Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 09:14 PM Mar 2018

Don't let the NRA fool you with their "facts"

The NRA wants to protect AR style semi-automatic rifles (referred to as assault rifles) from being banned. Therefore, they are quick to point out that most mass shootings in America have been carried out with handguns. Technically they are correct (if you go back far enough and ignore recent history). But, like most propaganda , the so called “truth” is often used to cover up the real truth. Next time one of your NRA friends claims you don't know the facts about guns, actually let them know the real facts.

Fact: Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history, 5 involved an AR style semi-automatic rifle, 1 involved an Uzi, 1 involved a bolt action rifle, and only 3 involved handguns.

Fact: 50% of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in American history were committed with an AR. Handguns were used in only 30%.

Fact: Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings, 177 people were killed by an AR style weapon, 21 were killed involving an Uzi, 18 were killed by a bolt action rifle, and 51 were killed by handguns.

Fact: AR style weapons killed more than 3 times the number of people killed by handguns in the 10 most deadliest mass shootings in US history.

Fact: 6 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings occurred just within the last 10 years. 5 of them were committed with an AR style semi-automatic. Only 1 of them was committed with a handgun.


Let those roll around in their heads for awhile.


Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/parkland-among-deadliest-mass-shootings-trnd/index.html

58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Don't let the NRA fool you with their "facts" (Original Post) Ohioboy Mar 2018 OP
Excellent. Plus, so-called "assault rifles" are used against society ways besides mass shootings. Hoyt Mar 2018 #1
Fools on parade Ohioboy Mar 2018 #4
Sorry Fellas, The second amendment won't work for you in this century. dubyadiprecession Mar 2018 #7
good point yonder Mar 2018 #13
PAY ATTENTION TO ME, DAMMIT! moondust Mar 2018 #14
You really do love that picture, don't you Hoyt? Straw Man Mar 2018 #17
Hoyt has quite the collection of racially segregated photos of gun owners... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #24
Represents majority of gun owners, and for some reason you guys seem OK with it. Hoyt Mar 2018 #28
Have you any factual basis for that claim? Straw Man Mar 2018 #35
"Represents majority of gun owners" Really? EX500rider Mar 2018 #56
First, percentage of people who own a gun is a better measure, and it's Hoyt Mar 2018 #57
Your claims are merely 'proof by assertion', or argumentum ad nauseum friendly_iconoclast Apr 2018 #58
Quite the collection? Straw Man Mar 2018 #34
+1000 stonecutter357 Mar 2018 #26
Well....I don't have any GP6971 Mar 2018 #2
Lucky you Ohioboy Mar 2018 #3
I agree GP6971 Mar 2018 #5
Lots of gunners support NRA efforts, but are too cheap to pay dues. Hoyt Mar 2018 #6
Agree GP6971 Mar 2018 #11
Three kinds of lies... Wounded Bear Mar 2018 #8
Twain has always been a favorite of mine. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #9
Point of clarification. The James Oliver Huberty uzi was a semi-auto carbine. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #10
Thanks for the clarification Ohioboy Mar 2018 #12
Not a problem. I'm here to help. aikoaiko Mar 2018 #15
i guess they just prefer AR15's when they're shooting children...fuck the nra spanone Mar 2018 #16
Here's another fact: Straw Man Mar 2018 #18
So what you are saying is... Ohioboy Mar 2018 #19
Nothing of the kind. Straw Man Mar 2018 #20
With all due respect, you are missing the point: 5 of the 10 used ARs within the last 7 years! Ohioboy Mar 2018 #21
Which is not the same point you made in the last post, or the one before that. Straw Man Mar 2018 #22
I get it that you don't want to ban ARs. That's fine. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #23
Not even remotely "provable." Straw Man Mar 2018 #32
I would like to see these weapons treated a little stricter than others. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #36
Remove AR-15s? They aren't going anywhere. EL34x4 Mar 2018 #27
I understand that. And, yes you are right. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #31
Here's where you're wrong. Straw Man Mar 2018 #37
Not all semi-autos are made to accept bump stocks, right? Ohioboy Mar 2018 #38
It's the other way around. Straw Man Mar 2018 #47
But isn't it easier to put a bump stock on a rifle where you can remove the original stock? Ohioboy Mar 2018 #50
It totally depends on the construction of the stock. Straw Man Mar 2018 #52
OK. shanny Mar 2018 #29
Hmm ... Straw Man Mar 2018 #33
Correlation does not equal causation Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #25
My argument is based on facts and numbers. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #30
"designed to accept devices like bump stocks" -- is putting the cart before the horse. X_Digger Mar 2018 #39
They are designed for accessories, whether those accessories came later or not. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #40
All rifles are designed for accessories. A ruger 10/22 has a ton of accessories for it- it's popular X_Digger Mar 2018 #41
Well guess what, my finger is an accessory too then, since I've bump fired with just that before. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #42
A ruger 10/22 is a "platform" as much as an AR is. Meaning, there are lots of accessories. X_Digger Mar 2018 #43
Yeah, and a string. You forgot to mention that string in your list. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #44
What a compelling argument you make. X_Digger Mar 2018 #45
Why are you doing this? Ohioboy Mar 2018 #46
I'm trying to get you to put the cart before the horse because the reverse doesn't make sense. X_Digger Mar 2018 #53
Your argument is based upon a cherry picked numbers Lee-Lee Mar 2018 #48
Substitute the word "capable" for the word "designed" in those statements. Ohioboy Mar 2018 #55
Wait a minute... Ohioboy Mar 2018 #51
and yet mnmoderatedem Mar 2018 #49
And yet again ... Straw Man Mar 2018 #54
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. Excellent. Plus, so-called "assault rifles" are used against society ways besides mass shootings.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 09:18 PM
Mar 2018

These losers use them to intimidate --





And, go to any white wing gun site and just read the junk they post. You'll see talks of revolution.

dubyadiprecession

(5,613 posts)
7. Sorry Fellas, The second amendment won't work for you in this century.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 09:48 PM
Mar 2018

Taking up arms to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is futile.

It would only be nice for the government to provide you with an opposing front line to yours, for a firefight, but it doesn't have to.

Incoming missiles can be launched from several miles away, and will turn you all into cooked hamburger and your AR's into fragments.

-In reply to the people marching in the photo-

yonder

(9,631 posts)
13. good point
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 10:49 PM
Mar 2018

another thing I keep thinking about is the beer-drinking, tobacco smoking, outta shape and overweight, dress-up-in-camo/body-armor weekend warrior and their pals WOULD NOT stand a chance against a formally trained, motivated and professional fighting force. Not-A-Chance. There's a big difference between the Bubba's who work at WalMart and people who's job is being soldiers. Or marines. Or the local swat team.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
14. PAY ATTENTION TO ME, DAMMIT!
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 10:58 PM
Mar 2018

OVER HERE! WATCH OUT CUZ I CAN KILL YOU WITH THIS THING! ONE LITTLE SQUEEZE OF MY FINGER AND YOU'RE DEAD! DEAD!!!! BETTER PAY ATTENTION TO ME JUST IN CASE SUMTHIN HAPPENS! SHOW ME THE RESPECT I DESERVE BUT NEVER GET! LOOK AT ME, DAMMIT!

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
17. You really do love that picture, don't you Hoyt?
Tue Mar 27, 2018, 01:36 AM
Mar 2018

How many times have you posted it now? Surely you can find some other fat rednecks to make fun of.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
24. Hoyt has quite the collection of racially segregated photos of gun owners...
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 06:54 PM
Mar 2018

...and apparently believes his personal editorial choices actually prove something about other people.

EX500rider

(10,517 posts)
56. "Represents majority of gun owners" Really?
Sat Mar 31, 2018, 02:24 PM
Mar 2018

In 2017, about 42 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
57. First, percentage of people who own a gun is a better measure, and it's
Sat Mar 31, 2018, 07:13 PM
Mar 2018

much lower than that. Second, the vast majority of gun owners, and especially those vocal about it, are GOPers.

Even if you find a Democrat who promotes guns, they are tolerant of their fellow gun humpers, even those that March in hatred.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
58. Your claims are merely 'proof by assertion', or argumentum ad nauseum
Wed Apr 11, 2018, 02:10 PM
Apr 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam).[2] In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[3]

This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[4]
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
6. Lots of gunners support NRA efforts, but are too cheap to pay dues.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 09:43 PM
Mar 2018

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2018, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

GP6971

(31,013 posts)
11. Agree
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 10:40 PM
Mar 2018

2 of them live in my neighborhood...both are retired military. Not sure if they own any weapons...but they sure like citing the 2A.

Wounded Bear

(58,436 posts)
8. Three kinds of lies...
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 09:49 PM
Mar 2018
Lies, damned lies, and statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
10. Point of clarification. The James Oliver Huberty uzi was a semi-auto carbine.
Mon Mar 26, 2018, 10:27 PM
Mar 2018

Which makes it more like an AR rifle than a shotgun or handgun.

It most definitely wasn't a machine gun.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
18. Here's another fact:
Tue Mar 27, 2018, 01:38 AM
Mar 2018

If you add up all the death tolls of the 10 deadliest mass shootings, the total is only 1/25th of the number killed by handguns in a single year.

Let THAT roll around in your head for a while.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
19. So what you are saying is...
Tue Mar 27, 2018, 08:37 PM
Mar 2018

it took only 10 mass shootings to reach 1/25th of the number killed by handguns in a year? That sounds like more proof that AR style semi- autos can kill at a faster rate than handguns.

I will roll THAT around, thanks

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
20. Nothing of the kind.
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 12:45 AM
Mar 2018
So what you are saying is...

it took only 10 mass shootings to reach 1/25th of the number killed by handguns in a year? That sounds like more proof that AR style semi- autos can kill at a faster rate than handguns.

Those ten mass shootings occurred over a span of 52 years, from 1966 to 2018. So we could just as easily say that handguns kill 25 times more people in a single year than AR-style rifles killed in 52 years. That wouldn't be accurate either, since some of these mass shootings were not done with AR-style rifles, but I think you can see the point.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
21. With all due respect, you are missing the point: 5 of the 10 used ARs within the last 7 years!
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 06:05 PM
Mar 2018

Mass shootings have suddenly increased in death toll and there is very strong evidence that the AR is the reason. Something is wrong when, in just 7 years, the AR suddenly becomes responsible for 50% of the top 10 deadliest mass shootings in US history! That should be a red flag to even the NRA. But, instead of having that discussion they want to distract us from the AR to handgun facts. Handguns are not ARs! They are two different types of weapons. Furthermore, all semi-autos are not the same either.

Would the guy that shot up the concert in Vegas have been able to do all he did with a handgun? The honest answer is "NO". I would further argue that he would not have been able to bump-fire a semi-auto hunting rifle like an AR either.

The AR style semi-automatic needs our attention, and if the NRA is serious about gun safety they should be leading the way instead of talking about handguns. I don't think it's too much to ask that the NRA at least acknowledge the evidence that ARs seem to be increasing death tolls in mass shootings.


Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
22. Which is not the same point you made in the last post, or the one before that.
Wed Mar 28, 2018, 09:36 PM
Mar 2018

I have a question for you: How many people can a homicidally insane person kill with a pump-action shotgun and a shoulder-bag full of buckshot shells? Answer: I don't know, but if you succeed in banning ARs, we're going to find out.

ARs are scary, so they're the low-hanging fruit. Remove them and there will be another weapon of choice. Death tolls may be slightly reduced, or maybe not.

As I said before, the single largest mass killing in the US was accomplished with a can of gasoline. The single largest school killing was done with dynamite. The human mind is endlessly creative. The fixation on weaponry is a foolish red herring and/or an excuse for increasing restriction of rights.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
23. I get it that you don't want to ban ARs. That's fine.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 05:39 PM
Mar 2018

But, can you at least acknowledge the fact that death tolls in mass shootings have increased with the use of ARs.
Pointing at other weapons and possible scenarios makes it sound as though you are trying to ignore a provable fact.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
32. Not even remotely "provable."
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:38 PM
Mar 2018
Pointing at other weapons and possible scenarios makes it sound as though you are trying to ignore a provable fact.

Yes, rate of fire increases lethality of the incident, all other things being equal. But all other things are never equal. Skill and preparation of the shooter, physical layout of the crime scene, presence or absence of armed security, and many other factors are involved.

So what's your goal? A massive disruption of American society for the purpose of a possible slight reduction in the death toll of bizarre incidents that are an extreme outlier in the American crime portfolio?

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
36. I would like to see these weapons treated a little stricter than others.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:46 PM
Mar 2018

The fact that they can be modified to become automatic is one of the main reasons. I'm not saying ban them totally, but don't always compare them to other guns when they are very much different. I would just settle for banning bump stocks at this point.

 

EL34x4

(2,003 posts)
27. Remove AR-15s? They aren't going anywhere.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 07:11 PM
Mar 2018

Ban them tomorrow and only the slimmest percentage would get turned it. There's millions of them and now you can make them on a 3D printer.

We need to figure out how to keep them out of the hands of people like Nikolas Cruz but we're never going to rid ourselves of them. The AR-15 variant is the most popular rifle in America.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
31. I understand that. And, yes you are right.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:29 PM
Mar 2018

I have never actually called for a ban on them. I just want some truth to be acknowledged so as to have an honest discussion. Comparing ARs to handguns and even other semi-automatics ends up being a pivot and not an honest comparison. ARs are a different animal. What can be done about them? Should we raise the age? Should make a longer waiting period? Should we ban bump stocks? To my mind those are the questions, not false comparisons.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
37. Here's where you're wrong.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:50 PM
Mar 2018
ARs are a different animal.

No, actually they're not a "different animal" from any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. Their popularity in mass killings is just indicative of their popularity in the nation as a whole. Many other weapons could be as lethal, and would be used if you succeeded in getting the AR banned or at least heavily restricted.

Do you support a ban on all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? If not, then the extreme focus on the AR looks like the result of ignorance. If so, that same focus looks like the result of disingenuous deception. See the problem?

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
38. Not all semi-autos are made to accept bump stocks, right?
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:55 PM
Mar 2018

That alone is a difference. I've shot .30/06 semi-automatic rifles that you would have a hard time bump firing.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
47. It's the other way around.
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 12:57 AM
Mar 2018

You could make a bump-stock to fit any rifle. They're mostly made for ARs and AKs because those are so common -- it's the old economies-of-scale thing. And of course it's easier to control a bump stock if you have a pistol grip, but a pistol grip isn't absolutely essential.

You do realize that it's possible to bump-fire without a bump stock, right? Bump-firing predates the existence of bump stocks. Do a little YouTube searching and you can find people bump-firing Mini-14s and even Garands: so .30-06 can certainly be bump-fired, although the Garand's 8-round magazine makes for very short bursts.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
50. But isn't it easier to put a bump stock on a rifle where you can remove the original stock?
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 03:11 PM
Mar 2018

Most guns I know of have wooden stocks, and you don't just remove and change stocks easily.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
52. It totally depends on the construction of the stock.
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 05:02 PM
Mar 2018

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2018, 12:47 AM - Edit history (1)

A lot of wooden stocks incorporate the forearm too, but can be changed pretty easily: remove one or two bolts and the barreled action can be removed from the stock and placed in a new one.

What are you advocating? A ban on modular firearm designs?

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
33. Hmm ...
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:39 PM
Mar 2018
Ban hand guns too. Thanks!

Pretty sure the Heller decision takes that off the table. You're welcome!
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
25. Correlation does not equal causation
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 07:02 PM
Mar 2018

That the killers used AR style rifles boils down to little other than the fact that it’s a very popular rifle and one of the most common models sold in that period.

If you could invent a time machine and go back and kill the inverter of the AR and it never was invented you would just see the same people would have been there and still would have wanted to kill others and would have just picked up a different rifle to the same end result.

You’ve come up with a very weak argument by picking a small sample size and then declaring that 5 rifles being used out of several million that exist somehow is an indictment against the style of rifle.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
30. My argument is based on facts and numbers.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 08:13 PM
Mar 2018

The AR is designed to kill more quickly and more accurately. It is designed to accept devices like bump stocks that can turn it into an automatic weapon. Which weapon would you want to take into combat, an AR or a Glock pistol? If you know anything about firearms, you know the answer.

Ever see someone bump fire an AR? Watch this video and tell me that's something other common guns can do. Keep in mind also that automatic weapons are illegal, but not ARs with bump stocks.


X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
39. "designed to accept devices like bump stocks" -- is putting the cart before the horse.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 09:47 PM
Mar 2018

Wow, those designers were psychics, they designed for something that didn't even exist yet!

No, had the AR not been invented, you'd see a similar accessory for a different rifle. There's nothing inherent in an AR that makes a bump stock more possible.

I don't think you realize how accessories are made / designed.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
40. They are designed for accessories, whether those accessories came later or not.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 10:05 PM
Mar 2018

You know what I meant. It's a platform. Have you ever seen a bump stock made to work on a wooden stock?

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
41. All rifles are designed for accessories. A ruger 10/22 has a ton of accessories for it- it's popular
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 10:16 PM
Mar 2018

You want a bump stock for a wooden stock? How about a shoestring..



Technically, *that* is a machinegun.

Designers create accessories for rifles that are popular. As the most popular rifle, of course the AR has more accessories.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
42. Well guess what, my finger is an accessory too then, since I've bump fired with just that before.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 10:25 PM
Mar 2018

Also, people use rubber bands and all sorts of stuff, makeshift stuff that if you work at it long enough gives a result. You know as well as I do that Ruger isn't designed as a platform for a string. This is what I mean about pivoting the discussion.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
43. A ruger 10/22 is a "platform" as much as an AR is. Meaning, there are lots of accessories.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 10:40 PM
Mar 2018

You can 'build' one up, from just a receiver in 100's of different ways. Folding stocks, collapsing stocks, thumbhole stocks. Foregrips, rails, accessories that fit on rails, lights, tons of different sights, tons of scopes and scope rings. Different bolts, precision triggers, precision competition stocks. Bull barrels, long-range barrels, match barrels, bipods, tripods, slings, three-point harnesses.. and that's without opening one of the sites dedicated to customizing the 10/22.

Why? Because it's popular.

Fucking duh.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
45. What a compelling argument you make.
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 10:49 PM
Mar 2018

Care to continue with something substantive?

Or do you concede that the reason you see accessories for rifles like the AR-15 or 10/22 is because they're popular, not because of some inherent psychic design characteristic?

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
46. Why are you doing this?
Thu Mar 29, 2018, 11:05 PM
Mar 2018

Yes, ARs are popular. What does that have to do with the fact that you can put a damn bump stock on it and turn it into a machine gun?
You're all hung up on some horse- before- the- cart thing. I know you're smart enough to know what I meant. What do you think about banning bump stocks? I'd like to know more about what you think about that, instead of arguing over the exact way I said something.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
53. I'm trying to get you to put the cart before the horse because the reverse doesn't make sense.
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 05:40 PM
Mar 2018

Accessories are made for popular firearms.

To claim some kind of intent otherwise, is to grant psychic powers to designers.

There are bump stocks for other, also popular rifles. There's even a similar device for the 10/22.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
48. Your argument is based upon a cherry picked numbers
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 06:48 AM
Mar 2018

As for your “facts”, they are not facts at all but mostly made up nonsense.

“Designed to kill more quickly and more accurately”. Was it? Is that in the design specs?

In fact it wasn’t. It was designed primarily to be lighter than the rifles it’s as engineered to replace. And accuracy in fact was secondary to weight in the design, it could have been more accurate. They went to a smaller bullet that isn’t as powerful as what was in earlier designs to be lighter and they went to a thinner barrel that is less accurate to be lighter.

That statement is in fact crap. It’s not based on the historical record of what it was designed for.

But it’s a common claim from the people who don’t know what they are talking about.

“Designed to accept accessories like a bump stock”. Is also not true. I’ll assume once again your just grossly ignorant on the subject and it’s not that you lie intentionally.

The commercially sold stock was invented about 50 years after the AR-15 came on the market. Unless there was a time machine it was not designed with bump stocks in mind. And they are not designed to accept them, rather it was that the commerciall makers designed bump stock was intended for use on the most common rifle.

And yes, you can in fact make a bump stock for pretty much any semi-automotiv rifle. Your notion that it can’t be done on anything else is wrong just as the rest of your post. All a bump stock is, at its simplest, is a spring loaded stock. They can be made from PVC pipe and a spring from the hardware store. You can put them on an AR-15 or a Mini-14 or a 75 year old M-1 Carbine. But of course bump stocks also make the rifle very inaccurate as it fires, something you leave out.

As for what would I carry in combat? If the choice was only between a Glock and AR-15 that depends. Is this indoors or out? Lots of times when I was a Sheriffs Deputy if we were gonna go into a hostile situation where firearms were needed if it was indoors my AR stayed in the trunk and I indeed did have my Glock. Outdoors the AR. It’s actually a far more complicated question than you present it as.

In conclusion- your entire post was a bunch of ill informed crap and drivel.

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
55. Substitute the word "capable" for the word "designed" in those statements.
Sat Mar 31, 2018, 02:12 PM
Mar 2018

I'm sorry I used words that made my point unclear. Put in the word "capable" , or "capable of" where you see the word "designed" and that should clear up what I was trying to say. Thank you

Ohioboy

(3,222 posts)
51. Wait a minute...
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 04:56 PM
Mar 2018
You’ve come up with a very weak argument by picking a small sample size


I'm talking about the 10 most deadly mass shootings in American History. How is that a small sample size? I'm sure you realize they got the 10 most by comparing all mass shootings in American history, right? What more do you want?

mnmoderatedem

(3,706 posts)
49. and yet
Fri Mar 30, 2018, 06:57 AM
Mar 2018

I have yet to see ONE situation where an AR-15 assault was used in any sort of practical way, in a self defense manner where an ordinary hand gun would have not only have sufficed, but been far more practical. Anyone sleep with an AR-15 under their pillow?

And by contrast, the list of tragedies involving AR-15 assault rifles keeps growing.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
54. And yet again ...
Sat Mar 31, 2018, 12:55 AM
Mar 2018
I have yet to see ONE situation where an AR-15 assault was used in any sort of practical way, in a self defense manner where an ordinary hand gun would have not only have sufficed, but been far more practical.

Here's one:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

Would an "ordinary hand gun" have sufficed? Who knows? Would it have been "more practical"? I don't see how it possibly could have been. One against three is not good odds, and a handgun is not as effective as a rifle.

What is an "ordinary hand gun" anyway?

Anyone sleep with an AR-15 under their pillow?

Are you advocating sleeping with a handgun under one's pillow? Foolish and dangerous.

And by contrast, the list of tragedies involving AR-15 assault rifles keeps growing.

Unlike the list of tragedies with handguns?
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Don't let the NRA fool yo...