Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's see... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1

    My statement was intended to be a fairly gentle notice that you were speaking about things you clearly have a superficial knowledge of at best, and which other commenters have pointed out to you. A smart person would realize when they were wrong and learn from it. Other people would double-down on the stupid.

    high-capacity assault ammunition
    You use this term several times, so it was not just a fluke. In gun terms, that phrase makes about as much sense as saying a "extra large pint-quart". Every gun owner who read that phrase would be scratching their heads and marveling at your ignorance.
    the .223 AR will not put down a deer - or any other animal bigger than human
    Contrary to the ill-informed opinions of people who have apparently never hunted deer, they are not armored alien creatures capable of absorbing vast amounts of damage. A 180lb deer is exactly as easy to kill with a bullet as a 180lb human. I cannot speak for the human side, but since I have probably been hunting deer longer than you have been alive, I have a pretty good handle on that side of things.
    many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber
    States that prohibit  the .223 for deer hunting do so not because of the 5.56mm round, but because they do not want people using the low-power .22 rimfire for hunting, and the easiest legislative way to do that is to say that bullets have to be at least .23" or .25" in diameter. Other states base the minimum deer hunting rifle on muzzle energy, and the 5.56mm round can meet those requirements in many states. It is in my opinion as a hunter, marginal for the task and requires more skill at shot placement, but I have used the ballistically identical .222 Magnum on deer just fine.

    Second, the AR-15 is not in and of itself banned for hunting in many states, as you state. States with magazine limit restrictions for hunting may limit an AR-15 to 5-round magazines. Though I guess to use your terminology, this is still 5 rounds of "assault ammunition".

    many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with any type of rifle
    I am not sure there are any states, let alone many states that prohibit hunting with any type of rifle. There are individual localities and areas and types of game where rifles may not be used, but no state-wide bans on all rifles for all hunting.
    many states, including "Red States" that do allow hunting with a .223 caliber also prohibit hunters to use anything bigger than a 6 round mag
    Again with the word "many", which in the context of 50 states is certainly more than "a few". States with magazine capacity limits generally have specific and different limits depending on what is being hunted. For instance, if you are hunting varmints, for which the 5.56mm is perfectly suited, there are generally no limits on magazine size.
    The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:

        1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.

    How silly of me. That's why these states allow hunting with weapons more powerful than the .223. Really? Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?

    So, you know so little about guns that you have not yet made it to the level of confusing "magazine" and "clip" (which personally I do not care about), but instead use meaningless gibberish like "high-capacity assault ammunition". You have clearly never hunted deer, yet seem quite confident that they are supernatural creatures not bound by the normal laws of mass and energy and physics that us mere humans live under. You do not understand the reasoning behind why states have certain gun laws the way they do. You know nothing of comparative ballistics or the history of the 5.56mm round. You use the term "many states" like it is a lot of them rather than a minority, and conflate local ordinances against rifle hunting (mainly because of nearby homes) with state-wide bans.

    So yeah, stand by every single one of those comments. You give yourself a bad name, you look like the most mocking stereotype of liberals that a conservative could imagine, and you alienate the 25-40% (depending on the poll) of Democratic households that own guns.

    Does being wrong and digging your heels in on being wrong actually help either side in the debate or advance the discussion in any way whatsover?

    •  well-written, Shamash. Thanks for being (0+ / 0-)

      more eloquent and graceful than I was in addressing the diarist's factless claims.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:28:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shamash, the NRA might say you are WRONG (0+ / 0-)

      You mocked TS4C for saying that some states ban the .223 because they have flat land;

      The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
          1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
      ~Teamsarah4choice
      You mocked TS4C with this:
      How silly of me. That's why these states allow hunting with weapons more powerful than the .223. Really? Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
      ~Shamash
      Yet Shamash, read what J.R. Robbins of the NRA wrote when a Virginia County banned rifles for deer hunting:
      Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
      ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
      Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with waht the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
      The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
          1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
      ~Teamsarah4choice
      Thus, you have not proven TS4C wrong.  In fact, you have shown that TS4C knows more about what he/she is talking about than you do.  

      At least TS4C comment reflected what the NRA employee J.R Robbins wrote.

      So to answer the question you mockingly asked TS4C:

      Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
      ANS: No, it is not a facepalm statement and it is one TS4C can stand by as the NRA even stands by it ... but your comment Shamash, to TS4C is definitely a facepalm statement.

      Nothing you wrote proved TS4C was wrong and apparently TS4C comments are supported by the NRA.

      By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.

      •  You are not illiterate (0+ / 0-)

        So there must be some other problem. First, why should I give a rat's ass what the NRA says? Not a member, never have been one, they've been loony since the 70's. Unless you are going to be quoting them as a credible source, in which case you're on the wrong web site.

        Let's recap:

        The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
            1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
        Note the text in bold. Read it a couple times until it is clear. She did not say "rifles", she did not say "high-powered rifles", she said hunting was specifically banned state-wide for one particular rifle in one particular caliber, a rifle which she singles out in multiple followup comments as not being powerful enough for deer hunting, despite the first-hand contradictions of multiple deer hunters (including myself). Why does she contradict actual deer hunters? She heard it on the internet, so it must be true!

        There is absolutely no mention or even the implication by her of states banning rifles more powerful than this or even banning other rifles using the exact same caliber. Maybe she is a poor writer. Maybe she is just obsessed with a particular caliber. Maybe she will come back and say "hey, you were right, I should have written that more clearly and not been so knee-jerk defensive about my perfect accuracy on all things "gun".

        And maybe pigs will fly.

        Second, I believe I did mention that localities (which last I checked, are not states) have banned rifles for hunting for exactly the reason I mentioned.

        So:
        1) She picked out a specific weapon and specific caliber for its danger
        2) Even though she also claims it is underpowered, then
        3) Ignores everything that is more dangerous, and
        4) Misrepresents local prohibitions as state-wide bans

        Then you step in and double the idiocy, by supporting her claim of a state-wide ban on all hunting with a particular caliber by conflating it with a local ban on one type of hunting with a type of weapon.

        And that intellectual misadventure is the best response you generate against my entire long comment? Are you sure you're not just a conservative who wandered in here by accident and was too dim to realize he was on the wrong web page?

        By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.
        I would presume you accept then that just because she states that there is such a ban somewhere, that it does not mean she is correct, either. It's her diary, if she can show me many state-wide bans on "hunting" with "rifles", I will cheerfully retract that statement and apologize for doubting her. Remember, the statement that she insists is accurate is (parentheses mine)
        many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting(generic) with any(generic) type of rifle(generic)
        There's your challenge. Pass it on to the entire internet for all I care. Get a pro-RKBA person to apologize. All you have to do is find something like "many of 50 states" that ban all hunting with all rifles. And FYI, even tiny Rhode Island allows some rifles for hunting, including the .223 for use against coyote, so begin your search elsewhere.

        Her diary was well-meaning, just riddled with errors. You took it up a notch. It is comments like yours that make me long for the days when you needed an IQ of 130 just to figure out how to send an email. We had contentious political discussions back in the 110 baud days of teletype machines and paper tape readers, just like we do now. Except you knew that the person on the other side of the debate wasn't a moron.

        •  Shamash, TS4C is correct some states do ban .223 (0+ / 0-)

          AR-15 and/or any other .223

          first:
          It sounds like you don't know much about the AR-15 because TS4C is correct, some states do have a state-wide ban on hunting with an .223 AR15 and any other .223

          I can't speak to all the states and I don't know which states TS4C was talking about but here are just a few states that I know of that have a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223 AR15 and/or any other .223: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia (some counties in Virginia ban any rifle)

          second:
          You mocked TS4C for a comment that was nearly identical to a comment an employee of the NRA said ... sounds like you need to give yourself a facepalm on that one.

          third:
          If you think TS4C is the only person who says a .223 is not big enough to put a deer down effectively then you don't know many hunters.  Plenty of people agree with the stance TS4C has and plenty don't.

          Here's what Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox says on hunting a deer with a .223 and why there is a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223:

          “We could argue ‘til the cows come home, but we err on the conservative side of achieving humane and ethical kills,”
          ~Matt Knox
          Are you going to call him up and tell him he's wrong and you are right?

          fourth:
          Maybe, TS4C does not mention any state-wide ban on rifles more powerful than a .223 because there are none?  Perhaps, the states TS4C is referring to, like the ones I listed above do not ban rifles more powerful than a .223 because a more powerful gun can put down the deer effectively.

          fifth:
          I notice you conveniently left out the comment TS4C wrote before she wrote the one you are harping on (even though you've been proven wrong on the one you'r harping on)

          - many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber.

          ~Teamsarah4choice

          It is very evident to anyone who can read that TS4C clarified why the AR-15 is banned, "due to its .223 caliber"

          Then TS4C went on to explain the reason for the ban is twofold and both 1) and 2) have been substantiated.
           1) was substantiated by the NRA employee, J.R. Robbins, and
          2) was substantiated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox.

          sixth:
          The reason I gave you the NRA employee's comment on the VA county ban was because you mocked TS4C for saying the same dang thing the NRA employee said.

          Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
          ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
          Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with what the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
          The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
              1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
          ~Teamsarah4choice
          seventh
          I have no idea if TS4C is correct about there being any state that does not allow hunting with any rifle.  But, that seems to be the only illegitimate question there is ... however, you did not question TS4C as to which state(s) don't allow rifles you, instead, pretended like you actually knew more than you apparently do and you wrote:
          there is so much factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts.

          ... Everything else you said about guns was both irrelevant to the father's actions and pretty much wrong.
          ~Shamash

          Fact is, Shamash, you are wrong.  There is not "so much factually wrong" as even I have proven that you are the one was wrong.

          And "everything else" TS4C wrote about guns is not wrong -- you were wrong.

          eighth:
          You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that "everything else" TS4C "said about guns is wrong."

          And You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that there is "so much" about what TS4C wrote that is "factually wrong"

          You tossed out your false accusations when, as it turns out, you had no idea what you were talking about.

          It boils to:
          There is one comment TS4C has in her diary that is questionable -- that neither you nor I know if it is true -- but just because there is one questionable comment does not take away from the fact that you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

          I suggest that the next time you say someone is "factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts." that you actually do some research so you don't end up looking " ignorant " by showing you do not knowing what you are talking about.

          •  I take it back (0+ / 0-)

            Wow.
            You are illiterate, or suffer from some other cognitive disorder. You either cannot understand what you read, or suffer from an ideological bias that blinds you to things you do not want to see. There is no point in engaging in a fact-based debate with someone who is incapable of understanding, let alone accepting facts. I've dealt with young-earth Creationists who have a better grasp on reality.

            Though all you've done is waste my time and make yourself look foolish, I'm sure that in your mental Bizarro-land you will congratulate yourself for your intellectual prowess and putting me in my place.

            Good luck with the rest of your life. You're going to need it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site