Local gun shops see spikes in AR-15 rifle sales after school shooting

[Castrum]

Murican solidarity with the shooter. Sounds about right.

[Galaar]

Guns should only be for people who have a valid reason to own them.. like being a hunter is a valid reason to own a gun. "I like guns" is not a valid reason.

You should outlaw guns and offer people with then illegal guns a way to get rid of them without punishment for a limited time.

Wow you really are stupid.

1. The reason we have guns is that the Constitution gives us the right to. Period. Doesn't matter what the reason we want them is, it's our Constitutional right to have them.

2. Do you really believe that criminals would just walk in and give their guns up after taking them away from law abiding citizens? Seriously what Tide Pod have you been eating? Wake up and stop drinking the kool-aid the media is feeding you.

[netherflame]

i asked myself that very question.

Best answer i can come up on my own is that they don't NEED an AR-15 but WANT an AR-15.

Another example of people not knowing a need vs a want, 'MERCIA!

For shooting fun,

1. Guns aren't toys, 2. Ranges should start a new business where they will store guns for owners, anything larger then a handgun should be required to be stored away from the owners home unless there are very specific exceptions and clearances.

for power fantasy,

Make something of your life and you don't need to pretend you're "powerful."

for paramilitary "roleplaying".

Why roleplay when you could just go do the real thing and be in the military, I'm sure they'd appreciate you.

In a pure home invasion situation, a simple handgun would be more than enough to scare away the invader.

This.

[Delana]

Basically grown men acting like kids. They get really emotional when parents threaten to take their toys away. Emotional buyers are suckers for impulse purchases.

Every shooting I get some hysteria adverts from local dealers. Its like clockwork, more so than the tax rebate sales.

Or maybe the right wishes to maintain arms for their constitutional purpose which the left can't seem to wrap their minds around. I had hoped the purpose would be obvious with a "fascist" in office.

[Krigaren]

Are there non-tactical weapons?

Also, as someone who's lived through riots and earthquakes where emergency services weren't going to be able to get to you for hours I find your arguments hilarious.

Would you prefer I refer to them as assault weapons? Military weapons? Give me your preferred pronouns, since the terms change rapidly depending on who wants to be a butt-hurt pedant about it.

Your second statement begins where it should have ended. You survived. I bet you did it without having to murder all those thugs and criminals who were certainly going to rob you blind and kill you in your own home too, didn't you? Did you even fire a shot? Or have to flash your weapons at roving bands of rapists to scare them off? The choices are simple: you can be an adult and say 'no', or you could lie.

You also may find my argument hilarious, but I find yours sad, pathetic, and one that falls squarely into the "irrational fear" category I mentioned. Enjoy living in your world of perpetual paranoia and terror.

- - - Updated - - -

A teacher's job is stressful enough without having to go through mandatory gun training and the possibility of having to shoot someone

A teacher's job is stressful enough without having to worry about their school and their students being shot up by a kid who was able to stroll into Walmart one weekend and buy an AR-15 like it was a Lego set.

The problem isn't a lack of armed response. The problem is an overabundance of easy-to-buy mass murder weapons with little to no regulation or oversight required.

[jellmoo]

The Constitution can be changed, and has been many times. We had a constitutional right to have them to prevent total government takeover of the country back when it took, at best, over a minute to fire each round from even the most advanced tech of the era - Do you think even a rocket launcher would prevent a drone strike at this point? Should we legalize being able to drive tanks or military submarines?

The 'it's our Constitutional Right' argument doesn't hold up.

This! I think even more accurately, we could say: So fucking what? A piece of paper from over 200 years ago is fucking stupid thing to point at when kids are dying in schools.

The Constitution makes zero mention of what kind of arms the people should have access. I won't even mention weapons of the time, why don't we limit people to owning bolt action rifles and over-under shotguns? Would that be a problem? People still have their precious guns, only their application in a mass shooting scenario are now a lot less severe.

[Vankrys]

Wow you really are stupid.

1. The reason we have guns is that the Constitution gives us the right to. Period. Doesn't matter what the reason we want them is, it's our Constitutional right to have them.

you're holding on to a piece of legislature that predate automatic and semi automatic weapon, that even predate revolver. These are the freaking guns your forefathers had in mind.



The law must reflect the society and technology of the time. The constitution has changed in the past. If it hadn't, it would be legal for Trump to own Obama. The second amendment is outdated and unnecessary today.

[igualitarist]

Americans always had guns, and school shootings are pretty much a recent thing.

So i think something went wrong, and i cant really blame guns.

I mean, why isnt school shootings a problem since, lets say, 1950 ? Weren't americans as armed as today ? Those shootings actually happened, but were not reported ?or another alternative ? Like a cultural shift or mental health issues becoming a common thing, or maybe even a reflex of the moral degradation of american society ?

[Dispraise]

Good.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

[Krigaren]

Wow you really are stupid.

1. The reason we have guns is that the Constitution gives us the right to. Period. Doesn't matter what the reason we want them is, it's our Constitutional right to have them.

"A well regulated militia..."

Funny, the constitution says more than just, "give people guns."

2. Do you really believe that criminals would just walk in and give their guns up after taking them away from law abiding citizens? Seriously what Tide Pod have you been eating? Wake up and stop drinking the kool-aid the media is feeding you.

The irony of someone blasting on the media while spouting rhetoric fed by it.

[Zekthul]

This! I think even more accurately, we could say: So fucking what? A piece of paper from over 200 years ago is fucking stupid thing to point at when kids are dying in schools.

The Constitution makes zero mention of what kind of arms the people should have access. I won't even mention weapons of the time, why don't we limit people to owning bolt action rifles and over-under shotguns? Would that be a problem? People still have their precious guns, only their application in a mass shooting scenario are now a lot less severe.

It also doesn't say people have the right to free speech via the Internet, so maybe they should regulate it? Or that press applies to to broadcasts so maybe only government propaganda and vetted programing should be allowed?

[Deleted]

Not to mention AU has no land borders, it is much harder to smuggle something into AU than it is the US.

They don't need to smuggle guns when they have a big enough stock within the country borders.

Not to mention guns being smuggled from USA to Mexico is actually higher those smuggled from Mexico to USA.

[Tijuana]

you're holding on to a piece of legislature that predate automatic and semi automatic weapon, that even predate revolver. These are the freaking guns your forefathers had in mind.



The law must reflect the society and technology of the time. The constitution has changed in the past. If it hadn't, it would be legal for Trump to own Obama. The second amendment is outdated and unnecessary today.

You could not be more wrong. When the constitution was enacted, it wasn't just legal to have muskets. It was also legal to have wagon mounted machine guns, and fucking cannons. Are you telling me an AR-15 is more dangerous than a god damn cannon?

I also am still looking for ANYONE. Just ONE PERSON, to explain to me, using actual words, what it is the AR-15 does, that other semiautomatic guns don't do? Tell me how you legislate it away. How will you describe what you want to ban? Is it guns that are too light? Guns that shoot too straight? Guns that hold too many bullets, despite the #1 handgun in the world holding more? What does the gun do, SPECIFICALLY, that you people want to outlaw? It fundamentally functions the same way as any other semiautomatic rifle, it's just better at it.

Also, bringing up the date of the constitution doesn't matter. The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights amendments, and good luck taking away rights, without a full on shooting civil war.

[Vankrys]

"A well regulated militia..."

The british are coming back. They want to reclaim their 13 colonies and have an outstanding 250 years unpaid taxes.

Better arm the populace.

[Tijuana]

"A well regulated militia..."

Funny, the constitution says more than just, "give people guns."



The irony of someone blasting on the media while spouting rhetoric fed by it.

Except the SCOTUS has ruled TWICE that the Bill of Rights, does in fact pertain to the citizenry. Imagine that.

[chazus]

I was going to comment that perhaps shootings are performed by individuals, and not done by 'All Americans'... But there's already ten pages of 'burn the witch' here so I'll just pass on this one.

[Tijuana]

They don't need to smuggle guns when they have a big enough stock within the country borders.

Not to mention guns being smuggled from USA to Mexico is actually higher those smuggled from Mexico to USA.

Heck, our own government even sent weapons to Mexico, under Eric Holder's Fast and Furious law enforcement fiasco.

[Milchshake]

This kind of childish reasoning is why they are doing it, they know emotional people are trying to trample on their rights.

Sorry but people are asking for very reasonable policies concerning gun control.

But your understanding of reason versus emotion is as suspect as your understanding of what an "independent voter" is. It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.

[Vankrys]

You could not be more wrong. When the constitution was enacted, it wasn't just legal to have muskets. It was also legal to have wagon mounted machine guns, and fucking cannons. Are you telling me an AR-15 is more dangerous than a god damn cannon?

good luck on your future school shooting with a 200 years cannon man. I can already see you pushing the damn thing in the street, pass the gate of the school, loading the powder and the cannon ball into the cannon, lighting the powder with a torch and asking the student no to move too much in between reload.

Yeah, i totally believe an AR-15 is far more deadly and dangerous than a revolutionary war cannon.

[Casterbridge]

Are you telling me an AR-15 is more dangerous than a god damn cannon?

A canon from when the second amendment was created? Let's see takes several people to operate properly, and usually a minute or two between rounds, compare to a rifle that with a single 30 round magazine that can be rapidly and accurately fire up to several hundred yards with basic training, and the ability to swap magazines within a second or two with a little practice.

I'm going to give the killing potential to the AR-15 honestly.