• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Dorner shootout favors the *assault weapon* ban to some degree

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin
 
....or it proves that we need more rifle toting militias since it took the po po so long to corner the guy even when they knew what area he was in......
 
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin

Are you using the Charlie Sheen definition of "winning"? It simply proved that the attacker has an initial advantage over the defender. Once the better armed person was outnumbered, on the run and cornered that "rifle superiority" resulted in his defeat and death, not his victory and freedom.
 
....or it proves that we need more rifle toting militias since it took the po po so long to corner the guy even when they knew what area he was in......

The flipside is...If bgs have rifles, you better have them too just to keep keep things balanced

LE and Mil should only have *assault weapons* because of their trustworthiness/confidence

Well, Dorner was both and so, that claim *deserving of trust* goes nowhere
 

The point is....The Dorner shootout will just bring more ammo on both sides of the assault weapon argument.
 
The point is....The Dorner shootout will just bring more ammo on both sides of the assault weapon argument.

Indeed. Tools can be used for good and evil. The more good folks with tools, the less damage that can be done by the bad folks with tools. As can be seen with the "war" on drugs, as long as there is demand there will be a supply. The question is why would you make mere (lawful?) possesion of the tool into the crime, if your true intent was to target the criminal use of that tool?
 
If we had a universal background check and national gun registry after he shot and killed all those people the police could have looked it up in the registry and then they would have known he had a gun.
 
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin

How do you know he had a suppressed weapon?
 
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin

If having such a weapon gave him that much of an advantage as he tried to defend himself in a cabin; then surely such a weapon would give the same advantage to a law-abiding citizen trying to defend his home, family, and self against a gang of armed criminals. Only difference between that situation and this one is which side is the good guys, and which side is the bad guys.

I see no rational purpose in denying good guys such an advantage, just on the basis that on occasion, a bad guy will also enjoy that advantage. In fact, given that good guys, by definition, tend to obey laws, while bad guys do not, makes it obvious that the effect of trying to deny this advantage to everyone would more predominantly deny it only to the good guys, while bad guys continue to gain that advantage.
 
If we just had more armed men like Dorner around, everything would be OK.

Such is the lunacy of the NRA and its bizarre narratives.
 
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin

If anything, it shows exactly why we need them.
 
If anything, it shows exactly why we need them.

Yeah, because any fat NRA member can take out a trained military man and ex policeman with a legal gun. I mean, isn't that what happened?

Wait, it didn't . . .
 
Yeah, because any fat NRA member can take out a trained military man and ex policeman with a legal gun. I mean, isn't that what happened?

Wait, it didn't . . .

Well people still need to train with their firearms so that they may maximize use. I don't think anyone ever said anything contrary. So you have anything else to blurt out that has absolutely zero impact on what has been stated? Or was that it?
 
How do you know he had a suppressed weapon?

2 suppressed SBRs in the burned/crispy truck plus cop called in a sup sniper rifle left in the abandoned white vehicle.
 
The only thing that Dorner proves is that the liberals can incite their pretend victim clients to their full level of bloodthirsty lunacy and then build support for them among other liberals after they commit unspeakable, depraved acts.
 
Dorner proved the superiority of a rifle over a handgun in battle and him using a suppressed weapon from inside the cabin

And how, pray tell, do you have this inside information?
 
And how, pray tell, do you have this inside information?

Cops had a very hard time knowing where the shots were coming from

This is an indication of what?
 
Cops had a very hard time knowing where the shots were coming from

This is an indication of what?

poor training

suppressed weapons

a well trained shooter who moves constantly

multiple shooters

all are reasonable explanations
 
I don't know, A bunch of poorly trained militia in the late 1700s beat the best, most well trained army in the world. And it can happen again at any time.

Guns make everybody equal, the bullet doesn't care who, or how well the shooter is. The bullet will always fulfill its original purpose, no matter the user.


Yeah, because any fat NRA member can take out a trained military man and ex policeman with a legal gun. I mean, isn't that what happened?

Wait, it didn't . . .
 
poor training

suppressed weapons

a well trained shooter who moves constantly

multiple shooters

all are reasonable explanations

Dorner was packing alright.....and ready. NVGs, suppressed rifles equipped with IR laser plus other good stuff
 
poor training

suppressed weapons

a well trained shooter who moves constantly

multiple shooters

all are reasonable explanations

A firearm with a suppressor will only conceal exactly where the fire is coming from. But while the projectile is in the air and breaks the sound barrier, you will hear a crack.

Dorner was not a well trained marksman. While in the Navy he only qualified as a marksman, the lowest rifle qualification there is in the military. Except for a non-qual.
 
let's see exactly what Christopher Dorner had to say about gun control:
https://sites.google.com/site/christopherjdorner/home
 
The weapons are not so relevant. He could have bombed a cop station, killing a dozen or so. He could have poisoned water. He could have just walked into station with a revolver and shot a few cops, or done it at a donut shop. Anyway, managing to shoot a few cops (two in his cabin standoff?) is hardly "effective" in a "war against cops".

I noticed in one article I read: When referring to a carjacking, the nutbag was described to as having a ~"small assault style rifle" but when the story got to the part about a cop shooting at the vehicle, the cop's weapon was a "high powered semiautomatic rifle" without mention of "assault" whatsoever.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…