Realistically what can we do about guns when we have 430 million in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

.50 BMGs aren't used for routine purposes or carried by everyday soldiers in war and it's not particularly practical to do so. They are more typically used by snipers or for long-range anti-materiel work. They weigh nearly 35 pounds, as compared to 8-9 pounds for an M-16 or AR-15 which makes them far easier for troops to work with. They are both weapons of war, and it still is ridiculous to call an M-16 "weak" as it's comparing apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

[Anonymous]

Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

No lies were detected.

I think you give pp too much credit though; I doubt their local warlord will want pp anywhere near their dick.

[Anonymous]

The 2nd amendment, the amendment that ensures all others are honored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

Dream on. People in this country have it pretty good and few fools are fighting a civil war over changes to gun laws. We settle our differences in this country by voting, not by overcompensating for teeny littles with lots of guns and idle threats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

If your target is unarmored sure, but cheap lvl3 and 4 is prevalent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

If your target is unarmored sure, but cheap lvl3 and 4 is prevalent

Sure. Tell that to the uvalde cops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

If your target is unarmored sure, but cheap lvl3 and 4 is prevalent

Sure. Tell that to the uvalde cops.

The coward patrol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

Broke liberals cannot afford to travel. A lot of them cant even find Switzerland on the map after public school education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

Dream on. People in this country have it pretty good and few fools are fighting a civil war over changes to gun laws. We settle our differences in this country by voting, not by overcompensating for teeny littles with lots of guns and idle threats.

It’s cute you think that. People were literally marching around with rifles and full kit a few years back.