Once again, the AR15 - the mass shooter's gun of choice

[jpak]

Time to grab 'em.

Grab 'em all.

and the shooter had a Texas CC permit - yeehaw...

yup

[gopiscrap]

1. Yup thanks NRA fuckers!

[LiberalLoner]

2. Favorite of anyone who was trained with it in the military, especially.

[BainsBane]

4. Do they use them in the military?

[LiberalLoner]

6. The M16 is very similar, if you trained on that you

Will be very comfortable with the AR-15. Have heard people call it the civilian version of the M16

[Mojorabbit]

52. I read in another thread that he came in with just a shotgun

and then got the handgun and ar15 from a rack and a victim?

[ManiacJoe]

55. That is what some media outlets are reporting.

[rl6214]

57. Sshhhhh, don't say that, it'll ruin the anti gun nut talking point

[BainsBane]

3. These shootings always increase sales

Sick, isn't it?

[Eleanors38]

17. Actually, it is the reaction of gun-control elites which begins the spree.

[BainsBane]

18. It's the NRA that lies to the public

and the trash that help them spread their lies.

If you hate gun control so much, why are you a Democrat? The only thing you post about is guns, and the Democratic Party and its president supports gun control.

[Eleanors38]

32. Well, take up your gripes re NRA with the NRA...

I am the kind of Democrat who is AT LEAST as progressive as you are, and agreed with Hubert Humphrey and JFK about the need for the Second.

The rest of you stuff is the usual distortion and untruths.

BTW, you sound tired. I've found in my older age to think positively, and to act on positive thoughts. It helps, and time is short.

[BainsBane]

49. Why are you a JFK/Humphrey Democrat?

Are you a life-long Texas Democrat?

I'm sorry, but I must have missed you post on issues besides guns. I've never seen it. You supported the recall of Democratic state senators in Colorado. You seem to hate most of the Democrats in the Senate who voted for background checks or had the nerve to consider an assault weapons ban (you know, the kind that liberal George W Bush supported). You somehow feel compelled to defend the NRA whenever someone criticizes them. So given that evidence, I'd like to know what I don't see. Why are you a JFK Democrat?

JFK was about the most conservative of Democratic presidents and an anti-communist hawk. Hubert Humphrey was well intentioned and is still a hero in MN, but he was co-oped and had his hands tied by that SOB Johnson. As for me, I've told you I am not a liberal. I'm a leftist. I am ideologically socialist but very practical when it comes to politics. I gave up expecting any politician to represent my views ideologically some time ago. So your point that you're "at least as progressive" as me essentially means you are well to the right of me: obviously on guns but I expect on most other things as well, considering you evoke JFK's name. That of course is your right. The fact is you and most here in the Gungeon live in red states, so this Democratic fealty is really abstract isn't it? You don't actually elect Democrats, except for Doggett, if you happen to live in his district in Austin. Most of you don't even have Democratic representatives in the House.

[Eleanors38]

79. Ah, Bains. Should been an AM talk show whatever. One criticism...

I still don't know what makes you so "left." I have so precious little to go on. Since you are so loquacious in print, why not make a list of what you believe, and I'll indicate if I agree or not, OK? That will be more efficient for shoppers' comparison.

[BainsBane]

84. On an ideological, essentially theoretical, level

I believe that corporate profiteering and exploitation of labor (as Marx defined it) is immoral. I believe inequality of wealth is fundamentally immoral, and we have developed a capitalist system that seeks to legitimate inequality characterized by mass poverty, starvation and death through notions that the accumulation of money is in itself is somehow virtuous. The gun industry is like Wall Street. It feeds off the suffering of the people. The difference is you won't find DUers who show that they value Wall Street profits over the interests of their citizens, where many Gungeon posters are far more concerned with profits for the gun company than their citizens rights or well being.

I know, however, that we have a political system were legislation is sold to the highest bidder, whether Big Pharma or Murder Inc. I find that at essence profoundly immoral and disgusting. Socialism, however, is not a viable ideology in the US, so I vote Democratic. I would even like to see Hillary Clinton as President because she has the grit and determination, essentially qualities of character, to get things done and face off against the GOP. So there is a wide gap between my own ideological views and the political decisions I make, and that is as true for guns as anything else. Theoretically, I would like to see all guns banned but hunting and sporting rifles. I know full well, however, that the world doesn't operate around my belief system. It never has and never will. So I focus on background checks, something people give lip service to in here but work to undermine at every step of the way.

I noticed you again avoided saying anything about what you believe in, except for guns of course. I seriously doubt I'll get a response from you. I have found that the people who feel a need to proclaim how liberal and progressive they are generally are anything but. People who actually fall into those categories simply state their views. They don't have to proclaim themselves to be Democrats because it's obvious in what they write. In fact, the only people on this site who make such claims are gunners who consistently advance right-wing gun policies.

[Eleanors38]

90. Actually, I agree with your basic outlook, and share the

same realistic approach. (I think, however, Hillary is too centrist and is part of the problem; I much prefer Warren.)

I gave a long but partial vita describing my activism to one of your more strident control allies a few months back, and he either didn't believe it, or saw it as in the past and less current when compared with a variety of postings in DU. Ha! Postings on DU as a measure of beliefs & activism. I still see it in the streets, Bains, in the rallies, in the sit-ins, in street theater, in civil disobedience. Maybe that outlook is in the past, but this 65-yr-old hasn't seen any new, effective approaches to major social change coming out of social media -- or a diversity of DU postings. I put my waning energies and $ into fewer causes out of necessity. Those are repro rights, wildlife and land conservation, marijuana legalization, labor issues, and the RKBA (gun control remains an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party, an especially repugnant one given its elitist nature).

BTW, Marx (let alone Debs) would be at odds with you on guns.

[BainsBane]

97. I don't recall Marx writing about guns

Of all causes to mobilize for, you choose the one that least needs support because it has so much moneyed power behind it. I find that odd.

[Eleanors38]

101. Google Karl Marx on Guns. At the top should be okworkers...

Though stilted by the usual pithy cant of CP writings, this screed makes it clear what Marx's opinion was of the bourgeoisie approach to the monopoly on violence.

More to Marx than Manifesto & Kapital.

[BainsBane]

102. So are you planning revolution?

Because that's what he's talking about, not playing soldier for kicks or shooting black teenagers on sight.

[Eleanors38]

103. Nope. Not sure he was, either, though he saw it coming.

[Jenoch]

81. Wow, you are so uninformed about

the career of Vice-president Humphrey. Being VP was only a tiny fraction of his career. He was in the U.S. Senate for 23 years. He was one of the biggest proponents of the civil rights movement in the senate. On a personal note, I had the chance to meet him several times when I was a kid, includong one night in Washington D.C. when I got a photo taken with both VP Humphrey and VP Mondale.

[BainsBane]

85. No kidding

I never said it did. That you should think that is implied in my statement is another example of your issues with reading comprehension. When someone writes one sentence, that is not an explicit or implicit assertion that the short text encapsulates the the entirely of a person's career. Save yourself the frustration and don't read any more of my posts.

[Jenoch]

88. Oh, don't worry, there is no frustration on my part.

The word you were looking for is co-opted.

Tour short comment about HHH needed a reply so that anyone reading your post would know that he was about more than being LBJ's VP.

My reading comprehension is fine.

FYI, hunting is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

[sir pball]

65. "Time to grab 'em...grab 'em all"

Seems like a pretty clear indication that "if you want one, you best start shopping!" I mean, I don't, so it's all just sort of amusing peanut-gallery-ness to me, but I do think the parent has a point

[Pullo]

21. And because people now expect antis to use a tragedy to push for new restrictions ....

I'm sure AR-15 sales, as well as AR-15 mags sales, began spiking as soon as the news broke.

[BainsBane]

26. Because the gun lobby lies to the American people

that Obama will take their guns, while all the while they work to put more guns on the street and even in the hands of teenagers. Meanwhile, their supporters spread the lies and demonstrate that nothing means less to them than human life. In fact, the more dead the better because that creates profits for the gun manufactures, and we all know that's all that really counts.

[DragonBorn]

71. Are you serious?

The NRA tries to put guns on the streets and in to the hands of teenagers? Really? What do you think Wayne LaPierre is running around town with guns in the back of his trunk just handing them out to anyone who looks underage? More dead people creates better profits?

You're hyperbole is really far out their bordering on luncacy. Do people here actually think this is a valid statement?
And some people wonder why we can't have a civil discussion about guns rights. One side is constantly accusing the other of facilitating muderers, wanting more dead people, and other such nonsense. Cut out the hyperbole and we may actually get somewhere as a party.

[Eleanors38]

35. Maybe, but so far, I haven't noticed MSM leading the charge YET.

Maybe their editorial staffs have been smash-mouthed enough, and are ready to have some respectful discussion. Hopefully, politicians will follow a similar lead. Something new has to be tried.

[Pullo]

43. agreed n/t

[JEFF9K]

5. WANTED: SPINMEISTER ...

... Contact the NRA. No background check will be performed.

[Socal31]

7. Something tells me there will be many a crow eaten by people trying to politicize this event.

There are some key questions that are lingering as far as how this happened the way it did.

[sarisataka]

8. if history is any guide

the crows are safe. Even if an event turns out 180 from the jumped conclusion, no one will admit being wrong. The usual explanation is it could have happened my way.

Apologies are rarer than an honest politician... (RIP Sen. Wellstone )

[BainsBane]

24. I will admit to being wrong right here

I was wrong about you. Your post here makes that crystal clear. I will not be making that mistake again. I have learned my lesson.

[sarisataka]

29. Note...

I did not single out either side for this failing. I find it common to both.

[jpak]

9. Did he use an AR15?

Yes or No?

[Socal31]

10. He used a rifle that is based on that platform, it looks like.

How he obtained that rifle is more important than what it was. Did he buy it legally from Walmart? Did he bring it from Texas?

Did one of the Police casualties happen during/after being disarmed on base?

[jpak]

12. Grab 'em and the lookalikes

They suck

yup

[Socal31]

14. Unfortunately it looks like that may be what happened.

But until a reputable source posts how someone gained access to a rifle on base, or how they got through security with three weapons, I'm not going to form an opinion on to how this could have been prevented.

[Eleanors38]

19. See #17. Much more plausible, don't you think?

[BainsBane]

22. Because the gun cabal blocked background checks

the point is moot. They work tirelessly to make sure guys like that have access to guns, so they do. Then those people kill. That is exactly what the gun lobby and it's supporters have fought for, and they have it once again.

[rl6214]

58. He busted in and took te AR15 from the guard

[Socal31]

69. Actually he didnt according to the FBI.

But please leave your duplicate threads up, it is a reminder to all about jumping to conclusions so quickly on the day of a tragedy.

[ileus]

100. Turns out NO was the correct answer.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confirmed-Shooter-at-Navy-Yard-One-Person-Shot-223897891.html

[BainsBane]

20. Politicizing it?

by actually giving a fuck about the people killed? That really would be horrendous. Making profits off the murder, as the gun lobby that gun evangelists support, that's perfectly acceptable.

[gejohnston]

28. at the risk of showing my cynicism,

I honestly doubt some of them gives a fuck about the people killed. They just care about the means.

[BainsBane]

31. Why would that be the case?

Under what scenario does that make any sense? I realize many here think it's all about the pro-2Aers, but it's not. That you do, however, is the root of the problem. Gun evangelists simply cannot imagine where they aren't more important than everyone else, especially the fallen. "My rights trump your dead"--the exaltation of that speech proved that they see victims of gun violence as inconsequential. They believe they are their property are all that matters. They can't imagine anyone caring about others because they are incapable of doing so themselves.

[gejohnston]

37. because that is how the real world works.

Because they only scream about gun deaths, and not all murders and suicides. Even then, only if it is affluent white people. Because they can't come up with a logical argument but instead uses various logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to push their point. Most of it is emotional rhetoric and name calling, propaganda. Why? The gun prohibitionist lobby are elitists funded by a few billionaires. There is no evidence of gun laws saving lives anywhere in the world, at least peer reviewed studies done by legitimate researchers. Had this happened in Europe, he probably would have used a machine gun. While they have fewer gun crimes there, they tend to use machine guns more than here. Would banning privately owned machine guns save the life of Sabrina Moss this year? Letisha Shakespeare, 17, and Charlene Ellis, 18, ten years ago? Oh wait, UK banned them in 1937 so I guess not.
BTW, speaking of UK, they had fewer gun crimes before they passed any gun laws than now. Why? Culture. Their criminal culture at the time, and still is for the most part, views using a gun as "sissy". That was probably the case in the US among street gangs until the past 30 years.
Ultimately it is ideology and culture. The "dead children" are simply a means to an end.

[BainsBane]

45. Huh, I recall a great deal of concern about Trayvon Martin

whereas you were ever so worried about George Zimmerman.

You are wrong on every point. Obviously you avoid looking at any opinion polls and reading newspapers so you can continue to deceive yourself. I post faces of the fallen regularly, and most of them are people of color. You have not once expressed any concern for a victim of gun violence. Everything is an opportunity for you to press your agenda to get more guns in the hands of more people.
There is a recent study that shows that more guns do indeed to moire killings, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481 The point is obvious, but people like you are impervious to not only the obvious but hard evidence. You will ignore it and continue to invoke absurd nineteenth century arguments about "culture." You'd fail a Freshman course in any social science with that bullshit excuse for analysis. Factors can and have been isolated accounting for a range of variables you describe as culture. Interesting that you've now decided Britian's crime rate has fallen because before you insisted it had not.
The truth means nothing to you. When confronted with evidence about the source of guns trafficked into Mexico and bans on public funding into research on gun violence, you deny the facts presented to you. Intellectual honesty means nothing to you. Not only that, you purposefully misrepresent government reports and data to make them say what you want rather than what they actually do. I've given you things to read and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the facts in black and white. You don't care about evidence, data, or human lives. You do care about your guns though, so by all means enjoy them. They clearly mean more to you than anything or anyone else in life.

I really can't say what I think about you because frankly words don't exist to describe what you are.

[gejohnston]

51. I was concerned about the truth not the

false narrative created by a greedy ambulance chasing racist lawyer. Oh, and he is a slum lord too. Yes, I am saying the Martin family lawyer is a racist. Why do I say racist? People who falsely accuse others of racism with no evidence, even knowing it is false, is a racist. People who don't know anything about the facts of the case but accused the jury of racism (even though the black male alternate agreed with them) are racist. All race baiters are racist at their core.
I care about things like honest fair like fair trials, which you don't seem to believe in. You seem to prefer media driven show trials if you don't like the person.
I care about the truth, not dogma. You don't seem to tell the difference. When confronted with your propaganda, I countered with in context facts. Mexican drug cartels are not getting machine guns, RPGs, grenades, etc. from US gun shops.

You'd fail a Freshman course in any social science with that bullshit excuse for analysis. Factors can and have been isolated accounting for a range of variables you describe as culture. Interesting that you've now decided Britian's crime rate has fallen because before you insisted it had not.

That was an observation based on history, not analysis. And I have passed social science classes on the freshman level and beyond. Ever wonder why social scientists ignore the study in Think Progress? Because they are not scientific. I explained to you why CDC lost their funding. They were not doing valid studies. They were doing propaganda that tried to pass as studies and were called out by real scientists. I doubt the study was peer reviewed and certainly not likely to be replicated, since these MDs generally don't release their data or methods of gathering that data.
No, it is I who cares about evidence, data, and truth regardless of where the chips may fall. You on the other hand, seem to be blinded by dogma inspite of reality. I find your dogmatic name calling rants very boorish and unbecoming of someone so educated.

[beevul]

61. As I've eluded to before...

As I've eluded to before, if it was simply giving a fuck about the victims that was the driving force behind the politicization, you and the other hard core gun control activists, would be trying with all your might to focus on suicide prevention first and foremost, because that's the category that the great majority gun deaths fall into.

But neither you nor they nor the organizations pushing gun control and leaning on every gun death do that.

You'd much rather tangle with the people that did not, and are not, have not, and will not, contribute in any statistically significant way.

You can't rebrand that.

[BainsBane]

83. I don't want to tangle with you

I would love nothing more than if gun worshipers didn't exist. Astounding how you imagine yourself at the center of everything. The only reason pro-gun evangelist have any influence at all is because they're in bed with a multibillion dollar corporate lobby.

And what are you doing for suicide prevention? I see a great deal of effort in the gungeon to get more guns in the hands of more people. Since suicide is the number one use for guns, it logically must follow that gun evangelists want to see more of it. Now they want to facilitate greater suicides among 18-21 year olds by backing the NRA's efforts to allow sales of handguns to that age group.

And what makes you think you know what people do anyway? All you do is bellyache because you don't like the fact someone doesn't worship murder machines as much as you do. So fucking what? I will never become so immoral that I values stuff over human life. You'll have to deal with the fact that some people actually have a conscience, as repulsive as you find that concept.

[beevul]

86. So much nonsense.

"I would love nothing more than if gun worshipers didn't exist. Astounding how you imagine yourself at the center of everything. The only reason pro-gun evangelist have any influence at all is because they're in bed with a multibillion dollar corporate lobby."

Of course you do. Imagine myself at the center of everything? Hardly. And, the reason pro-gun people have influence, is that we vote. The "gun industry" as it related to civilian legal firearms, is a tiny industry when compared to just about any other, so you can just retire that anti-gun talking point.

"And what are you doing for suicide prevention? I see a great deal of effort in the gungeon to get more guns in the hands of more people. Since suicide is the number one use for guns, it logically must follow that gun evangelists want to see more of it."

I'm not doing anything about suicide prevention. What I am doing, and have been doing for over a decade, is writing letters and making phone calls to elected officials, in an effort to make sure people like you, don't use government and law as a club to beat people like me over the head with.

Nobody except you said suicide was the number one use for guns. Judging by the billions of rounds fired by law abiding citizens annually, I'd say you're wrong about it.

"Now they want to facilitate greater suicides among 18-21 year olds by backing the NRA's efforts to allow sales of handguns to that age group."

That age group can already own handguns. If they can already legally own them, there would seem to be no good reason to prevent them from purchasing one at retail, unless your aim is just to be a pain in the ass to people because you don't like guns.

"And what makes you think you know what people do anyway? All you do is bellyache because you don't like the fact someone doesn't worship murder machines as much as you do. So fucking what? I will never become so immoral that I values stuff over human life. You'll have to deal with the fact that some people actually have a conscience, as repulsive as you find that concept."

I observe. I pay attention. I'm acutely aware of the history of the gun issue, dating back to before there were background checks at retail. Are you? If refusing to acknowledge that there are means available that may achieve, or contribute toward achieving the goal you CLAIM to have, is how you define having a conscience, you ma'am have one very fucked up dictionary.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. Could you at least curb the name calling?

Good grief. The names pro-RKBA are subjected to. The most distasteful one is "gun humper." How that isn't a lockable offense is beyond me because I'm sure if I graphically described what the name implies -- especially for us female pro-RKBA'ers -- that would be locked so fast the internet would melt.

Am I allowed to use the reverse terminology? Can I call people who would impede the right to self-defense "rape worshippers?" Yeah, that would be pretty vile but it would also be their own medicine.

Please.

[BainsBane]

94. If people don't want to be called gun worshipers

they should stop worshiping guns, privileging them over the lives of their fellow citizens. I don't use those other terms You mention because they are so insulting. I'm not the site police so I can't control what others say.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. You can control what you say.

Someone who defends the VRA isn't a vote worshipper, the vote isn't the issue. The right of self-determination is the issue. The vote is merely a tool to that end.

[BainsBane]

96. Yes, I can control what I say.

I have no problem being called a vote worshiper. I consider the franchise the single greatest right we have--and I will fight to see it preserved. I think I probably feel about the vote the way many due about gun rights.

Those who apologize for rape are called rape apologists, though they resent it. The equivalent in this case would be murder apologist, but I don't call pro-gun proponents by that name since there is no way people aren't going to be terribly offended. I don't see gun worshiper on the same level. I typically use terms like pro-gun proponent, gun activist, or gun evangelist. If you don't like worshiper, you won't like evangelist, but I consider it accurate since they are committed to spreading their vision of gun rights. Be aware that none of the terms mean or imply all gun owners. There are gun owners that members of the Gungeon call "gun grabbers" and "banners," and then there is the term of choice for the gun control group: Castle Bansalot. Just this week I was called "elitist" by someone who owns homes in at least two states, whereas I rent an apt in an urban neighborhood with frequent gunfire. I was told I was bought and paid for by Mike Bloomberg, and I have been told repeatedly that don't care at all about the victims of gun violence, at least three times in this very thread. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not going to worry that a term like worshiper hurts the feelings of someone like that.

[oneshooter]

98. Her bigotry against legal ownership of firearms is showing.

She can't help it, it's just what she does.

[gejohnston]

11. Wait, last I heard it was a shotgun

and some clown on Fox said it was a three round burst, like an M-16A2. Of course, I also heard it was several people with different weapons.

[jpak]

13. I heard AR15 and .40 cal pistols

One guy.

One AR15.

13 dead.

Grab 'em.

yup

[gejohnston]

15. Early reports also said there was more than one.

We do know they didn't get legally them in DC, just like the senseless machine gunnings in UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/30/sabrina-moss-family-tribute-kilburn-shooting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/machinegun-attack-on-russian-banker-in-london-7584104.html

I guess it is time for Metro to ban them and round them all up. Oh wait, they did that in 1937.

I have not seen a picture of the actual weapon, nor have I have not seen anything by an knowledgeable source about the weapon. Let's face it, the media is full of shit sixty percent of the time, and will certainly fail to report anything about guns correctly.

[hack89]

30. Nope

I like mine.

[ileus]

16. It's my HD lifesaving device of choice.

[Pullo]

23. But this was a gun-free zone???

again.

[BainsBane]

25. So now we have a direct line from Wayne LaPierre right to DU

Not a talking point missed.

[gejohnston]

27. can you dispute the accuaracy?

of the claim? Do you think only the talking points from the civil disarmament lobby has any validity? Calling something a talking point doesn't refute anything.

[BainsBane]

33. I read that some of the people killed were armed guards

If true, that makes the point moot. I also find it repulsive that you all cannot spare a moment's thought about the victims of this violence. All you think about is your stuff.

[gejohnston]

39. the gate guards would certainly would be

Once again, you made a false assumption. I simply realize that the giving up my stuff would do nothing. Criminologist James Wright put it best when he told Congress in the 1990s:

The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel strongly about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their worldview. Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the stridency with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly any of these families have ever harmed anyone with their
guns, and virtually none ever intend to. Nearly everything these
families will ever do with their guns is both legal, and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their rights to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
their decency, as though we somehow hold them responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vociferously to such slander?

[BainsBane]

46. remdi95

One thing I can count on, if you post something it's not true so I'm going to read anything you write or post again.

[gejohnston]

53. prove it wrong

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

more precisely, what was inaccurate? Military gate guards being armed, or James Wright? If I ignored every false or absurd statement you made, our conversations would be well, nonexistent.

[Pullo]

40. I also find it repulsive that ....

many anti's refuse to spend a moments thought about the victims, and instead seek to exploit tragedies to promote reactionary restrictions on firearm ownership that would have done little or nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place.

[BainsBane]

48. Really, that must be why we post pictures of the fallen regularly

in the gun control group, whereas people here consistently trivialize gun deaths, insisting they aren't important. Not only that, they side with virtually every shooter who uses a gun to kill someone. Well, as long as he's white.

[gejohnston]

54. really?

It sounds like an appeal to emotion. BTW, your false accusation of racism is duly noted.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. "Really, that must be why we post pictures of the fallen regularly".. Sounds like a morbid obsession

to me. Couldn't your time be better spent actually trying to help the families of gun violence, many of whom don't have insurance, or the resources, to give their fallen loved ones a proper burial, or buy a head stone or something? How about setting up a website or social networking site to help grieving family members cope, or at least now they have someone else to talk to who has experienced the same needless loss, so they don't feel so lost and alone? I'd be willing to bet there are even some professional grief counselors who would donate some of their spare time to a site like that, how about you?

This sounds like a much better way to reach out, at least to me, than posting random pictures of dead people where their family members may run across them, then chance re-opening that wound all over again and offering nothing more than a "This person was killed due to gun violence.. let's round up ALL the guns and BAN them!! YEEEEHAAAAWWW!

Personally, I think all the gun grabbers should be banned from this site, seeing as the Democratic Platform SUPPORTS the 2nd Amendment, and anyone who supports complete bans aren't supporting the Democratic Platform, thereby meaning they don't support Democrats. It's hard enough for those of us in Deep Red States trying to win new people over to our side when they are single issue voters whose only concern is "them damn Demoncrats just want to take our guns away!!" You can show them the Party Platform where we support the RKBA, but then bring them to this site, and they see all these supposed Democrats squawking about confiscating and banning.

PLEASE do us in this situation a BIG FAVOR and go start your own Party, so we can at least stand a little chance of electing some Democrats and at least turn a shade of purple, even if we can't make it all the way blue. Some of us in the Deep Red South sure would like to have a few members somewhere in our Government actually representing us, and our needs, too. We have issues we'd like addressed by some like-minded fellow Democrats as well... issues like jobs, better education and reducing the number of people living at, and below, the poverty level.... posting random pictures of dead people WILL NOT accomplish that!

Thanks,
Ghost

[DragonBorn]

73. Defensive Firearm uses

What about the 100k people Obama admitted use firearms in a defensive fashion every year? Do you think about them? Would you rather they be robbed, raped, beaten, or killed?

[Historic NY]

34. Reported he took officers semi-auto handgun, got the Ar-15 from the guard station...

he legally bought the shotgun in Lawton Va. a couple of days ago.

[ManiacJoe]

36. Weapon of opportunity, no surprise there.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confirmed-Shooter-at-Navy-Yard-One-Person-Shot-223897891.html

[jpak]

41. Weapon of choice

yup

[ManiacJoe]

42. You need to catch up with the current events.

It is being reported that the rifle was taken from the guard after the guard was shot. Since the choice of rifles was limited to "take or not take", the fact that the rifle as an AR-15 is not relevant to the decision process. Thus, by definition, the AR-15 was a weapon of opportunity.

Sorry that the facts of this event don't seem to support your agenda.

[jpak]

63. Weapon of choicce

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

75. lalalalalalalalaalal I can't hear you because I have my fingers in my ears.

Quality debate tactic there, champ. He didn't have an AR-15 AT ALL. Not even from the guard shack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-shotgun-legally-ar15-assault-rifle_n_3943102.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. That's the problem with facts. They can ruin a good story.

[rl6214]

67. Sssshhhhh, don't rain on 6paks parade, you are just ruining his narrative

[gejohnston]

44. given that it is a military base and

it was taken from a guard, I'm guessing it was an M-16A2 instead of an AR. Some of the fire was described as three round full auto bursts.
Weapon of opportunity, yup.
If the Navy is like the Air Force, he got only a pistol from the dead guard. Some stories say he got the rifle from a DC cop, which could be an AR or an M-16.

[ileus]

38. Hummm...Looks like Joe's gonna have to give a speech

against buying shotguns also.

[krispos42]

47. So one of the most popular guns sold in the country...

...gets used a lot, proportionally, in everything. Including crime.

Surprise!

Odds are the guy drove a Toyota, Chevy, Ford, or Honda, too.



So, let's say you 'grab' them all.

Will the people you grab them from simply... not buy a replacement?

What will they spend their government compensation checks on?

An AK-47-derived rifle? A Mini-14? How about something like a Beretta or a Heckler & Kock?

[mwrguy]

56. Will the people you grab them from simply... not buy a replacement?

No, not after manufacture has been banned and companies like Bushmaster are shut down.

Manufacture a gun, go to prison.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. You going to personally "grab" a few?

Uh-huh...

[mwrguy]

60. That's what we pay the police and military for

I don't personally apprehend robbers and rapists, either.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. Good luck with that.

You really think the increasingly-conservative and generally pro-gun US military would, in large numbers, obey orders to forcibly disarm citizens? I don't...at least not enough of them to get the job done. Such orders would be a quick ticket to a fragmented, crippled military (and thus would likely never be issued).

The police, given their trend towards becoming such an insular, us-vs-them entity, would likely follow such an order in significant numbers. But they're not remotely adequate to the task...

Forcible disarmament is not going to happen ion this country.

[wercal]

77. Let me get this straight - you want the military to confiscate guns?

Sometimes I think the term 'Gun Nut' is mis-used in a 180 degree fashion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Then you'll be a chickenhawk in your mooted War On Guns.

[krispos42]

64. But they will buy a new self-defense rifle, yes?

Let's assume that Congress manages to legally define what an AR-15 is, and confiscates all of them with compensation.


So there are no more AR-15s in private hands in the US.


The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine. There are dozens of popular rifles that are, also, semiautomatic and that feed from detachable magazines.

The Ruger Mini-14 is a popular one, as is the AK-47.

Won't the people that formally had an AR-15 now simply buy an AK-47 or a Mini-14?

[sarisataka]

50. Given the further info that has come out

that the rifle was obtained from the armed security there, do you still recommend Grab 'em all, meaning you are advocating either only unarmed guards (and likely police) or if armed only allowed pistols?

[jpak]

62. Your NRA gun nut spin is wrong - he took a handgun off an officer, he had an AR15

http://www.buffalonews.com/feed/gunman-used-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-navy-yard-rampage-20130917

<snip>

Alexis carried three weapons: an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun that he took from a police officer at the scene, according to two federal law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. The AR-15 is the same type of rifle used in last year’s mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 students and six women. The weapon was also used in the shooting at a Colorado movie theater that killed 12 and wounded 70.

<more>

crow is served.

grab 'em

[rl6214]

68. What's that you say? Did you want your crow hot or cold?

https://mobile.twitter.com/PamelaBrownCNN/status/379960354841047040

FBI Washington field office just confirmed gunman was NOT armed with AR15. Spokesperson says 1 shotgun and 2 pistols recovered
7:29am - 17 Sep 13

[DonP]

72. Well, well .... he could have had an AR15 and that's all that matters!

Don't expect any retraction or corrections from any of them.

IIRC that guide to gun control and the media a few months back said; "Don't wait for the facts, use the emotion of the moment to drive your message of control home to people".

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Not according to the FBI, so, let us know how that crow tastes.

Not that you'll ever acknowledge it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-shotgun-legally-ar15-assault-rifle_n_3943102.html

[sarisataka]

78. It's about dinner time

would you like light or dark? I'm having pork chops...

[Eleanors38]

80. Jesus, you reminded me! I am too, with broccoli.

[shadowrider]

87. Broccoli ought to be against the law...:)

But I'll take cauliflower anytime.

[Eleanors38]

89. Collards beats 'em both.

[shadowrider]

92. Collard, Mustard or Turnip. I grew up on that stuff and you're right

they beat them both..

[Bay Boy]

76. I expect you to apologize to the nice AR-15...

...you hurt it's feelings.

[Eleanors38]

82. Well, why not try that ol' stand-by, the AK-47. Tried & true, you know?

[ileus]

99. No mention of the AR that was used to put down the perp in this case.