Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On 7/25/2024 10:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I've been asking for truly practical applications of AR capabilities in civilian hands, to show societal benefits that balance their obvious societal detriments. There's no straw man involved.On 7/25/2024 8:57 PM, John B. wrote:Professionals use a Remington 700 or similar bolt action with a relatively slow potential rate of fire and at .30cal much less drop. You're still looking for a straw man which is easy to demolish.>>
In the beginning of this post there is a statement by Frankie
"The guns I argue against are absolutely designed to kill people"
And, as I've pointed out time after time there are a multitude of
firearms that have been built to kill people ranging, in the U.S. from
the U.S. Musket Model 1795, Musket.
Does Frankie condemn flint lock muskets?
Nope. As a matter of generous compromise on my part, I think there should be very few laws against flintlock muskets. You _might_ even be able to convince me that open carry of flintlock musket is reasonable.
>
Why? Mostly because of firing rate. But also because of a higher required level of skill. I think few gang bangers and homicidal maniacs can operate one. Trading every AR for a musket would seriously cut the number of mass shootings.
>
And after all, it was flintlock muskets that the writers of the second amendment had in mind when they wrote it. AFAIK there's no evidence that they envisioned 8 rounds in six seconds, or many dozens of rounds into the bodies of little kids in a classroom.
>Or to put it another way.... Frankie doesn't know what he is talking>
about.
Translation: "Frank doesn't worship guns the way I do, so I'm going to attack him with technical trivia."
>
I'm saying AR-style guns have no practical value in civilian hands, but they impose serious societal harm. You agree they have no practical value, and you demonstrate that by not owning one.
>
Why do your actions contradict your arguments?
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.