Messages
85
Reactions
169
I'm going to post some lines I read from a CNN article by Michael Fanone who is a CNN law enforcement analyst who served for 20 years with the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department. Link to article here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

I thought many of these quotes were really weird and some downright face palming: (I will use parentheses when injecting my own thoughts/rebuttals)

I've sold guns at big box retailers and I've also sold firearms at a small retail gun store. Some gun buyers have been misled into thinking that the AR-15 is somehow practical for self-defense. But frankly, it's the last gun that I would recommend for that purpose.
(Throughout the article, he doesn't elaborate further on why he thinks this... and he doesn't explain how anyone was misled. What were they told that misled them? Nobody knows, apparently.)
I've pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.
(How many people have you talked to? I could give you an answer instantly: they're accurate, fun on the range, and has a lot of power)
Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, "We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That's part of our Second Amendment right." Personally, I think that's ludicrous
(You had me at the ad hominem, but I'm still confused why the idea of tyranny is unfathomable when so many other countries have done it, and are doing it right now)
it's far more power than should ever be in the hands of the average civilian.

The bullet fired by the AR-15 is capable of defeating the average police officer's body armor, like a knife slicing through butter
(I don't think that's how bullet proof vests work... if it slices through like butter then you're wearing a vest from wish .com)
For an officer armed with a 9 mm pistol, hitting a target beyond 50 yards is going to be difficult, even for the most accomplished marksman
(we all know how accurate the police are...)
And magazines that can feed dozens of rounds into the weapon in the space of minutes clearly were meant for use only on the battlefield
(Feeding dozens of rounds in the space of minutes? That sounds like literally any gun in existence if you can reload even at half-pace. You still haven't gone over why we are singling out an AR-15 for having 30 rounds magazines and not pretty much any other semi auto rifle, or even some extended magazines on handguns..)

The prevalence of these weapons means police sometimes are overmatched, as we saw with the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last month.
(Michael, come on man, you literally just said the police all have AR-15's, but somehow were still overmatched to a single shooter? The police didn't even try to go in, waiting outside for an hour and doing nothing.)
I have no doubt that police in Uvalde wish they had had weapons as powerful as the one carried by the shooter who snuffed out the lives of the victims in that school.
(It is a fact that they did. The police have those rifles, too. There's pictures of them with them... Or is this a plea to up their budget? I'm not following.)
But a far better outcome would have been if the shooter didn't have an AR-15 in the first place.
(Wouldn't it be great if people didn't murder? I think you just solved violent crime, Michael)
the cost of ammunition exceeding a dollar per round is more than this guy can afford.
(A dollar per round for a .223 or 5.56? Where the bubblegum are you shopping for ammo at? I've seen cheaper prices than that in California. Especially when you get a LEO discount on ammo in a lot of places)
I no longer need it. But neither, to be honest, do most of the people flocking to guns stores to buy one.
(is that for you to decide what people need? How would you know what the needs of someone is? we call that a slippery slope)
Banning these powerful weapons from the civilian marketplace is a no-brainer
(I think you're overestimating the arguments you made if you meet them to the conclusion of 'no brainer')
as are universal background checks.
(As are the law in almost every state in the country. And when people in one of those states receives a background check, passes it, then commits a violent crime, nobody brings up the fact that he passed the background check)
And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime
(What?! That's literally what confiscation is. You just contradicted yourself about 3 times in one sentence.)
If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be politically palatable, here's another option: Reclassify semi-automatic rifles as Class 3 firearms.

That would mean that someone wanting to purchase an AR-15 would have to go through a background check, fingerprinting and review by an official from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – a process that takes anywhere from 12 to 16 months.
(first off, good luck getting that past a supreme court. Second, this would just push people to the black market where you have even less control)
And since Class 3 weapons can't be purchased by anyone younger than 21, it would solve the issue of emotionally unstable 18-year-olds buying them.
(So people 21 and older are emotionally stable? (obviously not - a lot of the mass shootings he references were carried out by people 21 and older). 18 year olds are a huge risk? Why are they allowed to join the military then, and fire actual machine guns?)
All of these hoops and hurdles are sure to reduce the civilian demand for these weapons.
(Civilian demand doesn't equate to criminal demand. In fact, if civilian demand is down, criminal demand is usually up. And that goes for any product or service.)
Our public officials have it within their power to help make it harder for people who shouldn't have these weapons to get them.
(They really don't, because it's impossible to know what someone's intentions are when they purchase a gun. They can say it's for self defense and pass any test you give them, then immediately go out and commit a violent crime with it.)
A police officer should never have to worry about being outgunned by the bad guy they're protecting the public against.
(Most PD's have AR-15's, body armor, and ammo, so I don't know why they would worry about being outgunned by another AR-15..)


Overall I think this article is completely stupid and I would like to hear what this community thinks.
 
Messages
405
Reactions
984
and has a lot of power
No, it really doesn't! It's a rather anemic cartridge, even when compared to things like the ol' .30-30 Winchester. Sure, it shoots flatter, but it has LOTS less energy. The average deer or (God forbid!) elk rifle is far more powerful than the 5.56/.223 cartridge. Wanna see carnage? How about 12 gauge #4 buckshot in a crowded room?
I agree that 'the officer' is full of crap, however.
 
Messages
85
Reactions
169
No, it really doesn't! It's a rather anemic cartridge, even when compared to things like the ol' .30-30 Winchester. Sure, it shoots flatter, but it has LOTS less energy. The average deer or (God forbid!) elk rifle is far more powerful than the 5.56/.223 cartridge. Wanna see carnage? How about 12 gauge #4 buckshot in a crowded room?
I agree that 'the officer' is full of crap, however.
Well he's comparing it to a handgun so yeah
 
Messages
3,124
Reactions
4,799
I've pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.

(How many people have you talked to? I could give you an answer instantly: they're accurate, fun on the range, and has a lot of power)
I don't know about you, but I have run into a clerk or two over the years at every kind of store that wants to get a little too chatty for my tastes and my normal reaction is to just STFU and move on. Like no Karen, I don't feel like I need to tell you why I am buying 2 bottles of tequila, a watermelon and Pam cooking spray. :rolleyes:

And I'll be darned if I'm going waste any of my time in a gun store justifying to a rando behind the counter why I am buying what I am buying
 
Like no Karen, I don't feel like I need to tell you why I am buying 2 bottles of tequila, a watermelon and Pam cooking spray. :rolleyes:
Season 6 Flirt GIF by Friends
 
Messages
34,685
Reactions
119,521
I'm going to post some lines I read from a CNN article by Michael Fanone who is a CNN law enforcement analyst who served for 20 years with the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department. Link to article here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

I thought many of these quotes were really weird and some downright face palming: (I will use parentheses when injecting my own thoughts/rebuttals)


(Throughout the article, he doesn't elaborate further on why he thinks this... and he doesn't explain how anyone was misled. What were they told that misled them? Nobody knows, apparently.)

(How many people have you talked to? I could give you an answer instantly: they're accurate, fun on the range, and has a lot of power)

(You had me at the ad hominem, but I'm still confused why the idea of tyranny is unfathomable when so many other countries have done it, and are doing it right now)

(I don't think that's how bullet proof vests work... if it slices through like butter then you're wearing a vest from wish .com)

(we all know how accurate the police are...)

(Feeding dozens of rounds in the space of minutes? That sounds like literally any gun in existence if you can reload even at half-pace. You still haven't gone over why we are singling out an AR-15 for having 30 rounds magazines and not pretty much any other semi auto rifle, or even some extended magazines on handguns..)


(Michael, come on man, you literally just said the police all have AR-15's, but somehow were still overmatched to a single shooter? The police didn't even try to go in, waiting outside for an hour and doing nothing.)

(It is a fact that they did. The police have those rifles, too. There's pictures of them with them... Or is this a plea to up their budget? I'm not following.)

(Wouldn't it be great if people didn't murder? I think you just solved violent crime, Michael)

(A dollar per round for a .223 or 5.56? Where the bubblegum are you shopping for ammo at? I've seen cheaper prices than that in California. Especially when you get a LEO discount on ammo in a lot of places)

(is that for you to decide what people need? How would you know what the needs of someone is? we call that a slippery slope)

(I think you're overestimating the arguments you made if you meet them to the conclusion of 'no brainer')

(As are the law in almost every state in the country. And when people in one of those states receives a background check, passes it, then commits a violent crime, nobody brings up the fact that he passed the background check)

(What?! That's literally what confiscation is. You just contradicted yourself about 3 times in one sentence.)

(first off, good luck getting that past a supreme court. Second, this would just push people to the black market where you have even less control)

(So people 21 and older are emotionally stable? (obviously not - a lot of the mass shootings he references were carried out by people 21 and older). 18 year olds are a huge risk? Why are they allowed to join the military then, and fire actual machine guns?)

(Civilian demand doesn't equate to criminal demand. In fact, if civilian demand is down, criminal demand is usually up. And that goes for any product or service.)

(They really don't, because it's impossible to know what someone's intentions are when they purchase a gun. They can say it's for self defense and pass any test you give them, then immediately go out and commit a violent crime with it.)

(Most PD's have AR-15's, body armor, and ammo, so I don't know why they would worry about being outgunned by another AR-15..)


Overall I think this article is completely stupid and I would like to hear what this community thinks.
Worked 20 years for DC Metro(sexual) PD….. ‘nuff said. :rolleyes:
 
Messages
3,313
Reactions
7,581
CNN is an activist organization masquerading as a sometime media outlet. They are good at finding the 1 out 20 retired LEO or military who hates guns while ignoring the other 19.

People have many reasons for serving. It often has nothing to do with guns. Pretty much all law enforcement and military around the world have guns. That doesn't mean anything to me. In America we have the Second Amendment, which means the average citizen can own a gun. That is the opinion that matters.
 
Messages
7,688
Reactions
12,883
CNN. CNN is only going to publish people with this kind of opinion. I didn't read the article but I bet they didn't give equal space to other LEOs that have a different opinion.

IMO it's better to look for more objective news sources, although in the US that's getting really, really, hard to find which is why I look outside the country for US news (except local news where that's not an option). Bbc and sky news are usually objective but on the subject of guns of course it is coming from a British society perspective so you have to keep that in mind.
 
Messages
85
Reactions
169
CNN is an activist organization masquerading as a sometime media outlet. They are good at finding the 1 out 20 retired LEO or military who hates guns while ignoring the other 19.

People have many reasons for serving. It often has nothing to do with guns. Pretty much all law enforcement and military around the world have guns. That doesn't mean anything to me. In America we have the Second Amendment, which means the average citizen can own a gun. That is the opinion that matters.
its actually a 'truth from authority' fallacy that they implement. This guy is a cop therefore listen to him!!! bEFoRE iTS TOo LATE
 
Messages
85
Reactions
169
CNN. CNN is only going to publish people with this kind of opinion. I didn't read the article but I bet they didn't give equal space to other LEOs that have a different opinion.

IMO it's better to look for more objective news sources, although in the US that's getting really, really, hard to find which is why I look outside the country for US news (except local news where that's not an option). Bbc and sky news are usually objective but on the subject of guns of course it is coming from a British society perspective so you have to keep that in mind.
Brits hate guns as much as they hate dental plans
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
ONRI Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top