Bias - BS - Lies - News - Social Media

lollerwaffle said:
I really like books, but sometimes you want to know about current events, like things that happened today or yesterday or 1-2 weeks ago. Books can give you background knowledge to better understand what might be behind some reports, but you still kind of need the reports.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, Im not saying live in the woods and only read books like a hermit. Although, living in the woods sounds nice.
 
This pretty much encapsulates how "news" is little more than carefully controlled propaganda from a very few, very powerful corporations:

media.jpg
 
motomonkey said:
So, a large magazine makes a difference when people are shooting back, but doesn't help when shooting people that are helpless? A light weight, rugged reliable rifle, that can fire many rounds rapidly and accurately sounds like it would be extra efficient at the job it was designed for, more so than a hunting rifle that was designed to fire only a few accurate shots.

I'll just restate my original argument, the Army doesn't carry a bolt action deer rifle, because Assault rifles are better for the job. You can argue that a "hunting rifle" would have been just as deadly all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that an AR-15 is a more efficient weapon at killing. I've used them both for a long time, I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and you are just repeating NRA propaganda. I'm am firmly against gun control, but trying to deny the reality of how weapons work only fools the ignorant.
Click to expand...

A bullet from a hunting rifle will kill you just as dead as one from an assault rifle...
 
motomonkey said:
Deleting my post, to defuse a potential flame war, let's just say I disagree and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Look, I don't disagree that an AR-15 is more efficient at killing than the average hunting rifle. What I'm saying is that in the situation where someone is killing unarmed civilians in an enclosed area, that level efficiency is not necessary to produce a high body count. And even if this latest sicko had used a hunting rifle instead and killed one or two less people, I doubt that people would have been saying, "Whew, it's a good thing he didn't have an AR-15. That would have been a real tragedy." The rush to ban or restrict sales of "assault" rifles won't solve this problem; that is just safety theater and empty rhetoric.
 
PaulP said:
Look, I don't disagree that an AR-15 is more efficient at killing than the average hunting rifle. What I'm saying is that in the situation where someone is killing unarmed civilians in an enclosed area, that level efficiency is not necessary to produce a high body count. And even if this latest sicko had used a hunting rifle instead and killed one or two less people, I doubt that people would have been saying, "Whew, it's a good thing he didn't have an AR-15. That would have been a real tragedy." The rush to ban or restrict sales of "assault" rifles won't solve this problem; that is just safety theater and empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

One or two people would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top