Gun Protesters Plan March On Washington With Loaded Rifles To...

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

It's not an issue of semantics when these weapons are different. You're speaking to someone who knows the differences in the weapons you're talking about.

So I apologize if you think I'm just trying to pull the semantics card on you, but to me I'm trying to speak with as much accuracy as possible.

Wasdie

Well with that loose of a comparison made between guns I can conclude that my SKS is pretty much the same gun as my Short Magazine Lee Enfield because they both fire bullets. 

Almost every gun has the same components. An AR-15 is similarly styled but is not an M16 due to a lot of critical components that make it function differently.

Again here's where it becomes very difficult to classify firearms because they all work pretty much the same depending on how you describe them. 

You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. Ninja-Hippo

Maybe the general consensus between people who know nothing about firearms.

An AR-15 with a 10 round magazine is pretty much the same as any other .223 semi-automatic rifle. The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles work exactly the same. Banning one because it looks like a military rifle is pointless. 

I mean you're really talking like you just want to ban all firearms with semi-auto capabilities at this point. I don't care if that's your opinion, just don't tiptoe around it. Or maybe I missed where you said that.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. airshocker

Thankfully opinion isn't fact.

You truly are out of your mind if you don't think full auto is different than semi-auto. I'm sorry, but every single person on the face of this earth knows that.

You can keep telling yourself it's an argument over semantics, but those of us who actually know about these firearms know differently.

I didn't say it wasn't different, and that was such a blatant strawman it's almost sad to even reply to it. You are a weak ass debater airshocker. Of course the two are different. The debate was whether a select-fire rifle is massively different to the semi-auto version of the otherwise exact same weapon. The answer is no, the distinction is not massive. This is a waste of time. Ninja-Hippo

And because the firing modes are MASSIVELY different, that makes the weapons MASSIVELY DIFFERENT. It's not a hard concept.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. Wasdie

Maybe the general consensus between people who know nothing about firearms.

An AR-15 with a 10 round magazine is pretty much the same as any other .223 semi-automatic rifle. The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles work exactly the same. Banning one because it looks like a military rifle is pointless. 

I mean you're really talking like you just want to ban all firearms with semi-auto capabilities at this point.

This is where the pro-gun side of things always gets weak, because the argument just turns stupid. An SKS is a semi-automatic rifle. A Lee Enfield is a bolt-action rifle that British soldiers were carting around before the dawn of 1900 for crying out loud. Those are two massively different weapons. A huge distinction. The M16 is a select fire military rifle, the AR-15 is the civilian semi-auto only version of the same god damned gun. That is not a loose definition at all. One is a very slightly modified version of the SAME ACTUAL WEAPON. Ninja-Hippo

But they are both guns, I can shoot them both at about 30 round per minute. So you're saying becuase one gun looks like another gun it's pretty much the same gun while I'm saying that 2 guns that look nothing similar are pretty much the same because the end result is the same. 

Yes, you can fire a lee enfield at the speed you can fire an SKS without jamming it up. I've seen it done more than once.

I don't really get what you're arguing about anymore really yet you're the one accusing me of having a bad argument. Depending on your definition of what a gun is and what makes guns similar you could argue pretty much all guns are the same because the end result is the same. That's all I said. 

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. Ninja-Hippo

Maybe the general consensus between people who know nothing about firearms.

An AR-15 with a 10 round magazine is pretty much the same as any other .223 semi-automatic rifle. The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles work exactly the same. Banning one because it looks like a military rifle is pointless. 

I mean you're really talking like you just want to ban all firearms with semi-auto capabilities at this point.

So then what the hell are you arguing about? You made a blanket statement that isn't really true yet your going on and on about things. Honestly I'm just confused to what you want and now you're throwing strawman out as if I'm attacking you instead. It's not a personal attack to say the way you're arguing makes you sound like you want to ban these guns based upon them looking the same. 

I need to actually know what you're arguing before I can actually put up a real argument against you. You've kind of gone off on this tangent.

I told you earlier that gun owners drew the line at semi-automatic rifles. I thought that would be good enough. You've gone into the technical details of what sets an M16 apart from an AR-15.

You can keep telling yourself it's an argument over semantics, but those of us who actually know about these firearms know differently.

airshocker

I don't understand what they are protesting. Last I checked they got their way in congress quite recently.

The thread has turned out very predicatable, but it's a damn sight better than 900 paranoid gun-carriers marching on DC.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]This is where the pro-gun side of things always gets weak, because the argument just turns stupid. An SKS is a semi-automatic rifle. A Lee Enfield is a bolt-action rifle that British soldiers were carting around before the dawn of 1900 for crying out loud. Those are two massively different weapons. A huge distinction. The M16 is a select fire military rifle, the AR-15 is the civilian semi-auto only version of the same god damned gun. That is not a loose definition at all. One is a very slightly modified version of the SAME ACTUAL WEAPON. Wasdie

But they are both guns, I can shoot them both at about 30 round per minute. So you're saying becuase one gun looks like another gun it's pretty much the same gun....;

I'll be on the lookout for an equally powerful 4th amendment rally.DroidPhysX

Why? Obama resigned the Patriot ACT and enacted the NDAA. Since Obama was the one doing it, it's absolulty fine. Don't you read the internet? Obama is perfect and would never do anything to violate the 4th amendment.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol. Ninja-Hippo

I don't care what the NRA calls it. As we already discussed, stores will market things in order to make sales. They've always done that.

They are massively different weapons. You can't tell me a weapon that can fire three rounds with every squeeze of the trigger AND fire by simply holding down the trigger is not different than a weapon that can only fire ONE round with every squeeze of the trigger.

Holy fvck, you're clueless. Those two capabilites are HUGE. I've shot the M4 in the military. The AR-15 is not the same rifle. I really hope you're joking with that comment. It just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to this subject.

Straw man number three. The failure continues. It's like a George Lucas prequel trilogy. Never at all did I say that a gun which looks like another gun means its the same gun. I think a gun that LITERALLY IS THE EXACT SAME GUN other than having a switch that stops at 'semi auto' instead of 'full auto' makes it a pretty damned similar gun. I don't know what we're arguing about either Wasdie. When airshocker runs out of valuable, rational things to say he likes to start pointing out the technical differences between different types of rifles to establish a 'knows what he's talking about' fallacy because he has nothing else to say. He does it in every gun debate. Ninja-Hippo

It's not the same gun though. We've told you time and time again. I said that if you change your definition of what a gun is you can summerize that all guns are essentially the same thing. I guess you are considering that a straw man because you keep hamering on an arguing point htat's simply not getting you anywhere.

The AR-15 and the M16 are different rifles due to a few core parts. That's that. You keep denying this because you disagree with it. You can disagree all you want but a fact is a fact. They are different rifles. 

With my earlier statement of an SKS vs. Lee Enfield I'm merely trying to figure out what you consider a different rifle. You said them having different mechanisms makes them different.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Maybe the general consensus between people who know nothing about firearms.

An AR-15 with a 10 round magazine is pretty much the same as any other .223 semi-automatic rifle. The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles work exactly the same. Banning one because it looks like a military rifle is pointless. 

I mean you're really talking like you just want to ban all firearms with semi-auto capabilities at this point.

Wasdie

So then what the hell are you arguing about? You made a blanket statement that isn't really true yet your going on and on about things. Honestly I'm just confused to what you want and now you're throwing strawman out as if I'm attacking you instead. It's not a personal attack to say the way you're arguing makes you sound like you want to ban these guns based upon them looking the same. 

I need to actually know what you're arguing before I can actually put up a real argument against you. You've kind of gone off on this tangent.

I told you earlier that gun owners drew the line at semi-automatic rifles. I thought that would be good enough. You've gone into the technical details of what sets an M16 apart from an AR-15.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Straw man again. Welcome to high school debating. I don't want to ban anything at all and have never advocated the banning of any weapon. I generally disagree with the government banning anything. Ninja-Hippo

So then what the hell are you arguing about? You made a blanket statement that isn't really true yet your going on and on about things. Honestly I'm just confused to what you want and now you're throwing strawman out as if I'm attacking you instead. It's not a personal attack to say the way you're arguing makes you sound like you want to ban these guns based upon them looking the same. 

I need to actually know what you're arguing before I can actually put up a real argument against you. You've kind of gone off on this tangent.

I told you earlier that gun owners drew the line at semi-automatic rifles. I thought that would be good enough. You've gone into the technical details of what sets an M16 apart from an AR-15.

The AR-15 and the M16 are different rifles due to a few core parts.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol. Ninja-Hippo

Well with that loose of a comparison made between guns I can conclude that my SKS is pretty much the same gun as my Short Magazine Lee Enfield because they both fire bullets. 

Almost every gun has the same components. An AR-15 is similarly styled but is not an M16 due to a lot of critical components that make it function differently.

Again here's where it becomes very difficult to classify firearms because they all work pretty much the same depending on how you describe them. 

 The M2 .50 Cal was designed during WWI and is still used today by the military...

The overall design of firearms hasn't changed much since then...

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I don't care what the NRA calls it. As we already discussed, stores will market things in order to make sales. They've always done that.

They are massively different weapons. You can't tell me a weapon that can fire three rounds with every squeeze of the trigger AND fire by simply holding down the trigger is not different than a weapon that can only fire ONE round with every squeeze of the trigger.

SpartanMSU

Holy fvck, you're clueless. Those two capabilites are HUGE. I've shot the M4 in the military. The AR-15 is not the same rifle. I really hope you're joking with that comment. It just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to this subject.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The AR-15 and the M16 are different rifles due to a few core parts.

Ninja-Hippo

But they aren't even functionally incredibly similar. The internals of a selective fire rifle are much different than that of a semi-automatic rifle. They very ability of a rifle to go fully auto requires some functional changes to how the rifle operates, the build of the rifle, and a bunch of other factors. If they were more functionally similar it would be possible to convert an AR-15 to fully auto or selective fire. 

I don't care what the NRA is, they prove their incompetence on a daily basis and they screw gun owners over. They are a lobbiest for the American gun companies and will use dumb sayings like the one you quoted to sell rifles to Call of Duty kids who want to look just like real soliders. 

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. Ninja-Hippo

Holy fvck, you're clueless. Those two capabilites are HUGE. I've shot the M4 in the military. The AR-15 is not the same rifle. I really hope you're joking with that comment. It just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to this subject.

Yes and a lot of other weapons are designed very similarly to the AR-15. They all essentially work the same way. Except the M4 has burst and full auto, which make them a hell of a lot different. You're not going to see a huge different between a semi-auto only AR-15 and some other legal semi-auto rifle.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

The AR-15 and the M16 are different rifles due to a few core parts.

Wasdie

But they aren't even functionally incredibly similar. The internals of a selective fire rifle are much different than that of a semi-automatic rifle. They very ability of a rifle to go fully auto requires some functional changes to how the rifle operates, the build of the rifle, and a bunch of other factors. If they were more functionally similar it would be possible to convert an AR-15 to fully auto or selective fire. 

I don't care what the NRA is, they prove their incompetence on a daily basis and they screw gun owners over. 

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Wasdie, dude, for real. Are you high? Have you momentarily lost the ability to read? The argument has been that they are functionally incredibly similar. That they are literally the same weapon in components and only different in their fire-selection. One is just a civilian market version of the other. The whole argument has been that the differences between the two are not massive and drastic. I am saying one is just a semi-auto civilian version of a full-auto military weapon. He is trying to make out that they are MASSIVELY DIFFERENT. I'm not arguing that they are literally the same rifle. One is obviously different in some way. Hence the two different names. Jesus. Ninja-Hippo

But they aren't even functionally incredibly similar. The internals of a selective fire rifle are much different than that of a semi-automatic rifle. They very ability of a rifle to go fully auto requires some functional changes to how the rifle operates, the build of the rifle, and a bunch of other factors. If they were more functionally similar it would be possible to convert an AR-15 to fully auto or selective fire. 

I don't care what the NRA is, they prove their incompetence on a daily basis and they screw gun owners over. 

And yet semi-auto weapons are legal and automatics illegal or almost impossible to obtain...

Having the capability to fire bust and auto are HUGE differences. Yes, a lot of the internal components are pretty much the same, but the firing modes make them a hell of a lot different.

Do you think the AR-15 is much more effective than any other semi-auto weapon on the market or something? What is it with the AR-15 specifically that makes all the gun ignorant people sh1t their pants? Oh yeah, it looking scary to them and causing an irrational fear.

 

Having the capability to fire bust and auto are HUGE differences. Yes, a lot of the internal components are pretty much the same, but the firing modes make them a hell of a lot different.

Do you think the AR-15 is much more effective than any other semi-auto weapon on the market or something? What is it with the AR-15 specifically that makes all the gun ignorant people sh1t their pants? Oh yeah, it looking scary to them and causing an irrational fear.

SpartanMSU

EDIT: to answer your question I merely chose AR-15 because it is legal, popular, and yet similar to a military-grade weapon which is very much illegal - *NOT THE EXACT SAME*

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

 

Having the capability to fire bust and auto are HUGE differences. Yes, a lot of the internal components are pretty much the same, but the firing modes make them a hell of a lot different.

Do you think the AR-15 is much more effective than any other semi-auto weapon on the market or something? What is it with the AR-15 specifically that makes all the gun ignorant people sh1t their pants? Oh yeah, it looking scary to them and causing an irrational fear.

Ninja-Hippo

EDIT: to answer your question I merely chose AR-15 because it is legal, popular, and yet similar to a military-grade weapon which is very much illegal - *NOT THE EXACT SAME*

Link. I'm just curious. I don't think it's quite that easy. However out of all the recent shootings, I don't think any have been with a modified AR-15/other semi-auto rifle.

An M16 is a rifle that has more capabilities in it's full auto/burst modes. That's what makes the big difference. I'm not saying that he AR-15 (an M4 would be a better match the the M16 I believe) is designed drasitically different. But neither are other semi-auto rifles. You're acting like the AR-15 is some super weapon compared to other rifles like it. It's not. 

The difference between an auto and a semi-auto is more than a few tweaks here and there.

edit: Ok, thanks for the answer.

I'm gonna go watch game of thrones. Anyway, my point was pretty simple. Look at the geneva convention and the dumb rules of engagement that we all agree to. Drop a cluster-bomb on an enemy camp and completely blow them into paste. Legal. Drop a shell of serin gas on the camp and kill everyone in it that way. Illegal. War crime. Violation of the convention. Use armor-piercing rounds on a tank. Legal. Use armor piercing rounds on a person. Illegal. There are sniper rifles which cannot be used on people but *CAN* be used on vehicles and equipment. Why? Because they're too damned good at killing people. But then a less good-at-killing-people Sniper rifle CAN be used on people. WHY? It's arbitrary nonsense. It's all equipment used to kill people and often some things which are legal are entirely equal in killing-power to things wholly illegal. Most would look at that situation and say 'boy, that's ****ing dumb.'

I feel the same about gun control. We control M16s. Why? Because they're effing dangerous. We do not control AR-15s. Why? Aren't they effing dangerous too? Isn't the ability to shoot up a class room with one only varied in the amount of time it'll take with the other? And isn't the difference between the two not all that significant? Either you accept that guns are a danger to the public good and take reasonable efforts to control (not ban) them, or you don't. The current system of ban-this, allow-that is logically bankrupt.

Laters gang.

EDIT: spartan, google 'bump fire AR-15' or youtube it or something. Pretty common. 

You're acting like the AR-15 is some super weapon compared to other rifles like it. It's not

SpartanMSU

lol, here is one guaranteed to upset everyone no matter what side they are on.

what does the current rifle hysteria have in common with the wars in afghanistan and iraq.

both are just revenge carried out against people that had nothing to do with the original action that inspired the interventions.

why else would we go after people and things that are not a significant part of the overall problem?

it's cool though, it is just our nature to lash out and exact revenge whether or not it fixes anything or punishes the guilty.

the result and the logic is unimportant just the sweet sweet satisfying revenge.

lol, here is one guaranteed to upset everyone no matter what side they are on.

what does the current rifle hysteria have in common with the wars in afghanistan and iraq.

both are just revenge carried out against people that had nothing to do with the original action that inspired the interventions.

why else would we go after people and things that are not a significant part of the overall problem?

it's cool though, it is just our nature to lash out and exact revenge whether or not it fixes anything or punishes the guilty.

the result and the logic is unimportant just the sweet sweet satisfying revenge.

 

Riverwolf007

No....just no.

I'm gonna go watch game of thrones. Anyway, my point was pretty simple. Look at the geneva convention and the dumb rules of engagement that we all agree to. Drop a cluster-bomb on an enemy camp and completely blow them into paste. Legal. Drop a shell of serin gas on the camp and kill everyone in it that way. Illegal. War crime. Violation of the convention. Use armor-piercing rounds on a tank. Legal. Use armor piercing rounds on a person. Illegal. There are sniper rifles which cannot be used on people but *CAN* be used on vehicles and equipment. Why? Because they're too damned good at killing people. But then a less good-at-killing-people Sniper rifle CAN be used on people. WHY? It's arbitrary nonsense. It's all equipment used to kill people and often some things which are legal are entirely equal in killing-power to things wholly illegal. Most would look at that situation and say 'boy, that's ****ing dumb.'

 

I feel the same about gun control. We control M16s. Why? Because they're effing dangerous. We do not control AR-15s. Why? Aren't they effing dangerous too? Isn't the ability to shoot up a class room with one only varied in the amount of time it'll take with the other? And isn't the difference between the two not all that significant? Either you accept that guns are a danger to the public good and take reasonable efforts to control (not ban) them, or you don't. The current system of ban-this, allow-that is logically bankrupt.

Laters gang.

 

EDIT: spartan, google 'bump fire AR-15' or youtube it or something. Pretty common. 

Ninja-Hippo

Yeah I've heard of the bump fire thing. I'll look it up.

I see your point. If you want to ban guns or have more restrictions on them fine, people have different views. I'm okay with some of them. But the whole fascination with the AR-15 and how people think it's some super weapon drives me crazy. It's not. A fully auto weapon would be much more effective than a semi-auto for shooting up a classroom (to counter your M16 vs AR-15 comment). But a pistol would be just as effective or any other semi-auto weapon. The AR-15 isn't some insane weapon that's perfect for taking out children in a classroom. 

Rofl. America has such a weird fetish with guns. Rich3232

and  look at all the gun porn entertainment that we love.

and everything is guilty of it.

take an "enlightened" type show like say star trek.

it's all don't be a selfish racist narrow minded asshole and if you are we can fix that shyt... with a gun!

:lol:

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

You're acting like the AR-15 is some super weapon compared to other rifles like it. It's not

Ninja-Hippo

See my edit. 

I believe you used to think the AR-15 was auto before as well. Yeah, pretty sure I recall that.

Oh, and I'm not a gun nut. I own a Russian Mosin Nagant from 1943 which I use to hunt dear with in November. That's it. Although I have some military experience with various weapons.

wars in afghanistan

 

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lol, here is one guaranteed to upset everyone no matter what side they are on.

what does the current rifle hysteria have in common with the wars in afghanistan and iraq.

both are just revenge carried out against people that had nothing to do with the original action that inspired the interventions.

why else would we go after people and things that are not a significant part of the overall problem?

it's cool though, it is just our nature to lash out and exact revenge whether or not it fixes anything or punishes the guilty.

the result and the logic is unimportant just the sweet sweet satisfying revenge.

 

Person0

No....just no.

what sense does that make?

even if you have some kind of sanctity of human life thing going on why not put the spotlight on handguns that kill 6,500 per year?

i mean sure the loss of even a single life is a tragedy but it seems like if you are going to expend the energy you may as well go after something that is a bit more dangerous than the paltry 350 lives rifles take every year.

right?

meh, maybe i'm just silly or something.

"Those of us who actually know about these firearms...." Like say, the NRA? "An M-16 has three selections; safe, semi, and auto. The latter M-16A4 has safe, semi, and burst. The AR-15 has safe and semi. They are essentially the same gun." For the record I realize entirely that this is exactly the purpose of your doing this, as you do it in every gun debate because you have no decent arguments. But I'm biting anyway because I'm ****ing bored and Game of Thrones isn't finished downloading. Ninja-Hippo

Who ever said the NRA is the end all, be all? I'm speaking from my experience as a servicemember and a cop. If they were the same weapons, AR-15s would be considered assault rifles. They, however, are not.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

wars in afghanistan

 

Master_Live

we spent a trillion dollars to do what?

reduce your chance of dying in a terrorist attack  by .000000001%?

we could have just bought bathtub stickers and reduced your chances of dying by more than that.

barry o knows he cannot really touch guns so instead he focuses on silly red herrings like the ar-15 and other sporting rifles. while that wouldn't put a dent in any of the statistics he pretends to be so worried about. what a joke.MrPraline

They also don't want to admit that NICS is a heaping pile of sh*t.

barry o knows he cannot really touch guns so instead he focuses on silly red herrings like the ar-15 and other sporting rifles. while that wouldn't put a dent in any of the statistics he pretends to be so worried about. what a joke.MrPraline

[QUOTE="Master_Live"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

wars in afghanistan

 

Riverwolf007

we spent a trillion dollars to do what?

reduce your chance of dying in a terrorist attack  by .000000001%?

we could have just bought bathtub stickers and reduced your chances of dying by more than that.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]barry o knows he cannot really touch guns so instead he focuses on silly red herrings like the ar-15 and other sporting rifles. while that wouldn't put a dent in any of the statistics he pretends to be so worried about. what a joke.alexside1