9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.

[Diablo]

(16-01-2013 07:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:13 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Overblown hysteria about gun violence and safety. Its not much, but at least there is a reason.

I meant 'rational, useful reason'.

The fear of some insane person getting a AR15 or similar weapon and mowing down some people is a real threat. Insanely small, but it has happened in the past. In Mexico, the drug cartels use such weapons quite frequently. The AR15 is banned in Mexico, and I read the drug cartels will pay $5,000 each to the person who smuggles them across the border.

So lives are needlessly being lost. Maybe only a few would be saved from stopping the sale of such weapons, but it is still something.


So again, what is the reasoning for keeping them in the easily accessible hands of the public?

[Chas]

(16-01-2013 09:28 PM)Diablo Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  I meant 'rational, useful reason'.

The fear of some insane person getting a AR15 or similar weapon and mowing down some people is a real threat. Insanely small, but it has happened in the past. In Mexico, the drug cartels use such weapons quite frequently. The AR15 is banned in Mexico, and I read the drug cartels will pay $5,000 each to the person who smuggles them across the border.

So lives are needlessly being lost. Maybe only a few would be saved from stopping the sale of such weapons, but it is still something.


So again, what is the reasoning for keeping them in the easily accessible hands of the public?

So you are saying we should ban all semi-automatic firearms capable of having a magazine containing more than some number (5? 10? 20?) of rounds?

[TheBlackKnight]

(16-01-2013 08:13 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:07 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Weren't weapons like the AR15 banned up to 2004? Why is everyone acting like they are crucial to their survival now?

Even if we ignore the safety issue, which I agree is often completely overblown. What is the argument for allowing weapons like the AR15?
Not the 2nd amendment either... That isn't an argument.

You are coming from the exact wrong direction, and yes, the 2nd Amendment and it's complete meaning is a argument.
I don't have to "qualify" my reason for buying a rifle that has multiple uses and is easy to use. But you shouldnt not know about firearms sooo...

The AR15 has been in production since the late 60's. It's assault rifle cousins have been in service since 62 and still prefered by most top tier military units that have a choice of rifle. There are millions of them built for every reason you could ever use a rifle for, and they come in every caliber from .17HMR to .50 BMG to crossbow. Yes, AR15's come in crossbow. They are(were! )cheap on ammo,accurate and easy to shoot do to the inline buffer design and the 223/5.56 low recoil. In DC vs Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the kind of arms protected by the 2nd amendment are ones that "are commonly owned by law abiding citizens for legitimate purposes" as apposed to "dangerous and unusual"arms. A semi auto firearm is based off of 100+ year old technology, and the AR has been in our hands for 40+ years being supplied with mostly 30r and some 20r magazines. There are so many different makers making soo many little different variations that you can't even keep up with the companies. It is certainly more that common, it's the most popular rifle in America right now sans any political derp.

My AR15 is the only rifle I own because it's the ultimate utility rifle. I can hunt, cross train for work, shoot different matches and defend my house with it. My wife even shoots it and she dosent exactly get excited about firearms.

Look up^

(16-01-2013 09:28 PM)Diablo Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  I meant 'rational, useful reason'.

The fear of some insane person getting a AR15 or similar weapon and mowing down some people is a real threat. Insanely small, but it has happened in the past. In Mexico, the drug cartels use such weapons quite frequently. The AR15 is banned in Mexico, and I read the drug cartels will pay $5,000 each to the person who smuggles them across the border.

So lives are needlessly being lost. Maybe only a few would be saved from stopping the sale of such weapons, but it is still something.


So again, what is the reasoning for keeping them in the easily accessible hands of the public?

And no, the bullshit"if it only saves one life" line is worthless because it is so greatly out weighed by the amount of crime stopped by people with firearms, much of which is never recorded.

[Diablo]

(16-01-2013 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 09:28 PM)Diablo Wrote:  The fear of some insane person getting a AR15 or similar weapon and mowing down some people is a real threat. Insanely small, but it has happened in the past. In Mexico, the drug cartels use such weapons quite frequently. The AR15 is banned in Mexico, and I read the drug cartels will pay $5,000 each to the person who smuggles them across the border.

So lives are needlessly being lost. Maybe only a few would be saved from stopping the sale of such weapons, but it is still something.


So again, what is the reasoning for keeping them in the easily accessible hands of the public?

So you are saying we should ban all semi-automatic firearms capable of having a magazine containing more than some number (5? 10? 20?) of rounds?

I don't know enough about firearms to say which ones are deemed too dangerous for the general public.

However, for all intents and purposes one could probably make do with breakway shotguns, bolt action rifles, and double action revolvers.

[TheBlackKnight]

(16-01-2013 10:26 PM)Diablo Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  So you are saying we should ban all semi-automatic firearms capable of having a magazine containing more than some number (5? 10? 20?) of rounds?

I don't know enough about firearms to say which ones are deemed too dangerous for the general public.

However, for all intents and purposes one could probably make do with breakway shotguns, bolt action rifles, and double action revolvers.

why would you want to be at a disadvantage? Law abiding people deserve the monopoly on force.

[Birdguy1979]

(16-01-2013 09:28 PM)Diablo Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  I meant 'rational, useful reason'.

The fear of some insane person getting a AR15 or similar weapon and mowing down some people is a real threat. Insanely small, but it has happened in the past. In Mexico, the drug cartels use such weapons quite frequently. The AR15 is banned in Mexico, and I read the drug cartels will pay $5,000 each to the person who smuggles them across the border.

So lives are needlessly being lost. Maybe only a few would be saved from stopping the sale of such weapons, but it is still something.


So again, what is the reasoning for keeping them in the easily accessible hands of the public?

If you are really going to ban some guns, then you must ban them all. Let's say you have successfully banned and actually got rid of all guns that are not handguns. Lets say that every weapon the public can buy is a one squeeze per shot low capacity weapon. Let's say 4 bullets. Now let's say that the crazy gunman has just used this weapon 3 times, so there is only one bullet left. Now let's think about what happens if he runs into a crowded area with only one way in or out. Even if the crowd knows full well that he can only fire one more time and he becomes as defenceless as they are, more than likely he can do whatever he wants since nobody in that situation is going to volunteer to be shot. Easier access to weapons to all is the solution. If you are looking to steal from people, you don't walk into a police station and wave a weapon around, you go to a mall or somewhere else that most if not all people are going to be unarmed.

[earmuffs]

(16-01-2013 07:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(16-01-2013 07:19 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Or how about 11,000 dead due to guns a year compared to say, the UK's gun death rate.

More than 99% of gun deaths are from handguns, so another "Assault Weapons Ban" is not effective. It wasn't the first time.

Tell that "it's not effected" to the 110 people (1% of 11,000).

But without being picky I see your point, so ban the easily concealable weapons (because what's the point in banning handguns, but not mac10s?) though in saying that, a ban is a stupid idea. it's like banning weed... all in moderation.
BUT tougher laws are needed, and perhaps you are right about the AR, that is no doubt just a reaction to the mass shootings of late, and perhaps the tougher laws need to be around concealable weapons.

[germanyt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...stics.html
I'm growing increasingly concerned over knife violence in the UK. I think we need to get together to come up with some common sense measures to stop all these stabbings. Perhaps a ban on all blades over 4 inches and any blade deemed to be considered an assault knife.

To be an assault knife one must have one or more of the following
-serrated blade
-more that one sharp edge
-a folding handle
-a retractable blade
-an ergonomic grip as to allow for the more effective slashing




Also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mas-sowell

[earmuffs]

(17-01-2013 07:28 AM)germanyt Wrote:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...stics.html
I'm growing increasingly concerned over knife violence in the UK. I think we need to get together to come up with some common sense measures to stop all these stabbings. Perhaps a ban on all blades over 4 inches and any blade deemed to be considered an assault knife.

To be an assault knife one must have one or more of the following
-serrated blade
-more that one sharp edge
-a folding handle
-a retractable blade
-an ergonomic grip as to allow for the more effective slashing




Also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mas-sowell

And what about those that throw knifes at carnivals for a living?

The fact that stabbings is on the increase and becoming an ever increasing problem and people are being killed because of it is in no way an excuse to breach those carnies rights!!!

[TheBeardedDude]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Who said ban all guns? How is that comparable to knives?

The UK has a problem with stabbings but had something on the order of 35 gun murders last year. 35...compared to 11,000+ in the US.

Ann Coulter would be proud though, she thinks it is a race issue. You are on the same side of a debate as Ann Coulter. I implore you to listen to reason.

Metropolitan areas have higher crime rates. They have greater income disparity and a larger population below the poverty level. The US has ~82% of its population in urban and suburban areas, compared to 90% in the UK. I would expect the UK to have a higher crime rate and murder rate. Crime rate is up, but murder rate is down.


So, back to the issue at hand. I am not under the delusion that changing gun laws will lower our crime rate, but if changes in the law and culture reduce the number of mass shootings and accidental gun deaths then...halle-fucking-lujah.


This guy also agrees with you. People like this compare Obama to Hitler. This is your side. Take a good, hard look.