America, wake up: It's time to repeal the Second Amendment

218 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

josh wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

 

I'm not trying to be saradonic but an assault-rifle ban would not have saved any lives. The firearm used wasn't an assault rifle.  Many more people die from choking on hot dogs in the US than deaths from an actual assault rifle.

The term assault weapon is another one of those misnomers. Essentially the way they consider different firearms "assault weapons" is like you painting flames on your ford station wagon and it being considered a race car.

What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.   This would effect stereotypical hunting rifles right along side the scary army looking ones (which function the same way) but at least there's some form of argument backing it.

Please support the choking on a hot dog assertion. I'm very interested. And for what purpose would any civilian own an AR 15. Which fires, I've seen 8 or 13 rounds, per second. Not for hunting deer, surely. For hunting people makes a lot more sense.

 

a civilian AR15 does not fire 8-13 rounds per second. They fire a bullet as fast as you can pull a trigger.  The faster you shoot the less accurate you are and more likely to miss. By and large the military moved away from fully automatic rifles (squeeze the trigger and fire 30 bullets in one burst more or less) because you can't hit shit with them.

You could argue that in a tightly packed room such as a night club accuraccy is less of an issue if you're firing a lot of bullets and you wouldn't be wrong, but a shotgun can essentially fire 11 (or more) deadly projectiles at once from one bullet and my shotgun holds 14 so thats 154 projectiles in a few seconds.

 

 

For the assault rifles easy.  Assault rifles are fully automatic and very cost prohibited and difficult to obtain. According to the FBI only 2 legally owned ones have been used in murders in the USA.  Number of murders committed with rifles (all types) is around 250. Semi-automatic, single shot, bolt action, pump-action, which encompass thousands of different models.

 

2500 people die from choking and hot dogs are the leading cause of choking deaths in children (or possibly children under 3?).

Assault rifles are not used for murders in the US. Rifles themselves count for very few murders.

 

Paladin1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/suspected-killer-of-british-lawmake...

 

Murdered with what appears to be a home made gun. A home made gun the shooter researched how to make on the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcEmbsEyc5o

Interesting video of a guy making a gun with materials he bought at an airport after passing through security.  There's a bunch of videos showing people how to make guns with homemade stuff. we can also 3D print guns.

6079_Smith_W

Why does this remind me of those arguments about bananas giving you more radiation than living next to a nuclear plant, or that volcano in Hawaii giving off more sulfur dioxide than all the oil operations in the U.S?

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

josh wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second. 

I'm not trying to be saradonic but an assault-rifle ban would not have saved any lives. The firearm used wasn't an assault rifle.  Many more people die from choking on hot dogs in the US than deaths from an actual assault rifle.

The term assault weapon is another one of those misnomers. Essentially the way they consider different firearms "assault weapons" is like you painting flames on your ford station wagon and it being considered a race car.

What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.   This would effect stereotypical hunting rifles right along side the scary army looking ones (which function the same way) but at least there's some form of argument backing it.

Please support the choking on a hot dog assertion. I'm very interested. And for what purpose would any civilian own an AR 15. Which fires, I've seen 8 or 13 rounds, per second. Not for hunting deer, surely. For hunting people makes a lot more sense.

 

a civilian AR15 does not fire 8-13 rounds per second. They fire a bullet as fast as you can pull a trigger.  The faster you shoot the less accurate you are and more likely to miss. By and large the military moved away from fully automatic rifles (squeeze the trigger and fire 30 bullets in one burst more or less) because you can't hit shit with them.

You could argue that in a tightly packed room such as a night club accuraccy is less of an issue if you're firing a lot of bullets and you wouldn't be wrong, but a shotgun can essentially fire 11 (or more) deadly projectiles at once from one bullet and my shotgun holds 14 so thats 154 projectiles in a few seconds.

 

 

For the assault rifles easy.  Assault rifles are fully automatic and very cost prohibited and difficult to obtain. According to the FBI only 2 legally owned ones have been used in murders in the USA.  Number of murders committed with rifles (all types) is around 250. Semi-automatic, single shot, bolt action, pump-action, which encompass thousands of different models.

 

2500 people die from choking and hot dogs are the leading cause of choking deaths in children (or possibly children under 3?).

Assault rifles are not used for murders in the US. Rifles themselves count for very few murders.

 

Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second. 

And you didn't answer my question of why a civilian would want to own an AR 15, or a fully assault rifle.

 

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Ban guns in all urban areas.

No need to go door to door. All you need is appropriate and extremely severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of a gun in an urban area.

You'll still have shootings, stabbings, etc. - because the U.S. is a brutal, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-human society, which murders people around the world and in its own borders. Taking away individuals' guns won't change that. But my modest proposal will help.

Errr I don't think you've thought this one all the way through Unionist. You do realize those are mostly POC populated areas and they are the ones with the guns there, so this will effect mostly POC people right? Think about it...  

First, as I said in my previous post, my proposal is primarily for Canada. I really don't care that much what the U.S. does, as long as it stops committing economic and military aggression against the rest of the world. The people of the U.S. will deal with their brutish rulers - or not. Up to them.

Second, the reason for banning guns from urban areas (which will require definition obviously - but it includes towns, villages...) is that there is no legitimate use for them there - i.e. hunting. Sports, training, etc. can be moved into the country. If that's seen as an inconvenience, well, cope with it.

Third, I don't really care what colour people are when it comes to protecting people from death and injury by firearm. I don't believe the majority of the urban population, in either the U.S. or Canada, are persons of colour. But if it will help get you onside, let's reduce the "severe penalties", give "white" people in urban areas one year to dispose of their firearms, and then 5 years for persons of colour.

See - I'm willing to compromise.

No individual "needs" guns, except to hunt animals in accordance with the appropriate legislation. And no, I don't share that "gotta shoot the coyotes to protect my sheep" talking point. No individual "needs" handguns anywhere ever - except, of course, in the bedside drawer for self-defence against intruders, right? So a lot could be done, if anyone cared. In the U.S., so far, no one cares enough.

swallow

Do what Australia did. 

Sadly, the USA is incapable of learning from other countries or even admitting that otehr countries have their good points. 

6079_Smith_W
josh
Paladin1

josh wrote:

Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second. 

And you didn't answer my question of why a civilian would want to own an AR 15, or a fully assault rifle.

 

Ah that's it's cyclic rate, which is actually 900 rounds a minute. Physically it doesn't quite fire 13 rounds in a second. Attempting to fire an AR15 on fullauto at 900 rounds a minute will melt the barrel and at best cause the firearm to cease and at worst explode.

 

As for why a civilian would want a an AR15 or fully automatic assault rifle it's a tricky answer and won't really make sense to anyone who isn't interested in firearms IMO.  If I could make a comparason it would be like me saying why own a Porche or Ferrari? Why own a street bike or giant house when you're single.

The why for an AR15 is a number of reasons I'd say. It's a solid, dependable, accurate firearm which is very modular and customizable. They're easy for novice gun smiths or gun enthusiasts to tinker with. Simple to shoot. Intermediate cartridge which is appealing shooters with smaller statues, often women and children. They range from $600 to $6000. It's a really well built firearm.

They're excellent for target shooting, hunting & collecting.

As far as fully automatic? Well they're already very difficult to own and expensive. They're next to never used in crime. WHY would someone want one?  I don't, ammunition is too expensive. But taking a guess I'd say because someone want the novelty of it. Someone wants to compete in gun competitions where there are burst fire (full auto) applications. It's something someone simply wants to own.  The media has this big spin on assault rifles but seriously, they're next to never used in crimes and they're actually quite inaccurate. Justin Borque who shot those RCMP officers searched how to turn his semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle on the internet. He didn't bother doing it because he realized how stupidand unreliable it was. Fully automatic weapons isn't really an issue.

The issue is the media is on a crusade against a certian style of firearm and that firearm is hardly ever used in crime but it looks scary.

 

 

 

A gun store reported Mateen to the FBI after he asked suspicious questions about body armor then bulk ammunition. The FBI didn't follow it up.  Banning AR15s wouldn't have prevented the shooting but maybe investigating this guy for a 3rd time might have.

josh

I don't give a damn what gun enthusiasts and novelty seekers like. Public safety comes first. There's no reason that these military-type weapons should be available for sale to civilians. And if the gun weren't available for sale, the killer couldn't have bought it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They're easy for novice gun smiths or gun enthusiasts to tinker with.

So, file down the sear pin, or add a homemade supressor... that sort of thing?  :0

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

OK,  but what does any of that have to do with the bit you quoted?

I'm just suggesting that maybe it might make sense to worry about the lethality of a weapon instead of the appearance of it.  Does that make sense on its own, irrespective of any analogy?

It was your analogy, not mine. If you want to abandon it, that's fine by me.

Paladin1

josh wrote:
I don't give a damn what gun enthusiasts and novelty seekers like.

1. You asked.

2. They don't give a damn what you think either.

3. They have a hell of a lot of money to throw around and politicians love money.

4. See #2

Quote:

Public safety comes first.

I agree

Quote:
There's no reason that these military-type weapons should be available for sale to civilians.

Please don't fall for the "military grade weapons" speel. More often than not military "grade" weapons are made by the"lowest bidder" and over all will be more shitty quality.

Quote:
And if the gun weren't available for sale, the killer couldn't have bought it.
And he would have bought another style of gun and killed just as many people. If not at a store then black market. Or Stole one.  Or made a bomb. Or started a fire. He wanted to kill people, not letting him buy a SIG Sauer AR15 style rifle wouldn't have prevented that.

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
They're easy for novice gun smiths or gun enthusiasts to tinker with.

So, file down the sear pin, or add a homemade supressor... that sort of thing?  :0

Exactly! Only filed down seers are prone to breaking causing gun jams and suppressors mean less muzzle velocity/ energy (less damage) and prone to jams since the gas system isn't set to fire with suppressors Laughing

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Nah, I'll stick with it.  I get that cars weren't "designed to kill", but it's funny how frightfully good they are at it anyway.  And I still think that banning the colour of car that most speeding/reckless drivers "seem to prefer" would be as silly as banning a particular shape of  gun because so many unhinged shooters "seem to prefer" it.

And I'll ask this again:  if guns are "designed to kill", how is it that so very many of them, even those carried or used on a daily basis, don't seem to? 

Is it just the most piss-poor "design" in the history of design??  I mean, if you own a gun for 20 years and somehow it never murders even one person, shouldn't you have grounds for a refund or something??

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

josh wrote:
I don't give a damn what gun enthusiasts and novelty seekers like.

1. You asked.

2. They don't give a damn what you think either.

3. They have a hell of a lot of money to throw around and politicians love money.

4. See #2

Quote:

Public safety comes first.

I agree

Quote:
There's no reason that these military-type weapons should be available for sale to civilians.

Please don't fall for the "military grade weapons" speel. More often than not military "grade" weapons are made by the"lowest bidder" and over all will be more shitty quality.

Quote:
And if the gun weren't available for sale, the killer couldn't have bought it.
And he would have bought another style of gun and killed just as many people. If not at a store then black market. Or Stole one.  Or made a bomb. Or started a fire. He wanted to kill people, not letting him buy a SIG Sauer AR15 style rifle wouldn't have prevented that.

And you know this, how? And if it could have resulted in him killing fewer than 49 people it would have saved lives. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, nothing should be illegal. Because there will always be someone who will break the law.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

We're so cynical about the War on Drugs, but so optimistic about the War on Guns.

"If we make them illegal then they'll be hard to get and people will just give up!"

Paladin1

josh wrote:

  And you know this, how? And if it could have resulted in him killing fewer than 49 people it would have saved lives. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, nothing should be illegal. Because there will always be someone who will break the law.

 

He wanted to kill people. He killed 50 and wounded just as many more. I think it's afe to say he wouldn't be disuaded from his sick goal by not being able to buy an AR15 clone. Besides, how do you know most of the deaths didn't come from the pistol he was carrying and used?

Speaking of which you mention saving likes like a lot of other people are. Yet, you seem to be zeroing in on semi-automatic rifles which the FBI points out is responsible for (actually contributes to) 250 annual murders or so.  Why overlook handguns that are responsible for 5500+ murders annually?  If you want to save lives why not go for what stastically causes the most deaths?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

 

First, as I said in my previous post, my proposal is primarily for Canada. I really don't care that much what the U.S. does, as long as it stops committing economic and military aggression against the rest of the world.

Sorry didn't see the first post... seeing how the thread subject is about the USA I thought that is what you were talking/suggesting about (not Canada).

 

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

josh wrote:

  And you know this, how? And if it could have resulted in him killing fewer than 49 people it would have saved lives. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, nothing should be illegal. Because there will always be someone who will break the law.

 

He wanted to kill people. He killed 50 and wounded just as many more. I think it's afe to say he wouldn't be disuaded from his sick goal by not being able to buy an AR15 clone. Besides, how do you know most of the deaths didn't come from the pistol he was carrying and used?

Speaking of which you mention saving likes like a lot of other people are. Yet, you seem to be zeroing in on semi-automatic rifles which the FBI points out is responsible for (actually contributes to) 250 annual murders or so.  Why overlook handguns that are responsible for 5500+ murders annually?  If you want to save lives why not go for what stastically causes the most deaths?

Because there are legitimate reasons for civilians to own handguns. There are no legitimate reasons for civilians to own assault and semi-assault rifles.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Why are we putting up with gun advocates here? Crawl back into your holes, trolls.

Paladin1

josh wrote:

 Because there are legitimate reasons for civilians to own handguns. There are no legitimate reasons for civilians to own assault and semi-assault rifles.

So rifles are responsible for 250 murders annually and handguns are responsible for 5500+.  But there are legitimate reasons to own handguns and not semi-automatic rifles.  Could you please tell me what those legitimate handgun ownership reasons are compared to rifles?

montrealer58 wrote:

Why are we putting up with gun advocates here? Crawl back into your holes, trolls.

Don't you just hate it when someone has informed technical knowledge on something you just want to scream about and vilify based on emotion and subject unfamiliarity?  Maybe you can make a rabble reaction post about how you'd like only one sided views expressed here? Make a thread on the US repealing the 2nd amendment and ban anyone who disagrees.

 

And in case you forgot the rules

Quote:

babble: discussion board

As part of rabble.ca, babble was created to ensure that readers and participants could explore a wide range of issues of interest and concern in interactive and dynamic ways.

babble terms and conditions

All babblers agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory. You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling").

abnormal

Let's be realistic.  If Sandy Hook didn't get any results there is no reason to think that Orlando will.  Simply put, any debate over gun control ended when shooting school kids didn't accomplish anything.

6079_Smith_W

josh wrote:

 Because there are legitimate reasons for civilians to own handguns.

I hear your point, but no, there aren't. Rifles yes. Handguns no.

 

 

swallow

The debate is 1,000% hypotheticals.

Why do Americans refuse to look at evidence, with Australia as the perfect text case of how effectrive gun control might be? 

The issue affects Canada, since gun culture spills over the border easily. (Thus the rise of a gun lobby in Canada, when previously we had a lot of people who used guns, but no vast gun-festishist lobby.) 

josh

6079_Smith_W wrote:

josh wrote:

 Because there are legitimate reasons for civilians to own handguns.

I hear your point, but no, there aren't. Rifles yes. Handguns no.

 

 


I'm referring to automatic and semi-automatic rifles.

Unionist

abnormal wrote:

Let's be realistic.  If Sandy Hook didn't get any results there is no reason to think that Orlando will.  Simply put, any debate over gun control ended when shooting school kids didn't accomplish anything.

Thank you for stating the plain obvious truth. That's why I keep bumping the "Tragedy in Connecticut" thread - because no one down south cares or remembers any more.

Though why anyone here chooses to keep debating with gun-fetish trolls continues to elude me.

It is painful to listen to the hypocritical "thoughts and prayers" of the Obamas and Clintons, who could implement gun control in a minute (using financial reward and punishment, or blackmailing Congress by using veto powers, etc.) if they actually weren't too cowardly or uncaring to do so.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

abnormal wrote:

Let's be realistic.  If Sandy Hook didn't get any results there is no reason to think that Orlando will.  Simply put, any debate over gun control ended when shooting school kids didn't accomplish anything.

From Aug. 31, 2015:

Paladin1

Charles Whitman's primary weapon in the shooting of 49 students was a bolt action rifle.

Derrick Bird killed 12 people and injured 11 others using a bolt action (.22 caliber) rifle and and double barrel 12 gague shotgun.

 

Is the theory that you can't shoot a bolt action fast?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC3zsPOIYag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQe8wivEnG8

 

And here is a video from Austrailia showing rapid fire with a double barrel shotgun and lever action shotgun (remember shotgun shells contain multiple projectiles each)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHEi3a08wE

josh

What's your point? You want these to be banned as well?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That's why I keep bumping the "Tragedy in Connecticut" thread - because no one down south cares or remembers any more.

Well,

Ten families of Sandy Hook victims are suing the maker of the AR-15 assault rifle

Quote:
The case revolves around the idea of negligent entrustment. 

"In plain language, that means carelessly giving someone something dangerous," says Feldman and compares it to the prospect of a car dealership selling a car to someone who has lost his or her license for driving drunk.

It's maybe a bit of a Hail Mary pass, and I'm not sure whether their claim is that there's actually something about this gun that makes it meaningfully different from any other semi-auto rifle, or whether it's that Adam Lanza should never have touched one (or any like it) but after Orlando, who knows where this might land?

Unionist

josh wrote:

What's your point? You want these to be banned as well?

You know his "point". I know his "point". Guns guns guns are good. People are baaaaaad. Some point.

swallow

Quote:
Any meaningful change

A year later, there is one cosmetic change. The Confederate flag no longer flies at the state Capitol complex.

And since June 17, 2015, President Barack Obama has delivered more words of regret after more mass shootings -- four in the past year.

Congress has failed to pass any meaningful legislation concerning guns, even broadly favored proposals such as expanding background checks.

"It's a shared responsibility," Clark said. "I believe that we must deal with gun reform. There's nothing wrong with the right to bear arms. We ought to make sure those who bear arms, they're qualified to do so."

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/us/charleston-mass-shooting-anniversary/]One year after racist shooting in Charleston, South Carolina[/url]

Unionist

From swallow's link:

Quote:
"It's a shared responsibility," Clark said. "I believe that we must deal with gun reform. There's nothing wrong with the right to bear arms. We ought to make sure those who bear arms, they're qualified to do so."

Because she's anointed by "God", she must be really moral and good. She's nothing but another dirty little enabler of murder. The perfect American.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Seriously? That's what you take away from the first anniversary of the Charleston racist shootings? 

Not at all. That's what I take away from the enablers of U.S. brutality to its own people. There was a time when you could find a movement for progress in the U.S. People like this religious faker would have had no currency. Now she gets a media podium.

Why... what do you "take away" from the first anniversary of these racist shootings? What I take away is that no one in the U.S. gives a fuck.

swallow

[deleted]

josh
NorthReport

End America’s Mass Shooting Epidemic the Republican Way withThoughts & Prayers: The Game

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/18/solve_mass_shootings_with...

 

NorthReport

What's needed is a class action suit against the gun manufacturers just like the class action lawsuits that crippled the tobacco industry. And as sure as the sun shines somewhere tomorrow, it's coming.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Today's comic:

6079_Smith_W

Aside from the fact it is not true that no one down there cares, how is us sitting back and saying "they are just Americans, who cares" any less a part of that deadly cycle?

If it is necessary to show a direct link (and I do not think it is required in order to show concern and solidarity) that link is there - in NRA influence on lobbying in Canada, in the flow of guns across our border, and in the influence of gun culture here generally.

I just posted a link to some of that propaganda in the other thread. Here it is:

http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/macpherson-how-an-interior-...

Quote:

It was not by accident that the Orlando shootings occurred in a venue where concealed firearms were expressly prohibited. The patrons were defenceless. Florida is among the gun-friendliest of states with the highest rates of concealed carry. Almost anywhere else in the city, the perpetrator could have been confronted by armed civilians before he killed more than 50 people.

If there’s another way to stop these massacres, I can’t think of it.

That border doesn't separate us from any of this.

 

NorthReport

Support for gun control rising in wake of Orlando slaughter
And increased by 9% to 55% in latest poll

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

What's your point? You want these to be banned as well?

You know his "point". I know his "point". Guns guns guns are good. People are baaaaaad. Some point.

So you're saying guns don't kill people on their own accord but people do?

Yes, I agree. specifically speaking people are badder than guns. Yup.

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Today's comic:

 

I think that's pretty accurate Michael. I was pretty annoyed at all the gun types (gun nuts? gunnies?) acting all tut tut because the media incorrectly labeled the Sig Sauer rifle used in the shooting as an AR15.  For all intents and purposeses it was an AR15 close.

 

Pretty stupid to try and make a big deal out of such a small distinction as if it made a difference.

Paladin1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-pc5xzRg0E

Jeffrey Robinson trying to argue why the US should repeal the 2nd amendment. Succeeds in being a mysognist and shooting himself in the foot with shitty debating.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I was pretty annoyed at all the gun types (gun nuts? gunnies?) acting all tut tut because the media incorrectly labeled the Sig Sauer rifle used in the shooting as an AR15.

To be fair, it was a pretty good "shut up" because the media, and gun critics, voluntarily chose to obsess over AR-15's (and similarly, Glocks) quite voluntarily. 

[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/v8flv5.jpg[/IMG]

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:
Support for gun control rising in wake of Orlando slaughter And increased by 9% to 55% in latest poll

 

The number of AR15 sales is also up too.

Paladin1

Did you read about the journalist who got tempoary PTSD from firing an AR15?  He's taking quite the shit kicking on twitter apparently.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-...

 

Quote:
The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

By comparason my 10 and 6 year old daughters  (latter weighing just over 50lbs) fired a short barrel AR15 (more kick) with no tears, no bruises and no PTSD.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick.

I'm familiar with the smell of sulfur.  What's "destruction" smell like?**

Can't help thinking this journalist went in with a few preconceived notions.

 

** not asking for similarly melodramatic crap like "crying children who'll never see their parents again".  But I'd accept answers along the lines of "sort of like cinnamon" or whatever.

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

Did you read about the journalist who got tempoary PTSD from firing an AR15?  He's taking quite the shit kicking on twitter apparently.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-...

 

Quote:
The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

By comparason my 10 and 6 year old daughters  (latter weighing just over 50lbs) fired a short barrel AR15 (more kick) with no tears, no bruises and no PTSD.


Someone should nominate you for father of the year.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And someone should nominate that journalist for Journalist of the Year.  He was willing to smell "destruction" in order to get the "real" story.

Pages