The gun the Orlando shooter used was not an AR-15

And there are other civilian models of the AKM without full auto bolt carriers. Compare them. We are comparing a semi-auto rifle with another semi-auto rifle. How are they functionally different?

And no one mentioned anything about the shooter in the scenario having a bayonet, so what practical effect does a bayonet lug have?

You seem to love to add bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and muddy the waters of a debate.

 

But just between you and me, you already know which one would be more effective in gunning down gays in a bar, right?

Yeah, that's the vibe I got from you guys. It's why I'm here.

- - - Updated - - -

See? Now we've corrected the mistakes of two terrorist attacks. Good for us!

 

I'm not saying you're using the wrong term, you just keep repeating it. It IS very minor, however, when the weapon reported isn't the weapon that was used, it could be a big deal. That was the point of the thread.

 

Wait...
Rifles should be outlawed because the rounds they fire cause more damage than those from handguns?
Isn't that the point of having a rifle?
How does this mean rifles should be banned?

 

Yes, strange and creepy.

 

The Dr. is being dishonest. You are being gullible. My 30-30 lever action rifle will produce far more damage than any .223, period.

 

Strange and Creepy. Have you looked at your Avatar lately?

 

See Thirty6BelowZero? Creepy.

 

It was SIX surgeons all of whom treated the wounded from the Orlando nightclub shooting....do you think they have some evil motive so they lie about their work?
You REALLY think they have an anti-gun agenda so they spoke out?? Ridiculous...and surgeons know MORE than YOU what damage bullets cause, YOU have NEVER operated on someone with gunshot wounds..

 

This is an OP who is in desperation mode to find an excuse for using these type weapons. The mere fact that someone can get their hands on a weapon like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw is the whole point. The weapon in that video is fully automatic and can fire off hundreds of rounds in less than a minute. Stop trying to pretend these weapons should be sold to the general public, when it has been proven that they are capable of becoming a one man's war, if he or she so chooses.

 

Can you name a single practical way in which the Sig is different from the Ruger 10/22? It has a rifle stock, and a barrel, and a trigger and if you pull that trigger it goes bang.

The thing is that someone does something nefarious with a Sig MCX, and you want to ban some other gun that looks kinda like it does, makes no sense and instills distrust as to your true intentions. You are relying on lies and fabrications to demonize the AR15, we all know that already, my question is why do you believe those lies?

 

Roll my eyes.

If they banned "AR-15's", the legal definition would be such that its derivatives would be banned as well.

 

Just gunna point out that if you are defending yourself with a bayonet you're not reloading, and ifor it's more than one guy blindly running into a blade your rampage is over. Also a knife would have the same effect, machete if you really want to amp things up. It's absolutely pointless to ban. I'd much rather some deranged idiot try to run around stabbing people than run off, reload, and come back.

 

Gulli-bull. SMH.

 

Why don't you understand that a bullet does more or less the same damage regardless of the gun it is fired from?
Why don't you understand that rifle bullets almost always do more damage than handgun bullets?
Why don't you understand that stating the bullets from an 'assault weapon' do the same damage as bullets from the same caliber bolt-action rifle?
To knowledgeable people, a statement that 5.56x45 bullets do "more damage" than those from "some guns" is a statement of the obvious and nothing more.

 

Here's a big practical difference:

Significantly more lethal ammunition with an MCX.

Why are you lying about me? Perhaps you can quote where I support banning AR's? I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing own one.

 

The Sig MCX killed 49 people in a very short period of time. That isn't enough for you? What if the shooter got his hands on this rifle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw? You don't have a problem with that one either?

 

Several of us have been trained in the military and know that the proper use of the bayonet is not relegated to holding it stationary out in front of you hoping some bad guy runs into it.

 

There are dozens of uses for 'assault weapons', all perfectly common and legal -- no one needs to find an excuse to to use them.

And therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Your point, negated.

 

No...
The homophobic gay Islamic Jihadist killed 49 people in a very short period of time
Why don't you want to ban homophobic gay Islamic Jihadists?

 

John Henry Holliday was one badass sumbirch thank you very much...

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah no. Maybe it's you. I'm just not seeing how that would relate to killing more gays at a nightclub. He accurately stated that his 30-30 was more powerful than a .223 bullet.

 

Okay! Don't shoot me!

Read what he's responding to, and remember he's not talking power, but damage.

 

.30-30 does more damage than 5.56
That's why it is regularly used for deer, while 5.56 is considered too small.

 

no it being black in color and scary looking is what matters
take away the pistol grip put on a wooden stock and it magically transforms into a non threating hunting rifle

 

So imagine if you shot it at a hundred gay people in a nightclub as we were earlier!