Thom Asked Today on His Show, "Why do you NEED an AR-15?"

79 posts / 0 new

Why do you NEED a car with 585 hp?

Why do you NEED a motorcycle that's capable of going 200 mph?

Why do you NEED a boat with two 455 engines?

Why do you NEED marijuana? Alcohol? Drugs in general?

Why do you NEED anything that's capable of causing an accident, injury or harm?

The fact is we don't NEED any of these things, but in responsible hands, they're not a danger.

The FACTs are that vehicles and swimming pools claim more childrens' lives than guns do. In FACT, they are the number one and number two causes of death for children, firearms being way down the list according to the CDC and Census Bureau.

Now let's look at the deaths that do involve firearms:

FBI murder report by weapon for 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 11:
* Total murder victims - 12,664
* total firearms murders - 8,583
* Handguns - 6,220 victims
* Rifles - 323 victims (The so called "assault weapons" are rifles)
* Shotguns - 356 victims
* Knives or cutting instruments - 1,694 victims
* Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 496 victims
* Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 726 victims

This data tell us that in 2011 a murder victim had:

* 524% more chances to die from a stab wound than from a rifle.
* 225% more chances to die from a punch or a kick than from a rifle.
* 153% more chances to die from a hammer or baseball bat than from a rifle.
* Of all murders 2.25% are committed with a rifle.
* Of all murders 2.81% are committed with a shotgun.
* Of all murders 5.73% are committed with hands, fists or feet.
* Of all murders 13.37% are committed with a knife or cutting instrument.
* Of all murders 49.11% are committed with a hand gun.

Check out the bold print and tell me again why my AR-15 is so special and under attack? Because it LOOKS like a miltary rifle? Because it LOOKS scary?

Look how much more likely you are to die from other causes than you are from an AR-15 and argue THESE statistics...these FACTS.

Now let's look at another subject matter. Many of you are for the legalization of drugs.

"Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually. This includes approximately $193 billion for illicit drugs,1 $193 billion for tobacco,2 and $235 billion for alcohol."

Many of you shrug off the alcohol and drug argument when it is brought up in a "we want your guns" debate, and rightfully so. Why would you want to give up your rights, rights that cost more 10 times more Americans' lives than guns ever have?

Alcohol and tobacco are already legal and many of you want to legalize drugs as well. So you're in full support of things which claim and/or destroy more lives than guns because they are things you don't want to give up, despite the danger and the amount of lives they claim.

Do we want to actually have rational discussions or just knee jerk emotional responses without actually taking into account that we're not actually addressing anything by going after a ban on these so-called "assault rifles"?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Comments

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

None of the them can or will argue these facts, because they can't logically do it with any shred of credibility.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote Redwing:

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

And those who assault never want to amplify their chance of success with some tool or device?

Which, I guess, is why we don't fight wars with our bare hands.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Redwing:

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

And those who assault never want to amplify their chance of success with some tool or device?

Which, I guess, is why we don't fight wars with our bare hands.

....and as we all know...no one has ever been killed with "bare hands".

Oh wait....more people are killed every year by "bare hands" than they are with "assault rifles".

Strange.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Why does anyone need an estate worth a billion dollars (or more)? That's another sign of insanity. Did they accumulate it "because they can" or was it accidental? In fact who needs an estate worth more than a few million? Narcissists, that's who.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This kind of stuff will never be seen on the anti-gun nut news media.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/teachers-flock-gun-courses-gun-viole...

It is ridiculous that law-abiding gun owners are supposed to lose part of our rights because of the criminal acts of others because that is the moonbat solution. I wonder if biden and odictator care what teachers think.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote captbebops:

Why does anyone need an estate worth a billion dollars (or more)? That's another sign of insanity. Did they accumulate it "because they can" or was it accidental? In fact who needs an estate worth more than a few million? Narcissists, that's who.

It's insane to use your money the way you want? While I agree, I would never see the need, I wouldn't deny someone their right to do it, nor would I label them for having done it.

Oh, that's right, I forgot..."progressives" believe that no one should be able to do what they want with their money and should "redistribute" it to everyone who doesn't have as much.

I love this new age of entitlement. Used to be, "I want to work hard, be a success and be wealthy," and now...."You're rich. Gimme what you got...it's not fair."

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:FBI murder report by weapon for 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 11:
* Total murder victims - 12,664
* total firearms murders - 8,583
* Handguns - 6,220 victims
* Rifles - 323 victims (The so called "assault weapons" are rifles)
* Shotguns - 356 victims
* Knives or cutting instruments - 1,694 victims
* Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 496 victims
* Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 726 victims
Quote DowntheMiddle:

None of the them can or will argue these facts, because they can't logically do it with any shred of credibility.

Seems your gun nut myopia makes you oblivious to the obvious even in your own numbers. While you raise the red herring just about assault rifles, that banning then won't accomplish much because they're responsible for so few deaths... you're actually making the case FOR gun control since YOUR numbers prove guns are responsible for 8,583 of 12664 murders: A FULL 68% OF MURDERS IN 2011.

Whether someone dies depends largely on medical care. So should we not be also looking at ALL gun violence, not just those who die? For instance in 2007 79% of those shot in interpersonal gun violence did NOT die. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

So much for your claim you have some monopoly on logic and credibility. With gun defenders like you, who needs the Brady Center. LOL.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:FBI murder report by weapon for 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 11:
* Total murder victims - 12,664
* total firearms murders - 8,583
* Handguns - 6,220 victims
* Rifles - 323 victims (The so called "assault weapons" are rifles)
* Shotguns - 356 victims
* Knives or cutting instruments - 1,694 victims
* Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 496 victims
* Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 726 victims
Quote DowntheMiddle:

None of the them can or will argue these facts, because they can't logically do it with any shred of credibility.

Seems your gun nut myopia makes you oblivious to the obvious even in your own numbers. While you raise the red herring just about assault rifles, that banning then won't accomplish much because they're responsible for so few deaths... you're actually making the case FOR gun control since YOUR numbers prove guns are responsible for 8,583 of 12664 murders: A FULL 68% OF MURDERS IN 2011.

Whether someone dies depends largely on medical care. So should we not be also looking at ALL gun violence, not just those who die? For instance in 2007 79% of those shot in interpersonal gun violence did NOT die. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

So much for your claim you have some monopoly on logic and credibility. With gun defenders like you, who needs the Brady Center. LOL.

Awww, that would work perfect if we were talking about banning all weapons, but we're not and I'm simply talking about AR-15s, as per the OP. Seems your logic and comprehension have been clouded by your determination to not be outwitted.

It's cute that you thought you actually "turned it around" and this blew up in my face, but no one is denying that firearms are responsible for a lot of deaths. Thom talked about AR-15s and that's what this particular discussion is about and as you can see, they are not a real big problem now, are they?

It would be even more interesting to see how many of those rifle homicide were actually committed using the old evil AR-15, because we both know the number is going to drop even further.

When the Brady Campaign actually starts giving a rat's ass about other evils in society that are claiming tens of thousands of more lives, I might take them seriously, until then, I take them about as seriously as I take you.

Now, do you want to actually address the topic or just run off on another tangeant to try and one up me here?

*It was cute how you tried the old tried and true "red herring" accusation when I was addressing, DIRECTLY, something Thom was talking about.

Again...you want to address the TOPIC?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:Awww, that would work perfect if we were talking about banning all weapons, but we're not and I'm simply talking about AR-15s, as per the OP. Seems your logic and comprehension have been clouded by your determination to not be outwitted.

It's cute that you thought you actually "turned it around" and this blew up in my face, but no one is denying that firearms are responsible for a lot of deaths. Thom talked about AR-15s and that's what this particular discussion is about and as you can see, they are not a real big problem now, are they?

Actually I think the AR-15 is a fine looking gun and even thought of buying one if my friend was selling. He wasn't. Another friend, and old 'Nam vet, said he converted his to fully automatic back when it was reportedly easy. That had to be before '78 because it wasn't possible then. I can see the appeal of this weapon on looks alone but realistically I knew I never needed it for camping out in the sticks. My 30 year old semi-auto rifle is sufficient.

In statistics there are larger questions than raw numbers and more ways than one to slice the pie... such as rates of gun deaths per 100,000. Another way that might tell us if these assault weapons are more dangerous than others is to look at death/injuries per violent incident. So what if those 320 or so deaths involving assault rifles resulted in 5-8-10 deaths per incident as opposed to 1 for handguns?

Quote DowntheMiddle:It was cute how you tried the old tried and true "red herring" accusation when I was addressing, DIRECTLY, something Thom was talking about.

I didn't hear Thom and I was merely rebutting the typical gun nut rebuttal of the call for a ban on assault rifles. I don't think your numbers "prove" such a ban would solve nothing.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Why can't we have laws that require people pass background checks to own firearms? Require training? Require owners to keep their arsenal safe, and secure? Insurance in case of accidents? Register the rifling marks and firing pin marks so that crimes are easier to track?

If you have ever owned any car or motorcycle that can do speeds over 140 mph the way society holds you responsible is the insurance costs. You can roll in a 1972 Challenger, if you are prepared to layout the money to insure the beast. I was capped for annual miles, and was paying 5 times what my other car cost.

Oh, and if you use it as intended, and drive over the speed limit, a friendly officer will have a brief conversation and give you a pretty pink sheet of paper. If you get enough of those, you are no longer allowed to drive on public roads.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:Awww, that would work perfect if we were talking about banning all weapons, but we're not and I'm simply talking about AR-15s, as per the OP. Seems your logic and comprehension have been clouded by your determination to not be outwitted.

It's cute that you thought you actually "turned it around" and this blew up in my face, but no one is denying that firearms are responsible for a lot of deaths. Thom talked about AR-15s and that's what this particular discussion is about and as you can see, they are not a real big problem now, are they?

Actually I think the AR-15 is a fine looking gun and even thought of buying one if my friend was selling. He wasn't. Another friend, and old 'Nam vet, said he converted his to fully automatic back when it was reportedly easy. I can see the appeal of this weapon on looks alone but realistically I knew I never needed it for camping out in the sticks. My 30 year old semi-auto rifle is sufficient.

In statistics there are larger questions than raw numbers and more ways than one to slice the pie... such as rates of gun deaths per 100,000. Another way that might tell us if these assault weapons are more dangerous than others is to look at death/injuries per violent incident. So what if those 320 or so deaths involving assault rifles resulted in 5-8-10 death per incident as opposed to 1 for handguns?

Quote DowntheMiddle:It was cute how you tried the old tried and true "red herring" accusation when I was addressing, DIRECTLY, something Thom was talking about.

I didn't hear Thom and I was merely rebutting the typical gun nut rebuttal of the call for a ban on assault rifles.

First of all, thank you for calming down a bit and addressing the issue. Much appreciated and respected.

You do make a valid point about wanting to see the statistics of how many deaths involved in each single incident involving the weapons in question.

First, I, even as an avid shooter, former vet and current gun owner (obviously), have no problem with banning high capacity mags, closing the gun show loopholes and tightening down a few other regulations. I just want to make that clear.

What we need to also look at though, is that most of these mass shootings have taken place using handguns...VT, Tucson, Oak Creek, Columbine, etc. Even in Aurora, his AR jammed early on and he switched to a shotgun and handgun. We've had couple recently involving ARs and so they are once again in the scope, but considering the sheer numbers that have happened with handguns, I just see the focus on the particular rifle (ARs....other so-called "assault weapons") as a pointless endeavor that's not going to stop any further mass shootings in the future.

The only thing it's accomplished has been a HUGE sales boom for manufacturers and sellers the likes which have never been seen before. The last assault weapons ban did nothing to stop mass shootings (which also included high capacity mags) and I don't see the future one doing anything different.

Thom went specifically after the AR-15 in his rebuttal to a caller today and demanded to know why anyone would NEED one. The rifle is not the problem. There are a thousand other rifles that operate in exactly the same manner as the AR does, but this one is being targeted because it LOOKS LIKE a military weapon.

A lot of weapons are easily converted to fully auto with the right parts and know how, and no legislation is going to stop that either. Laws aren't obeyed by criminals and it's been illegal to modify a weapon into fully auto for as long as I've been alive, yet people still do it.

I just think our focus is on things that aren't going to solve the problems.

What was the common denominator with most of these shootings?

People with obvious mental health issues that were never addressed or reported, which then allowed these people to buy guns, because on paper, they were clean law abiding citizens.

With Adam Lanza, we had an obviously mentally disturbed individual who's mother thought it a good idea to take him shooting as a hobby and leave him access to firearms. Absolutely insane.

..and on and on.

So many issues to address and all the focus and all the talk is on the AR-15.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote Phaedrus76:

Why can't we have laws that require people pass background checks to own firearms?

We do, but there are loopholes with the gunshows and personal sales....which I agree, should be closed.

The last personal sale (I bought) I did was in Illinois. The seller and I waited the 24 waiting period, as it was a rifle, and then met, exchanged all our FOID information (FOID cards are required to legally own a weapon in Illinois, which means you passed a background check already), all other relevant information and made up a bill of sale with all relevant gun information (serial numbers, make, model, etc).

The problem is that a lot of people don't do this by the book.

Require training?

I don't have a problem with annual training, but addressing your point mentioned below, is there training required for high horse power cars? Motorcycles?

Nope.

Require owners to keep their arsenal safe, and secure?

In Illinois, we are required to keep any weapons safely locked up and out of the reach of anyone not of age and a lot of states have those laws in place, but that's not an unreasonable request. Adam Lanza's mother certainly should have.

Insurance in case of accidents?

I don't really think insurance should be required as gun owners are already held responsible for any accidents and charged accordingly with any laws broken. Considering most accidents happen in the home, I don't really see what it would accomplish. Conceal carriers aren't out there accidentally shooting people on a regular basis.

Register the rifling marks and firing pin marks so that crimes are easier to track?['/quote]

It would be a database so incredibly huge, that it would be pointless. Not to mention, any criminal would simply score the pin or barrel as they do with serial numbers to hide it's origin. Remember, with this type of thing, we're talking about NON-law-abiding citizens.

[quote]If you have ever owned any car or motorcycle that can do speeds over 140 mph the way society holds you responsible is the insurance costs. You can roll in a 1972 Challenger, if you are prepared to layout the money to insure the beast. I was capped for annual miles, and was paying 5 times what my other car cost.

Yes, but are required to go through any special training? Insurance is required because people are rolling in these cars/motorcycles for hours a day, every single day. I'm not toting around my AR-15 in public everyday, all day, and i don't think you'll find a lot of people that do. 99% of the time, it's locked away until I go out shooting.

Oh, and if you use it as intended, and drive over the speed limit, a friendly officer will have a brief conversation and give you a pretty pink sheet of paper. If you get enough of those, you are no longer allowed to drive on public roads.

If you use your gun illegally, you're going to prison....no tickets, no warning.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Guys, would like to hear your responses, but a 3 year old little guy is asking me to cuddle and watch a movie and that's an offer I can't pass up.

I'll check back in after he's in bed.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

I am the Goverment. You forget, the power is granted by the people, it should go without saying the people hold the rights.

manfredman's picture
manfredman
Joined:
Jan. 9, 2013 9:59 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:First of all, thank you for calming down a bit and addressing the issue. Much appreciated and respected.

I was never uncalm. I thought your original post was over the top.

Of COURSE even assault rifles in the hands of a responsible gun owner might be considered, in theory, "safe". In theory the same can be said about chemical or biological weapons.

I have a libertarian streak that any law that exceeds legitimate intent is an abuse of power. I favor the legalization of many drugs, but with strict controls about DUI and laws that minors won't get them. Government should be in the business of expanding rights to the responsible. But where is that line between freedom for responsible adults... and protecting the public against criminals or the insane? How do we protect ourselves against the careless? Would your trust your neighbor with a WMD lab next door... for self-protection, of course, on the assumption s/he's responsible, that they'd never be a target for criminals? Do I want to be in a bar with a bunch of yahoos that managed to get CCW permits?

I believe, like with drugs and alcohol, many people with guns can't handle them... that it gives them the self-confidence to act like idiots or get themselves or someone else killed. Like with my hope there'll be expanded access to recreational drugs... I also want stricter controls... be they high taxes, psychological testing, stricter DUI laws, whatever... something that keeps those drugs out of the hands of those who can't handle them. Same with guns. Hey... I once found a .22 round in my roof, obviously shot straight into the air then straight down. What if I were walking in my yard? Who knows how many other rounds are in other yards or roofs? Screw the gun nut yahoos!

I know much of my contempt for gun nuts comes from seeing the gun nut groups like the NRA in action. They have demanded loopholes in laws they insisted on such as instant background checks. They have lied to their members and created a culture of paranoia which they exploit for their own gain. I believe they have virtual blood on their hands. I don't have much patience left.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote manfredman:

I am the Goverment. You forget, the power is granted by the people, it should go without saying the people hold the rights.

Except those rights ceded to government so it has the power to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Thanks for the civics lesson. Your point was????

BTW, this does raise the obvious question... why do we feel bound today to an agreement made 225 years ago and only ratified by about 2000 dead white guys?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The reason citizens need an AR-15 is for the very reason that the 2nd amendment was created. That is to protect the citizens against a government gone awry. Without the AR-15, the people would not stand a chance to form a militia and remove a tyrant. It's that simple. But, left wing liberals do not seem to accept this argument. Why? Because they want an all dominant government central authority to govern all aspects of our lives. They are socialists (comunists in the extreme variety), that belive that the good of the many outweighs the lament of the few. It's not about individualism, but more about socialism for the masses.

What they fail to recognize is that the masses are formed out of individuals. It's all about the nuclear familiy. Look, government cannot substitute for good family values. And the breakdown of the family unit is part of some of our social problems today.

This whole gun debate is nothing but a distraction from the liberal left. We have so many more pressing issues to deal with. But, they focus on this. Why? Poliitcs. They can say that they did something. But, they won't. There will still be shootings from the crazed lunatics, and nothing will be done about our financial issues. Idiots!

Let's get off the guns and onto some real issues!

TChamp3121's picture
TChamp3121
Joined:
Nov. 16, 2010 5:20 pm
Quote TChamp3121:

The reason citizens need an AR-15 is for the very reason that the 2nd amendment was created. That is to protect the citizens against a government gone awry.

Blah blah... SHOW ME WHERE THIS WAS EVER ENCODED INTO LAW.

The Second isn't about individual citizens but A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Congress defined who this was... and what discipline it needed in the Militia Acts of 1792. Show me ANYWHERE in this law where there was ANY tolerance of armed uprisings.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

This militia was ALWAYS meant to be under strict civil control. Who do you think "regulated" this "well regulated" militia?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Redwing:

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

And those who assault never want to amplify their chance of success with some tool or device?

Which, I guess, is why we don't fight wars with our bare hands.

....and as we all know...no one has ever been killed with "bare hands".

Oh wait....more people are killed every year by "bare hands" than they are with "assault rifles".

Strange.

Like I said, just highlighting assault rifles vs ALL firearm murders is a red herring. They accounted for 68% of all murders while bare hands accounted for only 5.73%.

BTW my response was to Red who wrote: "Assault is a behavior, not a device." To which I merely responded that those who do the assaulting will prefer to have a "device" such as a gun to amplify the effect. Your numbers bare that out. Which is why we DON'T fight wars with our bare hands. To claim guns, themselves, play no role in such violence... only a person does... might sound true on the surface. But if that person is choosing to assault someone chances are they WILL prefer a weapon... and perhaps without it, they might chose not to. Who knows. Would the CT shooter have had such fantasies of mass murder if not for the guns in the home? Even if he did... would he be able to kill 26 people with a knife?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Redwing:

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

And those who assault never want to amplify their chance of success with some tool or device?

Which, I guess, is why we don't fight wars with our bare hands.

....and as we all know...no one has ever been killed with "bare hands".

Oh wait....more people are killed every year by "bare hands" than they are with "assault rifles".

Strange.

Like I said, just highlighting assault rifles vs ALL firearm murders is a red herring. They accounted for 68% of all murders while bare hands accounted for only 5.73%.

..and like I said, I'm going off what the public is talking about and what Thom specifically addressed, so please, drop the "red herring" crap.

A "red herring" is redirection...I'm DIRECTLY addressing what is being discussed by Thom and other proponents of another "assault weapons ban", not a complete gun ban. The FACT is that more people die from "bare hands" than "assault rifles".

It's a fact you can't argue.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:

Like I said, just highlighting assault rifles vs ALL firearm murders is a red herring. They accounted for 68% of all murders while bare hands accounted for only 5.73%.

..and like I said, I'm going off what the public is talking about and what Thom specifically addressed, so please, drop the "red herring" crap.

A "red herring" is redirection...I'm DIRECTLY addressing what is being discussed by Thom and other proponents of another "assault weapons ban", not a complete gun ban. The FACT is that more people die from "bare hands" than "assault rifles".

It's a fact you can't argue.

I don't care about what limited topic YOU want to debate or how you want to channel the discussion to suit your gun agenda. All you've done is prove guns, generally, ARE a problem and the biggest cause of all murders in the US.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

There are facts with which YOU cannot argue, but you either do or deflect to ignore them.

For example, Australia. They got rid of their assault weapons and gun death rates dropped dramatically as well as murder. While our bare hands may kill more people than guns, and even if assault weapons are not the guns that have taken the most lives over time, they are the ones that can allow mass shootings. Slowing the rate and mass of the shooting is just a simple good idea, not the end to all killings.

What I think these big national gun reform cases show us is that it is also a shift in public attitude about weapons in civilian hands and civilian use. We ask what I think is a basic question I have yet to hear answered cogently: What civilian use are these weapons for?

Personal protection has lots of problems as a justification and needs to be defined and limited to civil realities. Fear is a very difficult foundation upon which to build laws requiring conscience and personal responsibility. Concern for the safety of others must limit one's 'right' to draw and fire when afraid. The naive and false bravado one hears from pistol packers is not reassuring.

I hope we have had it with the fanciful notion that the 2nd Amendment establishes the Right to Violent Revolution against legitimately elected American governments. The idea of a Constitutional Right to Personal Protection wrung out of the language of the Second is bad enough, but it is absurd to think that the Founders wanted our 'militia movement' instead of citizen soldiers rather than pros. We now have the worst of both worlds, a standing army and delusional civilians with high power military weaponry. Only in America.

Why only here? And if so, why don't we do something to live like civilized human beings instead of this idiocy?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

There are facts with which YOU cannot argue, but you either do or deflect to ignore them.

For example, Australia. They got rid of their assault weapons and gun death rates dropped dramatically as well as murder.

This video may argue a bit with your facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA&feature=youtu.be

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:

Like I said, just highlighting assault rifles vs ALL firearm murders is a red herring. They accounted for 68% of all murders while bare hands accounted for only 5.73%.

..and like I said, I'm going off what the public is talking about and what Thom specifically addressed, so please, drop the "red herring" crap.

A "red herring" is redirection...I'm DIRECTLY addressing what is being discussed by Thom and other proponents of another "assault weapons ban", not a complete gun ban. The FACT is that more people die from "bare hands" than "assault rifles".

It's a fact you can't argue.

I don't care about what limited topic YOU want to debate or how you want to channel the discussion to suit your gun agenda. All you've done is prove guns, generally, ARE a problem and the biggest cause of all murders in the US.

No one is channeling the discussion in any direction. 2nd time you've made that accusation. THIS is the discussion being had on both Hartmann's show and on a national level. I'm sorry you can't stay on topic or discuss it rationally. I know it's eating you up that you can't dominate this topic with any logic, hence the fact YOU are trying to steer it in other directions and throw out absurd assertions, but the reality is in the facts and the facts say that AR-15s are not the main problem. If I've proven anything, it's that "assault rifles" shouldn't be banned and maybe handguns should.

You all for it or what?

Certainly you could live with just over 300 murders and then when the facts state that bare hands and knives are a bigger problem than "assault weapons", you can focus all your attention on banning knives and hands and feet.

Sound good or what?

Once again, I'm addressing, directly, what Thom was talking about and what the national discussion is. I'm not steering the conversation in any direction. The topic is assault weapons. That's it. So stay on topic or find a new thread.

When the discussion turns towards banning all guns, then you can come back and try again. Until then....ASSAULT WEAPONS is the topic.

I just feel I have to repeat it over and over so it sinks in since you seem to have a problem accepting that fact.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Is this reality enough for you when it comes to self and your children protection, drc2?

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-shot-intruder-inspires-gun-control-foes-003753...

What kind of firearm one chooses to protect and defend one's home should be a free and personal choice. Mine is a five round .410 revolver. Not as messy and less damaging to your home than a 12 guage.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote drc2:

There are facts with which YOU cannot argue, but you either do or deflect to ignore them.

For example, Australia. They got rid of their assault weapons and gun death rates dropped dramatically as well as murder. While our bare hands may kill more people than guns, and even if assault weapons are not the guns that have taken the most lives over time, they are the ones that can allow mass shootings. Slowing the rate and mass of the shooting is just a simple good idea, not the end to all killings.

The last assault weapons ban did nothing to curb mass shootings. What makes you think this one will? Handguns have been the weapon of choice for most mass shootings, so how will banning assault rifles "slow the rate"? I can fire my handgun just as quickly as I can fire my AR, and I can do it more effectively with a handgun, as is the case with most people.

What I think these big national gun reform cases show us is that it is also a shift in public attitude about weapons in civilian hands and civilian use. We ask what I think is a basic question I have yet to hear answered cogently: What civilian use are these weapons for?

They're simply semi-automatic rifles. Why shouldn't a responsible civilian be able to own one? The AR is no different than any other semi-auto rifle. They all operate on the same principle, but because the AR LOOKS like a military weapon, it's become the focus.

Why does a civilian have use for an automobile with 550 horse power? Why does a civilian need a snowmobile that can do 150 mph? Why does a civilian need anything outside of food, water and shelter?

The reason I have an AR-15. I am familiar with the weapon and I like shooting it. I could just as easily switch to another semi-auto rifle that fires the same round, but has a wooden stock. Would that make Americans feel more comfortable?

Personal protection has lots of problems as a justification and needs to be defined and limited to civil realities. Fear is a very difficult foundation upon which to build laws requiring conscience and personal responsibility. Concern for the safety of others must limit one's 'right' to draw and fire when afraid. The naive and false bravado one hears from pistol packers is not reassuring.

That argument would work great if conceal carriers were out there shooting people in any significant numbers. Fact is, they're not.

That "wild west" assertion is the same one they've been using here in Illinois and when the 7th CC asked the state what woman with a violent ex should do once she leaves her home, the state's answer, "Well, she'd have to unload her weapon and store in a case in her trunk."

7th CC: "Well what good is that going to do her if the violent ex is waiting for her in the parking lot at her work?"

State: "Well, it's a difficult decision, but we're not required to allow conceal carry."

That was their only answer. THIS ^^^ is the reason they've been denying Illinois' citizens the right to carry. Because they don't have to.

Quinn and Emanual have been spouting nonsense about guns undermining the safety of Illinois citizens, meanwhile, this city with the heaviest gun restrictions led the league in murders this year. You want to talk about naivety? There it is, in all its glory.

I hope we have had it with the fanciful notion that the 2nd Amendment establishes the Right to Violent Revolution against legitimately elected American governments. The idea of a Constitutional Right to Personal Protection wrung out of the language of the Second is bad enough, but it is absurd to think that the Founders wanted our 'militia movement' instead of citizen soldiers rather than pros. We now have the worst of both worlds, a standing army and delusional civilians with high power military weaponry. Only in America.

The 2nd Amendment simply guarantees us a last line of defense (cue everyone who has rewritten it to fit their argument) and the Supreme Court has ruled as such. I don't really care about someone spouting off about armed revolutions. For every one of them, there's an equally stupid person on the other side of the argument talking about how my AR can fire 30 rounds a second (it can't by the way).

"Military weaponry"? I'm sorry, who has military weaponry? Semi-auto rifles are on equal ground with what we used in the military?

I'm guessing you never served if you honestly believe that.

Why only here? And if so, why don't we do something to live like civilized human beings instead of this idiocy?

You want a complete overhaul of our society? Well, I agree, but how do we go about doing that? This country is as divided as it was 150 years ago. People draw lines in the sand and no one is willing to meet in the middle (thanks in part to our beautiful "democracy"). Even our media, which was supposed to be our watchdogs, are now divided along party lines. We are ethnically, culturally, religiously, and politically split six ways from Sunday. We are not the nation everyone claims we are.

Guns aren't the reason our society is in the state it's in. It's just another extension of it. Other countries have comparibly high gun ownership rates without the same problems.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

As you wish, but I have lived safely and securely in neighborhoods where I have known my neighbors and they me and maybe it is because they have not been in the wealthy suburbs but have been in mixed urban neighborhoods we have not been the most attractive targets for looters and robbers.

One's choice of a firearm for personal protection has all sorts of ramifications beyond your personal, family and property protection. Your neighbors care about collateral damage to themselves. There are some public policy issues about summary justice. How much your fear and interpretation of the actions of others provide a thresh-hold for your using your firearm is legitimate public concern.

I do not doubt that there are anecdotes that allow the gun to be what protects some particular people in some particular instance. I do not doubt the statistics about gun possession and personal safety, nor that the gun you own is more likely to hurt you or your than the threat you have it to protect you from. So go ahead D. I would never try to stop you unless you were pulling your crap around me where it could hit me.

You and Alex Jones.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:I don't care about what limited topic YOU want to debate or how you want to channel the discussion to suit your gun agenda. All you've done is prove guns, generally, ARE a problem and the biggest cause of all murders in the US.

No one is channeling the discussion in any direction. 2nd time you've made that accusation. THIS is the discussion being had on both Hartmann's show and on a national level. I'm sorry you can't stay on topic or discuss it rationally. I know it's eating you up that you can't dominate this topic with any logic, hence the fact YOU are trying to steer it in other directions and throw out absurd assertions, but the reality is in the facts and the facts say that AR-15s are not the main problem.

And these absurd assertions are what? Didn't YOU agree with my concern that your stats did NOT paint a full picture? We simply don't know whether incidents with assault rifles lead to more deaths per incident than with other types of weapons. To suggest the capabilities of these weapons is NOT greater than an ordinary rifles is amusing.

And of COURSE you're trying to steer the discussion towards an issue you think you have some perfect rebuttal for... which is why you keep coming back to it.

If I've proven anything, it's that "assault rifles" shouldn't be banned and maybe handguns should.
Given your posts it's clear that you would NEVER support handgun ban and I doubt any restrictions on guns. So why pretend otherwise. Enough of your games.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Redwing:
Quote drc2:

There are facts with which YOU cannot argue, but you either do or deflect to ignore them.

For example, Australia. They got rid of their assault weapons and gun death rates dropped dramatically as well as murder.

This video may argue a bit with your facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA&feature=youtu.be

Ah gee... and NRA video. It's sure to be objective. Just when was it shot? A 2010 report I posted in another thread on gun crime in Australia said it's down most in states where there were the most guns turned in.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote Pierpont:I don't care about what limited topic YOU want to debate or how you want to channel the discussion to suit your gun agenda. All you've done is prove guns, generally, ARE a problem and the biggest cause of all murders in the US.

No one is channeling the discussion in any direction. 2nd time you've made that accusation. THIS is the discussion being had on both Hartmann's show and on a national level. I'm sorry you can't stay on topic or discuss it rationally. I know it's eating you up that you can't dominate this topic with any logic, hence the fact YOU are trying to steer it in other directions and throw out absurd assertions, but the reality is in the facts and the facts say that AR-15s are not the main problem.

And these absurd assertions are what? Didn't YOU agree with my concern that your stats did NOT paint a full picture? We simply don't know whether incidents with assault rifles lead to more deaths per incident than with other types of weapons. To suggest the capabilities of these weapons is NOT greater than an ordinary rifles is amusing.

And of COURSE you're trying to steer the discussion towards an issue you think you have some perfect rebuttal for... which is why you keep coming back to it.

If I've proven anything, it's that "assault rifles" shouldn't be banned and maybe handguns should.
Given your posts it's clear that you would NEVER support handgun ban and I doubt any restrictions on guns. So why pretend otherwise. Enough of your games.

Absurd assertions, such as "red herrings" and "steering discussions". I thought it was pretty obvious since I've explained it numerous times and it's clearly stated in the OP, but apparently you have a comprehension problem with even the simplest of things.

As for your assertions on what I would or wouldn't support. I've clearly stated in other comments that I have no problem banning high capacity magazines, closing gunshow loopholes, and restricting person to person sales. I have no problem with extensive background checks, as I already have gone through them to get my FOID card and two conceal carry permits from two different states...along with the classroom training, despite my military service.

I don't think any other restrictions or bans are going to do anything to curb violence. In fact, history proves they won't.

You tired of falling flat on your face in this thread yet?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

I live in the country with the nearest neighbor, my 83 year old father, 150 yards away. The next neighbor maybe a 1/4 mile away. It would take authorities perhaps 15 minutes to respond. If my aim is good, that would be to late to save an intruder. I have been hunting and shooting with my older brother since I was 9. My father is an ex Texas Department of Public Saftey Officer. I have no idea how many and what kind of guns he owns, but it is perhaps in the 50-60 range of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. He carries a 32 S&W revolver. He carried a S&W38 revolver as his sevice weapon. I have heard many stories and incidences but he only drew his weapon once in all his time. He carried no handcuffs or a stick and tasers weren't even invented.

Guns in the hand of responsible owners are not the problem and criminals do not obey laws. So taking guns, any guns, away from lawabiding citizens will not make us safer. It might make YOU feel good, but that is your illusion.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Rational firearms regulation:

1.) Limit magazine size

2.) limit muzzle velocity and caliber

3.) eliminate all gun show loopoles

4.) register all firearms

5.) make conceal/carry requirements more stringent

6.) ban all internet firearms and ammunition sales

7.) improve backgroung check process

8.) require firearms training/certification

9.) ban military/battlefield firearms and weapons ownership by civilians

10.) Ban sales and use of dumdum ammunition by civilians

11.) Draconian penalties for not meeting these regualtions

Kevin
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kevin:

Rational firearms regulation:

1.) Limit magazine size

I have no problem with that.

2.) limit muzzle velocity and caliber

Most hunting rifles are more powerful and use a bigger caliber than an AR-15, so good luck getting that passed.

3.) eliminate all gun show loopoles

Again, I agree.

4.) register all firearms

Why, so news outlets like the Journal News can hand our addresses out to everyone? No thanks.

Make our information private and I'll gladly agree.

5.) make conceal/carry requirements more stringent

More stringent than what? A full and complete FBI background check and classroom training is already required.

The only thing I would agree on would be annual re-certification/training on the range.

6.) ban all internet firearms and ammunition sales

Firearms already have to go through someone with an FTL when purchasing over the internet. You can't just have them shipped to your home. I agree that ammo should as well.

7.) improve backgroung check process

How?

8.) require firearms training/certification

It's already required for conceal carriers...and if we're going to require it across the board, then conceal/carry should be legal throughout the land. Otherwise, I have no problem with it.

9.) ban military/battlefield firearms and weapons ownership by civilians

Nope. Because you guys don't know what even falls into that category and until you do, I'm not giving in to legislation being demanded by people who don't know what they're talking about.

10.) Ban sales and use of dumdum ammunition by civilians

You want people shooting FMJs to defend themselves?

11.) Draconian penalties for not meeting these regualtions

Penalites are already severe for violating gun laws and will continue to be.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

So, do you mind if we have some rights to have those credentials verified, and the fact that you live where you do makes your informed, trained and I hope judicious use of your weapon a positive rather than a negative for gun safety. You would not apply this same to a crowded urban locale, would you? What advocates of sane gun regulation want is appropriate and safe uses, not just to grab all the guns and make you into pacifists.

I think we also need to be accountable for the rhetoric in which we discuss these issues. You do not want to be confused with the NRA gun sellers, and we are seeing plenty of responsible gun owners speaking up for sensible regulation. I am not trying to condemn hunting or sports shooting, and my reservations about the vigilante justice of "stand your ground" and everybody packing are about public issues where it has gotten far out of hand. So has urban inner city gun violence. So has this militia movement mentalitiy.

Finally, I would be far more open to honest security needs were it not part of this twisted extension of the 2nd into places it has no business going. There is a long history and tradition behind this, of course, and the problem is more about gun culture and why military grade weaponry is desired by people of questionable stability no matter what their clinical diagnosis might be. The Right of Armed Revolution is not in the Constitution.

You can make a case for it from the Declaration where resistance and revolt from tyranny is our sacred duty, not just a right. As norske says, love it and fix it. I think so too because there really is no place to go and those of us who are here have a responsibility to those who bear the consequences of our national nonsense. Fixing it is the duty and healing what is being damaged and torn apart is as well.

I just don't see armed revolt unless the army comes over as the way to freedom and liberty and justice for all. Non-violence has a much better chance as well as many other time tested strategies and tactics. May your 1/4 mile be a haven of peace.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:

As for your assertions on what I would or wouldn't support. I've clearly stated in other comments that I have no problem banning high capacity magazines, closing gunshow loopholes, and restricting person to person sales. I have no problem with extensive background checks, as I already have gone through them to get my FOID card and two conceal carry permits from two different states...along with the classroom training, despite my military service.

Sorry, I think I missed all that so please point out some of those posts. I only seem to recall your more radical pro gun positions. But then that's what happens when there's 10 threads on guns here.

I don't think any other restrictions or bans are going to do anything to curb violence. In fact, history proves they won't.

You mean curb gun violence? What history? There are plenty of nations with stricter gun control that have lower rates of gun violence than the US.

You tired of falling flat on your face in this thread yet?
Ever get tired of beating your wife? Explain why the world is flat.

Gee, not all questions are valid.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

There are some people who are aware of the fact that our "democratic" government continues to defy the will of the people, therefore requiring the people to take stronger action in regards to the following:

1) building the Tar Sands Pipeline In this case our politicians employed a tactic which they have increasingly found useful. After a citizen's grassroots campaign to keep the pipeline from being built, an announcement was made that the plans were scuttled. This was done to take the momentum out of the campaign, and not long afterward the pipeline was in the works again. Note: the organizers of the current campaign to stop the pipeline insist that all who work to do so as well follow a nonviolent strategy. This example is only for purposes of illustration.

2) foreclosures private property rights must be defended against a state which has grown so corrupt that even the "too big to fail banks" which forced the bailout on the public are so openly contemptuous of the idea that the government itself has power that AIG is considering suing the federal government.

3) "free trade" As with #2, this is a problem which will likely be associated with further economic turmoil in the near future. In China, dissenters are worked in "re-education camps" often to death, at which point their organs are harvested. The growth of the prison-industrial complex will see more of this sort of thing in the U.S. as the corporatocracy uses the prisons to indoctrinate inmates to "Christianity." note: the major protest movement being persecuted in China, Falun Gong, is a peaceful movement.

4) civil liberties Using the unconstitutional powers assumed by the federal government as part of the "war on terror", Occupy protesters have been tracked by unaccountable federal police-state agencies controlled by the corporate interests who feel their power is at risk from a democratic revolution.

That's a partial list, of course. There's room for disagreement on this issue. While taking certain guns off the market might save lives, making it worthwhile, there's no gaurantee of long-term success in solving the problem of violence in society. Actually, its a way of saving lives but does not address the problem itself, which is that contemporary american culture actually causes mental illness- in far more people than those who manifest it through violent acts.

The NRA would like to focus on people with mental health issues, an indication of their desperation. Obviously, these are people who would generally otherwise be against the idea of a bureaucratic system subjecting the citizenry to mental health tests to determine their eligibility to enjoy constitutional rights. But it sounds good and people need someone to blame, and obviously people who commit these acts are mentally ill so...just keep "mentally ill" people (unemployed, wear funny clothing, say things you don't understand/like, etc.) from having guns and problem solved, right?

Maybe there is a compromise that gun owners (myself not included, btw, if that's of an solace to you) can live with, like maybe not being able to own an AR15 or whatever even though you want to. That way, we can get past this and tackle these pressing issues.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote DowntheMiddle:

As for your assertions on what I would or wouldn't support. I've clearly stated in other comments that I have no problem banning high capacity magazines, closing gunshow loopholes, and restricting person to person sales. I have no problem with extensive background checks, as I already have gone through them to get my FOID card and two conceal carry permits from two different states...along with the classroom training, despite my military service.

Sorry, I think I missed all that so please point out some of those posts. I only seem to recall your more radical pro gun positions. But then that's what happens when there's 10 threads on guns here.

I don't think any other restrictions or bans are going to do anything to curb violence. In fact, history proves they won't.

You mean curb gun violence? What history? There are plenty of nations with stricter gun control that have lower rates of gun violence than the US.

You tired of falling flat on your face in this thread yet?
Ever get tired of beating your wife? Explain why the world is flat.

Gee, not all questions are valid.

1: I don't have to "link" you to my own comments. You're the one here making assertions based on nothing, so look through the other threads for proof contrary to your accusations. Most of my comments in the most active threads, so they're not hard to find.

2: History, like a previous assault weapons ban. History like a complete gun ban in Chicago.

3: Beating my wife? Aww, see, look at ya.

You've done nothing but try to derail the discussion in this thread, make completely baseless assertions and accusations and parrot the same crap over and over again. I've been polite enough to point out that this discussion is focused on what others are focused on, the AR-15 (and "assault weapons"), and despite that, you're determined to continue your arrogant form of "debate" and since you failed, you've just turned into the average troll.

The simplest thing to do here is just say, "Hey, sorry, I was wrong", and walk away or actually join in the discussion and stay on topic.

You'll choose neither of course, because you're determined to come out of this with some sort of "victory".

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am
Quote Kevin:

Rational firearms regulation:

1.) Limit magazine size

2.) limit muzzle velocity and caliber

3.) eliminate all gun show loopoles

4.) register all firearms

5.) make conceal/carry requirements more stringent

6.) ban all internet firearms and ammunition sales

7.) improve backgroung check process

8.) require firearms training/certification

9.) ban military/battlefield firearms and weapons ownership by civilians

10.) Ban sales and use of dumdum ammunition by civilians

11.) Draconian penalties for not meeting these regualtions

Kevin: At least you present some ideas.

Reasonable list that needs a little work but you forgot a few more,

Felons cannot possess firearms.

People convicted of gang related offenses cannot possess firearms.

People who were ever convicted of domestic abuse cannot possess firearms.

People being treated for mental illness are prohibited until three years after treatment and with a doctors signed document stating it is OK.

All four are currently on the books in a number of states and are good laws but should be adopted by more states.

As for the velocity and caliber, would you prefer a large slow moving train to run over you at 5 MPH, or a Ferrari F430 to hit you at 195 MPH. Either way, you are a hurtin' dude. I see no logic in that request.

BTW, a dumdum bullet is a outdated term and is not really what you think it is. Hollowpoints, which most progressives will never understand, are actually much safer that a solid FMJ because they have much less tendency to ricochet, and penetration through sheetrock walls is much retarded, preventing someone in another room from becoming a unintended victim.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Redwing, why not just forward your last post to the Biden Committee with Kevin's list included and let them work out the rough spots. This is exactly what us liberal gun snatchers really want, with some revisions as you pointed out. I think some of the absolutism needs tweaking, not what you expected.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

It shouldn't be Biden to decide. It is the individual state that should be responsible for making it's own firearm laws. Of the requests Kevin made, and I added to, most are already on the books in many states. If they are not on yours, take Hartmann's advice and run for office.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am
Quote Redwing:

Because it is my constituional right to own one, and I WANT TO.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

It is your constitutional right to own a gun but it's not your constitutional right to own any kind of gun you wish to have. I've never read that in the constitution. Even our constitutional right to free speech has limits when it's used and abused against the constitutional rights of others.

You have a right to a gun and I have a right to not have that gun pointing in my face. I have the right to not be shot by a gun when I'm doing nothing wrong. I have the right to send my kids to school without fear of unregulated gun malice.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Since I was told repeatedly that the path to security for Murica was profiling of suspects based on race and other factors, wouldn't it be wise for law enforcement to start to profile gun owners, Whites, with children ages 15 - 28, who are End of the worlders, very religious and/or former military?

We are probably looking at this all wrong. Maybe conservatives were right? If the govt started a database and began to round up these disaffected groups, we could get ahead of these school yard terrorists.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:You'll choose neither of course, because you're determined to come out of this with some sort of "victory".

While you want to confine your argument to some narrow point, I have the right to point out the pointless argument you made... and if you didn't write those percentage stats yourself, something you plagiarized from other posts on the internet, what are we to think?

As for what's on-topic, shall I look back at other threads to see if you "derailed" any? How about that Second: Mandate to Own thread from last summer. You refused to debate anything and only made ONE post... a personal attack on me.. complaining about insults. Aww... see, look at ya now. Two hypocrisies in one... three if you plagiarized.

Bottom line, if you don't like my objections to your silly, in your face, argument... it's kinda too bad.

As for Chicago... THAT you consider "proof" gun bans don't work when someone can just bring in guns... not from overseass, but from across the city line? ROTF. Even state bans aren't effective as they might be if someone can simply bring in guns from across state lines. Or are you now going to say if we discuss gun bans we MUST only talk about Chicago because that's another lame argument you think you can "win" if you limit the scope enough?

Since I've been warned about such pissing contests... feel free to carry on.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Redwing:

It shouldn't be Biden to decide. It is the individual state that should be responsible for making it's own firearm laws.

Why?

And why did you write in another post here the exact opposite?

Quote Red:All four are currently on the books in a number of states and are good laws but should be adopted by more states.

So you want states to be free to be irresponsible but also suggest they adopt more responsible gun laws????

As for the federal role, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to decide important issues like general defense and general welfare. Arguably it also has the power to insure domestic tranquility. So why isn't it a federal responsibility to try and control criminals and lunatics with guns when states refuse... or conflicting state laws negate the gun control laws of neighboring states?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

[quote=DowntheMiddle]You'll choose neither of course, because you're determined to come out of this with some sort of "victory".

While you want to confine your argument to some narrow point, I have the right to point out the pointless argument you made... and if you didn't write those percentage stats yourself, something you plagiarized from other posts on the internet, what are we to think?

Yeah, people are talking about banning "assault rifles" and in particular, the AR-15, and you're going to say it's a "pointless argument"...ha ha. Those stats are from the FBI. You have a problem with them? Take it up with them. lol..pathetic.

As for what's on-topic, shall I look back at other threads to see if you "derailed" any? How about that Second: Mandate to Own thread from last summer. You refused to debate anything and only made ONE post... a personal attack on me.. complaining about insults. Aww... see, look at ya now. Two hypocrisies in one... three if you plagiarized.

You're butthurt about a thread from last summer. Wow...what an impression i must have made on you. Is that the one where I called you out for insulting pretty much everyone who disagreed with you? You're upset because I called you out for having the maturity level of hormonal prepubescent teenager?

lmao

Bottom line, if you don't like my objections to your silly, in your face, argument... it's kinda too bad.

No, I just think you deliberately went off topic because you couldn't rationally handle and submit anyone on this one topic. In fact, i know you did and I know that's the reason why. You still refuse to accept the fact that I was addressing a topic specifically brought up by Thom and a topic that is specifically being debated in Washington.

I know....it just eats you up that you can't win this one, but rub some cream on it....the butthurt will eventually go away.

As for Chicago... THAT you consider "proof" gun bans don't work when someone can just bring in guns... not from overseass, but from across the city line? ROTF. Even state bans aren't effective as they might be if someone can simply bring in guns from across state lines. Or are you now going to say if we discuss gun bans we MUST only talk about Chicago because that's another lame argument you think you can "win" if you limit the scope enough?

We can talk about DC, LA, any city with strict gun laws and high murder and violent crime rates....take your pick.

We can also go back to the previous assault ban and how it did nothing to quell any of the violence, nor did it stop mass shootings.

Again...take your pick.

Since I've been warned about such pissing contests... feel free to carry on.

lol...but you just can't stop, can ya? You simply must win at any cost....even if it means deliberately derailing a thread, insulting people, being a condescending jerk, and so on and so forth.....anything to get that "victory".

You're the one who'll carry on. The rest of us have met at some middle ground....you, however, have an obsession with trying to prove everyone who doesnt' fall in line with your diatribes, as a fool. Best of luck in life son...I'm guessing you don't have a lot of friends with an attitude like that.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

85% of gun owners believe we should regulate assault weapons of mass destruction. So we should just ban the other 15% who are gunatzi's with vested interest regardless of the massacres. Ban them and we would find a string of un-American activities dissipating from war profiteering to who's supplying the Drug Cartels. Just like their ancestors supplied Hitler and Stalin and the Indians a couple hundred years too late. Most of Hitler's truck engines to money laundering. Same with the modern "Police Actions" like Iraq after junior played on the carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" sign and haliburden no bid contracts soon followed. Same as Vietfuckingnam and Howard Hughes profits extended on Nixon's treason and Korea, the cold war and the drug war. All for profit endeavors with trolls and idiots cheering them on. Even the Unions get in on the action, like the teamsters backing sikorsky spraying Colombian kids or cat bulldozing chicks protesting.

Such hypocrisy and read my lip service with no backbone. All hat, no cowboy. These small percentage of fascist and wannabes jerking the flag and then cut the budget and even deny health care and responsibility for returning vets. The NRA wants cops in the classroom to protect against the police state? Frisky libertopians gonna shoot the cops and guvmint of, by, for and we the people? You ever see a living person exercise their gun rights to a SWAT team? Ruby Ridge? Waco? Rainbow Farm? Or the hundreds of individuals dead by protecting themselves with firearms or what sorta looked like one. Kids temper tantrums are bad enough without weapons of mass destruction laying around for papa redneck to lust over.

Blame video's and desensitizing on the NRA glamorizing guns and blowing shit up gets ratings. On corporate TeeVee, TeeVo, DVD and Games usually produced by gunuts. Be all that you can be beats Micky D. Pushing people to the brink outsourcing their jobs and cutting their health care and wages. Family farms forfeitured. Hemp is the most versatile plant on the planet and Nixon said it was a non-psychoactive schedule #1 narcotic, so they can't save their family farms. More abortions in the bible belt cotton fields than planned parenthood's 3% while 97% prevent abortions that the Reichwing want de-funded. Such gullible twits with such low self esteem they believe in the old fart westerns colloquialisms. Making everyone equal. Going through life fat drunk and illiterate with a 100 round semi-automatic human killing machine making you a manly man or woman and proud to value symbols above people and human creations above natures.

Recruitment techniques to sell more war so the machofuch's can jerk off more Walmart St chinese plastic from Iraq and Iranian crude oil. Made by kids in sweatshops taking an American's job. Profits on grunts dying and then profits when they come home missing body parts and mental stability. More committing suicide than were killed, if you don't count civilians. What better Xmas gift for a suicidal; vet than an assault rifle and hundred round clip? If you need a 100 round clip to hunt, give it up, go to Piggly Wiggly. The only reason for Military weapons in the publics hands are for killing large amounts of humans. Blood thirsty chicken hawks getting rich on rednecks with little pee pees.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

So much utter crap to respond to, but I'm trying to be on my best behavior even if you're not. But this deserves a second look since you're doubling down:

Quote DowntheMiddle: Those stats are from the FBI. You have a problem with them? Take it up with them. lol..pathetic.
Looks like someone doesn't like their weak arguments OR their hypocrisy exposed.

First someone worked those numbers over to create a false impression. First there's no mention that there were 1684 murders by firearms where the type is unstated. That's 20% of all deaths by guns... quite the margin of error for anyone stating DEFINITIVELY that rifles were ONLY the cause of 323 deaths. And those PERCENTAGE stats, which IS what I mentioned, did NOT come from the FBI as you indicated. Those numbers are NOT there at the FBI site.

Clearly in your rush to post your rather weak argument you didn't even look at the real data.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...

And your select "facts" AND your percentages are from the web, not the FBI. Unless YOU also posted both posts below, you plagiarized the material.

http://google.avantbrowser.com/Search.aspx?q=524%25+more+chances+to+die+...

Anyway, piss away. I don't expect you to admit anything. You just need to "win" at any cost.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:

Why do you NEED a car with 585 hp?

Why do you NEED a motorcycle that's capable of going 200 mph?

Why do you NEED a boat with two 455 engines?

Why do you NEED marijuana? Alcohol? Drugs in general?

Why do you NEED anything that's capable of causing an accident, injury or harm?

The fact is we don't NEED any of these things, but in responsible hands, they're not a danger.

The FACTs are that vehicles and swimming pools claim more childrens' lives than guns do. In FACT, they are the number one and number two causes of death for children, firearms being way down the list according to the CDC and Census Bureau.

Now let's look at the deaths that do involve firearms:

FBI murder report by weapon for 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 11:
* Total murder victims - 12,664
* total firearms murders - 8,583
* Handguns - 6,220 victims
* Rifles - 323 victims (The so called "assault weapons" are rifles)
* Shotguns - 356 victims
* Knives or cutting instruments - 1,694 victims
* Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 496 victims
* Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 726 victims

This data tell us that in 2011 a murder victim had:

* 524% more chances to die from a stab wound than from a rifle.
* 225% more chances to die from a punch or a kick than from a rifle.
* 153% more chances to die from a hammer or baseball bat than from a rifle.
* Of all murders 2.25% are committed with a rifle.
* Of all murders 2.81% are committed with a shotgun.
* Of all murders 5.73% are committed with hands, fists or feet.
* Of all murders 13.37% are committed with a knife or cutting instrument.
* Of all murders 49.11% are committed with a hand gun.

Check out the bold print and tell me again why my AR-15 is so special and under attack? Because it LOOKS like a miltary rifle? Because it LOOKS scary?

Look how much more likely you are to die from other causes than you are from an AR-15 and argue THESE statistics...these FACTS.

Now let's look at another subject matter. Many of you are for the legalization of drugs.

"Estimates of the total overall costs of substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually. This includes approximately $193 billion for illicit drugs,1 $193 billion for tobacco,2 and $235 billion for alcohol."

Many of you shrug off the alcohol and drug argument when it is brought up in a "we want your guns" debate, and rightfully so. Why would you want to give up your rights, rights that cost more 10 times more Americans' lives than guns ever have?

Alcohol and tobacco are already legal and many of you want to legalize drugs as well. So you're in full support of things which claim and/or destroy more lives than guns because they are things you don't want to give up, despite the danger and the amount of lives they claim.

Do we want to actually have rational discussions or just knee jerk emotional responses without actually taking into account that we're not actually addressing anything by going after a ban on these so-called "assault rifles"?

You are incorrect on your basic premise making the entire rationale of your statement false. Assault Weapons were defined as particular versions of semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns. So, looking at the rifle deaths, includes guns that weren't assault weapons and excludes a whole host of fire arms that were considered assault weapons.

Perhaps you should get your facts straight first, assess the information second, and then develop an opinion. You seem to be doing this process backwards.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Obviously, people need AR-15's to educate the public...

Portland residents panic as men armed with assault weapons ‘educate’ the city

Two men walked the streets of Portland armed with assault weapons earlier this week because they said they wanted to “educate” residents, who reacted by fleeing and calling police.

Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce told KPTV that they were forced to take drastic measure to make sure people were aware of their Second Amendment rights after 20 children in Connecticut were massacred with same type of AR-15 rifles they were carrying.

“We’re not threatening anyone,” Drouin explained. “We don’t have that type of criminal behavior.”

“This happens to open that line of communication, to let people know that you can defend yourself in a time of crisis or any time that you want to,” Boyce added.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/portland-residents-panic-as-men-armed-with-assault-weapons-educate-the-city/
Is this really the kind or world people wish to live in? On the other hand.... neither of my motorcycles which can do north of 200 MPH have the capability of murdering large numbers of people....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system