Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan on guns (2013)" video.

@Captain-Obvious1 And I think you're just too shallow of intellect to grasp the arguments and rhetorical questions presented to you if that's your reaction.
3
 @Captain-Obvious1 Shows what you know... The AR-15 is not the only semi-automatic rifle on the market.
2
@@aarqaNo, Shapiro was illustrating how ludicrous it is to moan about "assault weapons" when more than 90 percent of gunshot fatalities are a result of handguns in america. It's like complainin about a leaky faucet aboard the Titanic as it has hit the iceberg.
2
@Captain-Obvious1 So let me get this straight, you propose that every single semi-automatic weapon be banned then? 🤔
2
@@aarqa Yeah because it happened in one single attack, along with catastrophic property damage. Spread out over the course of a year, and it's just a statistic. Ergo, nothingburger.
2
@@aarqa The hundreds of thousands of hunters in the U.S who hunt with AR-15's beg to differ. Also, everyone who defended themselves from violent attacks beg to differ. Like the young hero Kyle Rittenhouse for example. He probably thought the AR-15 was pretty practical when it helped him avoid getting mobbed by psychotic leftwingers or possibly even murdered by them.
2
@@aarqa I come from a family of hunters, so yeah I know a lot more about hunting than you do, sport. The AR-15 is excellent for hunting small game. The caliber is a bit weak for Elk and moose, but it works just fine against anything smaller than that. Especially if you're hunting on a budget, like a lot of people in the countryside have to.
2
@@aarqa Yes it is a nothingburger and will always be a nothingburger in this context. If you want fatalities which are actually alarming, you should check out fentanyl overdoses. That stuff kills about 192 people PER DAY in america. And that's also something you're perfectly fine with allowing pharmaceutical companies and doctors to have and peddle. Really interesting argument you present. We need to ban AR-15's from law abiding citizens because SOMETIMES a troubled teenager use one for a mass shooting (which doesn't amount to more than 5000 deaths per year). Yet dangerous pharmaceuticals, also mostly handled and kept by law abiding people, they should be allowed in society despite the fact that irresponsible handling of them lead to 192 fatalities every single day...
2
@@aarqa Prove it instead of wasting everyones time with a basless "nuh-uh!" That nobody cares about. Maybe take a ride to a more rural area and ask if anyone hunts with their AR-15 instead of sitting cooped up in whatever hellscape dystopia of a city you live in. At least you'll get some fresh air...
2
@@aarqa I never said "everyone" hunts with AR-15's. I said hundreds of thousands of hunters do (which is factually correct). Yet you make claims about a topic you clearly know nothing about. 🤣
2
@@aarqa It's not a particularly huge number considering the number of fatalities overall, population size and amount of guns in circulation. Frankly, it's peanuts
1
@@aarqa 5000 fatalities out of a population of 350 million is a nothingburger
1
@Captain-Obvious1 No you didn't. But the other alternative makes your objection to AR-15's specifically quite strange. See either you have to oppose all SA rifles (since they're more or less as effective in mass shootings). Or you JUST oppose the AR-15, which makes little sense. So which is it?
1
@@aarqa Alright, I see you're insisting on staying ignorant. Fine by me. I've made you look enough like an idiot by proving you wrong time and time again already. Guess I shouldn't beat a dead horse. At the end of the day I was right, and you were wrong.
1
@Captain-Obvious1 What are you even talking about? An AR-15 doesn't fire faster than any semi-automatic handgun. And as far as magazine sizes go, a magazine is just a box with a spring and a follower in it, essentially. Anyone who wants greater magazine capacity is not going to be stopped by the fact that the store isn't allowed to sell them.
1
@Captain-Obvious1 So which is it then? Do you oppose all guns or not? Because the more you backtrack, the more irrational your opposition to AR-15's looks. You have no valid argument to see them banned because what you've presented is full of inconcistencies and hypocrisy.
1
@PersonalizedModifications Yes, rifles are more accurate than handguns. While handguns are more portable, concealble and suitable for tight corners in in-door enviroments. What I was adressing here was the ignorant statement that an AR-15 "shoots faster" than other guns. Would be true if it's being compared to a bolt action rifle or a single shot breech loader. It's patently untrue if compared to any other semi-automatic weapon on the market.
1
@PersonalizedModifications What's fun about this one ks that I don't live in Texas. Don't even live in the U.S. In fact AR-15's aren't legal for hunting where I live. Yet somehow I still know that AR-15's are being used for hunting in the U.S. And again, not for big game, but medium sized animals like hogs (but also foxes, coyotes and so on) Yet this gun-control nutjob thought he could call me out on my hunting knowledge. Entertaining to say the least.
1
@PersonalizedModifications Yeah, and on the point of fully automatic fire... A high rate of fire is almost always a detriment to a shooter with a gun. You want even full auto to be relatively slow in order to line up your sights in between shots better. The only time a high rate of f fire is preferable is basically when you're trying to take out flying targets (like with AA-guns or CIWS aboard navy vessels trying to take out incoming missiles) but we're well beyond the scope of armament pertaining to this topic by then.
1
@PersonalizedModifications Part of the reason why I've always liked the design of the M3 Sub-machinegun. That piece is satisfyingly slow with it's rate of fire. Fast enough to keep targets pinned down. But slow enough to let you aim those shots and not burn through your magazine in half a second.
1