Gavin Newsom gifted a gun on podcat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

This is a weird analysis. Each of the weapons you listed has a substantially lower capacity and substantially more kickback than an AR-style rifle. They're much harder to shoot effectively. If you're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a tight space (like a school classroom or a nightclub) the AR is clearly superior. You're right that the AR has less power, but that's really academic in a mass shooting scenario. At a distance of <30 feet or so, being shot with ANY rifle round is going to be fatal.

AR has no advantage in a tight space as it's the same length and no more maneuverable. The only potential advantage is the higher capacity and faster recovery but then you're basically just talking spray and pray as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is pretty dumb for anything other than either inflicting random chaos or putting out some suppressing fire for cover.

I think we are saying the same thing? My point was that the AR is a much more effective weapon to commit a mass shooting precisely because it has a higher capacity and faster recovery.

Lethality is context specific. If I’m trying to kill my neighbor from across the street, the weapons you listed are superior. If you’re trying to quickly and indiscriminately kill people in a confined space, the AR is undeniably superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

This is a weird analysis. Each of the weapons you listed has a substantially lower capacity and substantially more kickback than an AR-style rifle. They're much harder to shoot effectively. If you're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a tight space (like a school classroom or a nightclub) the AR is clearly superior. You're right that the AR has less power, but that's really academic in a mass shooting scenario. At a distance of <30 feet or so, being shot with ANY rifle round is going to be fatal.

AR has no advantage in a tight space as it's the same length and no more maneuverable. The only potential advantage is the higher capacity and faster recovery but then you're basically just talking spray and pray as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is pretty dumb for anything other than either inflicting random chaos or putting out some suppressing fire for cover.

Also an AR can be shorter than the three you mentioned. The AR is available with a 16 inch barrel, which is not true of any of the three you listed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

You might want to shrug it off because to a normal person it doesn't really matter much, but to someone who's not entirely normal mentally, appearance matters. In case after case after case mass shooters have used military-style weapons like AR-15s even though an old-school semi-auto Remington 7400, Winchester 100, Ruger 44, etc with a wooden stock is more lethal than an AR-15 - higher caliber, farther range, etc than the typical AR-15. Sociopaths choose the AR-15 because of the way it looks more than anything else. They want something that looks warlike.

This is a weird analysis. Each of the weapons you listed has a substantially lower capacity and substantially more kickback than an AR-style rifle. They're much harder to shoot effectively. If you're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a tight space (like a school classroom or a nightclub) the AR is clearly superior. You're right that the AR has less power, but that's really academic in a mass shooting scenario. At a distance of <30 feet or so, being shot with ANY rifle round is going to be fatal.

AR has no advantage in a tight space as it's the same length and no more maneuverable. The only potential advantage is the higher capacity and faster recovery but then you're basically just talking spray and pray as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is pretty dumb for anything other than either inflicting random chaos or putting out some suppressing fire for cover.

I think we are saying the same thing? My point was that the AR is a much more effective weapon to commit a mass shooting precisely because it has a higher capacity and faster recovery.

Lethality is context specific. If I’m trying to kill my neighbor from across the street, the weapons you listed are superior. If you’re trying to quickly and indiscriminately kill people in a confined space, the AR is undeniably superior.

All the more reason AR's should be banned. Thanks for making that case for us.

[Anonymous]

The 4+ hour Newsom appearance on Shawn Ryan’s podcast dropped on YouTube a few weeks ago. He came across well. People should watch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 4+ hour Newsom appearance on Shawn Ryan’s podcast dropped on YouTube a few weeks ago. He came across well. People should watch it.

He may have an extended political career in California but he has no chance of winning elections outside of California in the near future.