesn't make it valid. I've seen some amazing groups shot with AR rifles... guys that really work at accurizing them... I knew a guy that would tape a dime to his target at 100 yards and hit it every time. He gave them away as "souvenirs" to friends of his. AR-10's are regularly used in 1000 yard shooting matches. I have hunted deer with my AR-10. I know MANY people that hunt hogs with them. It is one of the most versatile platforms for multiple caliber shooting that there is.

You don't like em? Fine... don't get one. Don't try to tell me that I cannot.

You haven't properly read what I have said. You've just gotten angry that someone has challenged your rationale, and are launching into a dummy spit. And I don't accept your thanks for my service, I'd only take that from someone I could respect. Oh, and I don't need a gun or any other mechanical means to subdue you or take your life if you threaten my family in any way.

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I doubt hearing your opinion on any subject will add value to my quality of life.

 

[ChristianTonyB]

Mind you I am from Canada so I do see things a bit differently. I recall we were at our local capital building and I had my little dog with me. My husband and I and my mother were walking around the building, which is common to do there. Suddenly a man in uniform stepped up to me and I though he was going to say "nice day", it's the south. No, he said " Ma'am you need to get that dog off the property." I asked why and he said dogs go to the bathroom in the grass and then it has to be cleaned up. So my husband started to walk away. And I said "where is the sign that says "no dogs" or that you need to clean up after your dog?" So he got ignorant and said " I said to get the dog off the property!!" So my husband apologized and we left.

Now I had everything I needed to clean up after my pup. And my husband got upset with me and said "You aren't in Canada now, you can't question an officer"!! But for me it was the principle of the thing. So, called the capitol and asked if they could explain exactly where the signs were that dogs were not allowed or that they must be picked up after. They admitted there was no such sign and apologized for the security guard. I went back with my dog again, hoping to see him but never saw him again. My husband is very nervous around police and I told him he has to stop it, you look guilty. I told him he has rights, there is law and they have to follow it the same as we do. But, I'm not from America so I see police differently.

I do agree with the mood of the country though. There is too much rhetoric going on and it's leading to problems. For the president to say there is going to be a revolution over Roe v Wade you're calling for people, especially unstable people, to act out. This has been going on for quite a while in this country and it's part of the issue in certain cases. But these mass shooters are all men. I have to wonder that men are now considered to be toxic if they are not gay or trans hasn't been part of the issue too.

It certainly is a bit of a mess. We've got a lot to do here too, to get our own house in order.
The adversarial form of government we western democracies have contributes a lot to divisions in our societies in my opinion.

I would like to boot partisan politics out, and only vote for individuals that have proven they've got a well calibrated moral compass, and proven ability to carry out their functional area of responsibility well. If they do well at local community level, then invite them (vote them in) to oversee at regional level, and so on.

 

[hornetguy]

Just a friendly reminder to be careful with this kind of talk

We are talking about a hypothetical situation... just as we are talking about hypothetical situations where people use guns to kill other people... perhaps I should have worded it more "generically" but he is the one that spoke directly about me, and how I would not be welcome at his home.
I prefer to keep things generic, but I was simply following his line of discussion.

I, of course, would never do something like that, because I am a believer, and I am a law abiding kind of person. It was all hypothetical..

Thanks for the reminder, though....

 

[hornetguy]

You haven't properly read what I have said. You've just gotten angry that someone has challenged your rationale, and are launching into a dummy spit. And I don't accept your thanks for my service, I'd only take that from someone I could respect. Oh, and I don't need a gun or any other mechanical means to subdue you or take your life if you threaten my family in any way.

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. I doubt hearing your opinion on any subject will add value to my quality of life.

Ignore me if you will.... the discussion will continue.
Your accusing me of being angry is pretty childish... you didn't even hurt my feelings, much less make me angry.
You are being childish.... I thought we were adults here, having an civilized, adult discussion.
It appears I was wrong.

 

[Magenta]

We are talking about a hypothetical situation... just as we are talking about hypothetical situations where people use guns to kill other people... perhaps I should have worded it more "generically" but he is the one that spoke directly about me, and how I would not be welcome at his home.
I prefer to keep things generic, but I was simply following his line of discussion.

I, of course, would never do something like that, because I am a believer, and I am a law abiding kind of person. It was all hypothetical..

Thanks for the reminder, though....

Yes, I do understand the hypothetical angle. I have seen people get the hammer over hypotheticals.

Speaking of hammers: have they been outlawed yet? j/k

But I did watch this video last night.

There is a lot of hammering it it

 

[ZNP]

There is nothing hypothetical about gun violence. 80% of the problem is committed by gang members and felons in cities where their guns are already illegal. If those laws did anything our gun violence would be 80% solved.

NYC, LA, Chicago these cities already have very strict gun laws. No one in the rest of the country has any issue with them passing those laws for their cities. The problem is those laws don't work, those cities are a complete mess, and so now they want to take those same laws and impose them on the rest of the country.

Is this why they say the US is not a democracy but an Idiocracy?

 

[arthurfleminger]

BTW, the Democrats really do want to take away your fire arms:

So far, the Democrats have rolled out two specific plans to confiscate Americans' guns. Both involve a new "assault weapons ban" bill that would ban millions of the most commonly-owned firearms. But the two proposals differ in how the Left plans to take away those banned guns.

Joe Biden's proposal would tax the 2nd Amendment to death. Americans would be forced to pay $200 per semi-automatic rifle/shotgun/handgun or "high capacity" magazine that they own. Even modest gun collectors could be forced to pay thousands or even tens of thousands for the "privilege" of being able to keep owning their legally acquired firearms...

If you can't afford the taxes, you'd have to surrender, destroy, or permanently alter your firearms/magazines. If you can afford the tax, then you would need to register your guns with the ATF (so that the government can come back and confiscate them at a later date).

Not every Democrat likes Joe Biden's plan. Instead of taxing the 2nd Amendment to death, many on the Left are itching for door-to-door confiscations. They are pushing for Congress to pass H.R. 127, a bill that would do just that.

H.R. 127 requires that gun owners notify the government of "the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored." That last bit is important, since it would literally tell the Federal government where to search people's homes to confiscate their guns.

It would require that this new gun and gun owner database be made available to "all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau."

Believe it or not, the legislation gets worse... H.R. 127 would also require that all gun owners obtain a Federal license to continue possessing their guns. In order to qualify for a license, gun owners would need to (1) pass a background check, (2) pass a psychological assessment, (3) complete a training course that includes at least 24 hours of training, and (4) acquire firearm insurance (which does not even exist yet). Oh, and to top it all off, Democrats want to charge you 800 bucks just to apply for this license...

If you refuse or fail to meet any of these requirements, then your guns would be confiscated. Even if you find a way to jump through all these hoops, your guns would still eventually be confiscated (that is the whole point of a gun registry...)

If you think confiscation of your firearms is just pie in the sky, then listen to Beta O'Rourke when he says, "Hell yes, we will take away your weapons!" youtube beta orourke will take your weapons - Search (bing.com)

 

[ZNP]

BTW, the Democrats really do want to take away your fire arms:

This shouldn't be a problem as long as we can fully trust them to be good shepherds concerned about the life and safety of the American people. Granted Fauci and the NIH funded the research that developed the pandemic and then lied to the world making it harder for us to know the truth and find a cure. They lied about treatment causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people. They prohibited the use of treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin that do work. They instituted social distancing of six feet when three feet would have been fine and would have allowed small businesses to stay open. They mandated masks which were either useless or harmful depending on which study and which age group you are looking at. But maybe they have learned from those mistakes and are better now?

True the US government has gone to war over false flag events causing the death of millions, but now that they have been exposed maybe they have repented, do you think?

True Biden has given the resources necessary for an entire army to the Taliban and he is sending $40 billion in weapons to Ukraine to defend their border while leaving our border wide open. Yes, on the surface it does appear he is arming our enemies while at the same time trying to take away the guns from Americans. But perhaps if we look deeper we'll find out something different, the only problem is that people who ask questions get cancelled, de-platformed, slandered, and if you have the nerve to protest your government like Jan 6th then thrown into the gulag. Still, maybe if we give them our guns that act of selfless generosity will make them better people?

I have a suggestion, get the government to swear, make a contract like they gave to the Native Americans, that if we give them our guns they will promise not to take advantage of that by killing us, sending us to war, or throwing us in prison.

 

[hornetguy]

This shouldn't be a problem as long as we can fully trust them to be good shepherds concerned about the life and safety of the American people. Granted Fauci and the NIH funded the research that developed the pandemic and then lied to the world making it harder for us to know the truth and find a cure. They lied about treatment causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people. They prohibited the use of treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin that do work. They instituted social distancing of six feet when three feet would have been fine and would have allowed small businesses to stay open. They mandated masks which were either useless or harmful depending on which study and which age group you are looking at. But maybe they have learned from those mistakes and are better now?

True the US government has gone to war over false flag events causing the death of millions, but now that they have been exposed maybe they have repented, do you think?

True Biden has given the resources necessary for an entire army to the Taliban and he is sending $40 billion in weapons to Ukraine to defend their border while leaving our border wide open. Yes, on the surface it does appear he is arming our enemies while at the same time trying to take away the guns from Americans. But perhaps if we look deeper we'll find out something different, the only problem is that people who ask questions get cancelled, de-platformed, slandered, and if you have the nerve to protest your government like Jan 6th then thrown into the gulag. Still, maybe if we give them our guns that act of selfless generosity will make them better people?

I have a suggestion, get the government to swear, make a contract like they gave to the Native Americans, that if we give them our guns they will promise not to take advantage of that by killing us, sending us to war, or throwing us in prison.

Say it ain't so..... they told the public they just wanted to ban "assault weapons"...... like the Ronco commercials... "but WAIT, there's MORE"

 

[arthurfleminger]

Say it ain't so..... they told the public they just wanted to ban "assault weapons"...... like the Ronco commercials... "but WAIT, there's MORE"

You're right, what's next in line. I'm going to hide my 'Popeils Pocket Fisherman' where the government will never find it!!!!!!!!

 

[tobewholeagain]

But I'm guessing the majority of people their were purely spectators

Trump and company were no just spectators.

The public’s right to bear arms was created by the second amendment.

Second Amendment
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.’

I was not calling for a civil war. The AR-15 is a[ck1] military manufactured weapon for military use only.
Our Commander In Chief has the authority to confiscate all such military weapons from civilians.

Trumps action were a violation of the law.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
TREASON: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.


treason noun
trea·son | \ ˈtrē-zᵊn \
Definition of treason
1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

It is now being proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump & associates committed treason.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-2/ALDE_00001226/

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

https://tinyurl.com/2yejtvsw
1953—Act June 30, 1953, ch. 175, §5, 67 Stat. 134, added item 2391.

§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://tinyurl.com/56c9bz26

​

 

[ZNP]

Trump and company were no just spectators.

The public’s right to bear arms was created by the second amendment.

Second Amendment
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.’

I was not calling for a civil war. The AR-15 is a[ck1] military manufactured weapon for military use only.
Our Commander In Chief has the authority to confiscate all such military weapons from civilians.

Trumps action were a violation of the law.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
TREASON: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.


treason noun
trea·son | \ ˈtrē-zᵊn \
Definition of treason
1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

It is now being proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump & associates committed treason.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-2/ALDE_00001226/

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

https://tinyurl.com/2yejtvsw
1953—Act June 30, 1953, ch. 175, §5, 67 Stat. 134, added item 2391.

§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://tinyurl.com/56c9bz26

Is this a joke? I don't want to address this if you meant this as satire.

 

[I_am_Canadian]

Say it ain't so..... they told the public they just wanted to ban "assault weapons"...... like the Ronco commercials... "but WAIT, there's MORE"

Trump and company were no just spectators.

The public’s right to bear arms was created by the second amendment.

Second Amendment
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.’

I was not calling for a civil war. The AR-15 is a[ck1] military manufactured weapon for military use only.
Our Commander In Chief has the authority to confiscate all such military weapons from civilians.

Trumps action were a violation of the law.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
TREASON: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.


treason noun
trea·son | \ ˈtrē-zᵊn \
Definition of treason
1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

It is now being proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump & associates committed treason.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-2/ALDE_00001226/

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

https://tinyurl.com/2yejtvsw
1953—Act June 30, 1953, ch. 175, §5, 67 Stat. 134, added item 2391.

§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://tinyurl.com/56c9bz26

Help me out here, how or what.... Does my post to majenta on medieval stoning have to do with trump and the US government???