I think the citizens stripped of gun right s who are hurt because they don't have a gun to equlize the playing field will be viewed as an acceptable loss or politicians will be speachless and confused as to why crime didn't disappear after the gun ban.
For the record: some 11,000 people do die from firearm homicides a year. This in a country with 79 million gun owners and 300 million guns. That means, that if I'm not fucking up my math, that only 0.034% of guns are handled in an unsafe fashion.
While 11,000 people dying a year is far too high, it means that your risk of getting killed with a gun is about twice as high as you dying from getting struck with a bolt of lightning.
4 times as many people die in car accidents. Is that an argument to ban cars? 14 times as many people die from alcohol use. Is that an argument to bring back prohibition? 36 times as many people die from tobacco use. 56 times as many people die from heart disease. Is that an argument to ban McDonald's?
The good doctor, Jeffy, tells us that 30,000 are killed by guns each year. He's adding the 20,000 or so who use guns to commit suicide. Yet strangely, I never see anyone blame rope when someone hangs himself.
What this really boils down to is that a bunch of chickenshits who are too busy wetting themselves to understand what an INALIENABLE RIGHT is, want to make it illegal to buy a scary looking gun. A Remington carbine that takes 30-06 ammo is far more deadly than an AR-15, yet there's no call to ban that.
From all this, I think we can establish a pretty sound rule of thumb. People who don't know jack squat about guns shouldn't make rules governing their use. After all, we don't allow the Amish to write our traffic laws, now do we?
Did anyone miss me?
before anyone blasts you for your scattered reasoning, so I won't mention that comparing guns to products with great special utility like cars is pretty wayward, or noting that the number of people who kill themselves with assault weapons has got to be so small I can't comprehend why you would get into suicide rates when discussing an assault weapons ban (that is not why we want o ban this particular kind of weapon).
So did you build any new guitars on your hiatus? At least you practiced enough that you can play "Stairway to Heaven" now, right? This doesn't mean that Pripaus is coming back too, does it?
Thesee are the important questions i ponder today, at least until it's time for my nap.
I believe suicidal tendencies, play a major part in the masacares commited by people, who choose to commit mass murder, using assault weapons.
The majority of people who carry out these acts, commit suicide as the grand finale of their shooting spree. The ones who don't do it themself, know if they don't stand down will be killed by the police. I don't believe they expect to survive their own rampage.
How can the act of mass murder committed in a public setting under police control, be anything other than an overtly dramatic suicide attempt?
So did you build any new guitars on your hiatus? At least you practiced enough that you can play "Stairway to Heaven" now, right? This doesn't mean that Pripaus is coming back too, does it?
Thesee are the important questions i ponder today, at least until it's time for my nap.
My assumption was an assault rifle is rarely used to commit suicide bc it is so long.I'd guess handguns are overwhelmingly used here.
I also should seperate what I said about suicides, and the AW debate.
I should of linked suicide with the desire to commit mass murder/social destruction, as the AW is only the tool being used. I would like to see the "Why" this happens debate take place, as opposed to the "How".
Why do people commit these acts, and what can we do to stop this from happening?
The only conclusion I can come to is we can't, other than take away access to the tools.
did the massacre with a Bushmaster AR-15 but killed himself with a handgun. FWIW.
Dose that change the fact he was on a suicide mission?
No matter what was/wasn't going thru his head, there is no way he thought about where he was going for lunch that day.
Non-suicidal people do not commit massacares----FWIW.
Agreed. But I'm not sure where this leaves the debate. To me, it means ban all semi-automatics and high-capacity clips; a serious new effort at mental health reform; better and more inclusive background checks; some serious reflection on violence in society. Re the latter, there was an expert on TV last night whose studies have shown violent video games are not a factor. Hard to believe.
Timothy McVeigh planned on getting away. He killed 168 and injured 800 in the blast. Google his name and I think it falls under the definition of a mass killing where he wasn't suicidal.
The [majority] of people who carry out these acts.
Would you consider the bombing of a federal building, that involved more than one individual, to a mass shooting carried out by a "lone gunman" an equal comparison of events?
I think the state considers one a terrorist act, and the other a murder case.
FWIW----I consider some one who follows a big rig to closely at highway speeds, suicidal.
Most do kill themselves, I brought up OKC because he actually planned on getting away with it. Holmes is a bit of an exception, he could have walked away from the sounds of it the first police swat members thought he was another office.
MV was caught and executed do to indescreet actions. (subconsciously suicidal?)
MV was ex-military, not a common occurerence according to fusion groups.
MV did not work alone.
MV had a motive.
There was a National ban on assault weapons, when the bombing took place.
My point was I belive a similar attack could occure again, thats it. I think one person could do it without help. Motive is subjective, Lanza must have had a motive how ever twisted.
Ex military or not is immaterial, any one can have an ax to grind and in the process innocent people invariably get hurt. My point with it is mainly if you added up all of the school shootings in the USA since 1990, OKC still killed more people with items that are not restricted by federal law. You can go to home depo, your corner gas station and buy nitro mentane from most dealer in race fuel and recreate the bomb.... Why after such an attack that damaged so much isnt there a ban on the items used in it? One instance did millions of dollars in damage, killed 168, injured 800 and you can still purchase every thing used to impliment it in a half a day without so much as showing your ID.
MV was ex-military, not a common occurerence according to fusion groups.
MV did not work alone.
MV had a motive.
There was a National ban on assault weapons, when the bombing took place.
I missed you. I am not much for a gun debate, but heard a friend say something that made me think. What if blacks had weapons, would their people had ever been enslaved? And how many people knew slavery was immorally wrong, and stayed quiet? Have we not evolved to a place that all human beings are deserving of rights to live their life as they please, as long as they are not harming a single soul? Shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Shouldn't everyone that is stable, be able to own a firearm of their choosing? Shouldn't 2 consenting adults be able to do whatever they please? Shouldn't we have choice over using a God-given plant over man-made narcotics? Why do we fight? Our rights are just as important as others. Welcome back Willy, I missed you.
Mari & Madison: I've missed you too. Oh where, oh where have Pria gone?
Guns have a great social utility. When a gun is pointed at someone who is acting an a manner that is dangerous to the safety of others, they tend to behave themselves. That's why cops have guns. They point a gun at someone and yell "freeze", and more often than not, they freeze. And if they don't, you have a way to stop them from endangering others. The same applies to law abiding civilians.
However, it should be noted that the NRA membership are overwhelmingly racists. If you don't believe me, go to a gun show sometime and see just how much white supremacist literature is there. That is why the NRA membership supports background checks. They believe it will keep guns out of the hands of African Americans.
However, I gotta ask, what other INALIENABLE RIGHT comes with such caveats? Do we demand that a woman must get a background check before she can have access to an abortion? Do we insist that people must get a background check before they can have their right to be free from unreasonable searches & seizures? Do we demand that you must get a background check before you can freely practice your religion, or peacefully petition the gov't for a redress of grievances? Do we insist on a background check before you're allowed not to be a witness against yourself? Do we insist on background checks before you can be free from cruel or unusual punishment?
When a law abiding person buys a gun and has to go through a background check, does that not mean that we're assuming guilt, and they must prove their innocense?
If the point of background checks is to keep convicted felons from getting guns, then doesn't that infer that ZERO rehabilitation is going on in our criminal justice system and we expect a 100% recidivism rate? If so, then what merit does our justice system have?
And lastly, why should a convicted felon be free to buy a gun? If they're truely a danger to society, and have been proven to be a danger, then shouldn't they already be behind bars?
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 8:03:23 AM
However, it should be noted that the NRA membership are overwhelmingly racists. If you don't believe me, go to a gun show sometime and see just how much white supremacist literature is there. That is why the NRA membership supports background checks. They believe it will keep guns out of the hands of African Americans.
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 8:03:23 AM
Now if only we could get the damn Congress and news media to discuss the points you have described, maybe common sense could prevail. As it stands, looks like a certain block has decided now is the chance to push their agenda.
Blue Flames.
http://youtu.be/TnH2pgtt7_I
So to make any kind of social utility argument, you have to identify some social utility of assault guns that outweighs the horrifying risk posed by these lethal instrumentalities.
You attempted to patch this gaping - make that GAPING- hole in your argument by falling back on generic "guns" where it can be fairly argued that, at least in the home, there is a legitimate need to have a hand gun or 22 to discourage burglars, although I assume you don't go as far as Mein and advocate arming children to defend the freehold.
Now raise your hand if you are an honest citizen and need an assault rifle for "self defense."
See the problem?
A civilian AR-15 or AK-47 isn't an "assault" weapon. The traditional legal definition, as I understand it, is a weapon capable of Selective Fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
An M16 (the military version of an AR-15) has a selective fire option. You can shoot 1 round with a pull of a trigger. You can shoot 3 round bursts. Or you can shoot in full auto mode.
An AR-15 functions no differently than a standard Remington carbine hunting rifle. Both are semi-auto. Both shoot just as fast. Technically, the Remington is more deadly, since the AR-15 takes the puny .223 caliber.
This is not a matter of weighing the use of a weapon for self-defense purposes, verses public risks. If the weapon has a self-defense purpose, it should be legal, period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE
What this boils down to is that people who don't know jack squat about guns want to ban certain guns because they look scary.
Colt after the strike started producing sub par M-16s and FN got the contract in Columbia, S.C.
Remington manufactures the M4A1 Carbine in Ilion, N.Y. for the US military and it has full auto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
An M16 (the military version of an AR-15) has a selective fire option. You can shoot 1 round with a pull of a trigger. You can shoot 3 round bursts. Or you can shoot in full auto mode.
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 10:38:24 AM
The AR-15 slug is highly prone to fragment on impact, creating a devastating wound. Also, any semi-automatic assault rifle is relatively easy to modify into a fully automatic weapon. But even in it's "benign" semi-automatic state, when combined with a 30-round magazine it can be fired very rapidly. Such was the case in Sandy Hook Elementary when one was used to butcher 26 kids and adults in just a few minutes. According to first responders, many of their wounds were horrific. The mother of one boy said a single bullet took off the entire bottom half of his face. So much for those "puny" rounds.
Me, I'll feel plenty safe with a shotgun and my Colt .45 1911. Maybe just the Colt.
A round that shatters does create a horrible entry wound, but statistically, people typically die from blood loss from bullet wounds. So really, the heavier the round, the more likely it will create an entry and exit wound.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to rifles, or long guns in general, but my understanding is that it's quite difficult to convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full auto. You have to replace a lot of parts that aren't available to the public is my understanding.
What do you think a round from a .45 cal handgun does at 2 yrds? Do you really understand what you are saying? Virgina tech killer used simple handguns with clips of a maximum capacity of 15 I believe. Look up some information....
But I don't think you understood what I meant. I am just as safe in my home with a shotgun and a Colt .45 as I would be with a Bushmaster. Both the shotgun and the Colt are devastating at close range. Thus they are entirely up to the task of protecting me in my home and I don't need a Bushmaster. So I don't give a damn if they ban them or not. Clear?
I was more refering to the damage of an ar round compaired to a .45 colt. I dont really want to agrue about the kids injuries... so I'll leave it alone. A gun shot wound can be a horible injury and if you see a few first hand you'll probably remember it for the rest of your life.
If the Remington Carbine in .30-06 is so much deadlier than the AR-15, and full well knowing that 99.9% of combat shooting is done in semi-automatic mode, why isn't the armed forces equipped with those instead of AR variants?
We'd still be using Garands if there was any measure of truth to your herring.
Two guns available....
1 AR-15 with two 30 round magazines.
1 Remington 750 with 60 rounds....4 loaded already.
You get to pick a gun first, the other guy gets the other.
Which do you choose?
What context, IE body armor, range, cover.... only 2 guys at a range over 200 yrds I'd take the 06 if they have scopes. A BAR browning was one hell of a rifle, the M60 from Rambo fame shoots a 30-06 round.
One primary reason the military has gone to the 223 is ammo cost. Snipers are given a .50 cal bmg or a .308, unless they choose a different round/gun. A .50 bmg is the deadliest rifle you can own as a civilian with a range in the hand of a trained shooter of up to a mile and a half accurately. They will punch through 3" of solid steel and 4" of lexan.
The .50cal sniper platform's "official" primary purpose is anti-material not anti-personnel. Plenty of lighter, as fast, flatter rounds out there for anti-personnel. .338 Lapua for instance...
The M60 doesn't shoot 30-06, it shoots NATO 7.62x51, (.308 Winchester.), and it's a crew weapon, typically 2-3 men, I seriously hope you're kidding about referencing Rambo as a source of reliable info...
The primary reason for going to .223 was lighter/more ammunition per soldier, therefore greater combat sustainability. .223 is a fine round for point targets at 500 meters, area at 800 or so. 30cal is cropping up again because of the greater engagement distances in Afghanistan.
Current US equipment, training, and doctrine is optimized for engagements under 300 meters on level terrain. I can do 300 meters all day with iron sites on an AR. Rounds like the 6.8spc were developed because over half the engagements in Afghan are happening over 300 meters. It is why the Squad Designated Marksman has been re-introduced with the M-14....trained out to 600 meters, snipers begin at 600 meters.
We'll remove caliber from the equation in order to compare function between the platforms..
AR10 2 30 round mags
or
Remington 740 30-06?
Scopes, no scopes, doesn't matter.
500 meters.
Why?
30-06 at 500 yrds with 5 round clip. Mainly for killing capacity at 500 yrds. I have seen .223 s fail to kill coyotes at 600 yrd range. 30-06 will drop quite a bit at that range but still my choice. Maybe I m completely wrong, I have a couple 223 s one is even a bolt action but I dont know if I d try to take a deer with an autoloading 223 at 500 yrds.
That really is a middle range for either gun. One on one the best shot in that situation would win with either gun I think. If I had a pick in the rem 740 I might lean towards the 22 250.
.338 is a good round and is cheaper to shoot then a .50. Some of the specialized rounds might be better then the .50, .416 cheytec for example but I have seen the 50 do some amazing things, very few rifles will punch through a cinder block wall at 1000+ yrds and kill.
I am fimiliar with many guns but not a complete expert, I really thought the m60 was a 30-06... The rambo comment was a joke.
I wouldn't try top take down a deer with a .223 either, it's inhumane...For deer, boar, I've always used 7mm-08. I have a wonderful Steyr...
The 338 I'm referring to is the 338 Lapua Magnum- a dedicated sniper round, not the 338 Winchester that most hunters are familiar with. .416 CheyTec? You mean the .408 CheyTac used for the M-200?
You're primarily a hunter it sounds like. Hunters don't think about suppressive fire.
You can't effectively lay down suppressive fire with only a 4 round box magazine. You're S.O.L. as soon as that mag is empty versus someone with high cap magazines....Someone with high cap magazines has a far easier time keeping a target pinned with suppressive fire while working to a better firing position.
During WW2 everyone was running around with submachine gun types as defensive weapons. The Americans using the .45-caliber Thompson submachine gun, and the .30 caliber carbine, M1. The German Army filled this requirement with the 9-mm MP40 submachine gun and the Russian Army with the 7.65 x 25-mm PPsh 41 submachine gun, the British with the 9-mm Sten gun. Great guns capable of laying down substantial suppressive fire in defense, but they were only good out to about 100 meters, after that complete shit for accuracy.
That is why the Germans invented the Sturmgewehr. They combined the suppressive fire capability of all the sub-guns with the range of an intermediate cartridge rifle because they had determined through historical research that most infantry engagements begin at about the 400 meter range.
Combat rifles are all about suppressive, area of effect fire, and are superior to semi-automatic hunting rifles in that regard. If that wasn't the case the armed forces would still be using M1 Garands...
I spent a number of years in Iraq as an engineer right after college. I hunt a little. I thought you could buy the 338 lapua mag in civilian rifles as well? Might be mistaken.
408 M200 cheytec sorry its the 416 barrett got them confused.
I understand suppressive fire, but at 500 yards I am not sure how effective it would be, terrain matter alot in the situation you proposed a flat wide open field is what I was picturing. I guess I envisioned going to a prone position and picking your shot with the 30-06 at that range. A 223 has the same ftlbs of energy at 120yrds as the 3006 does at 500. It truly depends on the shooter I've seen army snipers shoot a running man who was running across their field of fire ducking behind things at 500 yrds with one shot. If either guy can shoot like that the other is dead regaurdless of the gun he's carrying.
Europe in WW2 was mostly urban conflict and their weapons reflect it. Vietnam was jungle warfare hence the smaller rifles as well, Iraq and afganistan you see the larger calibers come out more frequently. And if the insurgents had a rifle with a greater range then the AK you might see 308s being the standard ar being carried. The few time I shot the ak s I couldn't hit a 4' target at 500 yrds. Maybe it was a bad gun but I dont think its a good 300+ yrd gun.
If the M1 had a 30 round mag why not (other then its too heavy and long)? The big thing with the 308 and 30-06 rounds is muzzle jump and getting the rifle back on target. For suppressive fire to work you have to be reasonable accurate with it. Would you agree? Could be completely wrong, not a military conflct expert by any means.
I spent a number of years in Iraq as an engineer right after college. I hunt a little. I thought you could buy the 338 lapua mag in civilian rifles as well? Might be mistaken.
408 M200 cheytec sorry its the 416 barrett got them confused.
I understand suppressive fire, but at 500 yards I am not sure how effective it would be, terrain matter alot in the situation you proposed a flat wide open field is what I was picturing. I guess I envisioned going to a prone position and picking your shot with the 30-06 at that range. A 223 has the same ftlbs of energy at 120yrds as the 3006 does at 500. It truly depends on the shooter I've seen army snipers shoot a running man who was running across their field of fire ducking behind things at 500 yrds with one shot. If either guy can shoot like that the other is dead regaurdless of the gun he's carrying.
Europe in WW2 was mostly urban conflict and their weapons reflect it. Vietnam was jungle warfare hence the smaller rifles as well, Iraq and afganistan you see the larger calibers come out more frequently. And if the insurgents had a rifle with a greater range then the AK you might see 308s being the standard ar being carried. The few time I shot the ak s I couldn't hit a 4' target at 500 yrds. Maybe it was a bad gun but I dont think its a good 300+ yrd gun.
If the M1 had a 30 round mag why not (other then its too heavy and long)? The big thing with the 308 and 30-06 rounds is muzzle jump and getting the rifle back on target. For suppressive fire to work you have to be reasonable accurate with it. Would you agree? Could be completely wrong, not a military conflct expert by any means.
I thought the main reasons the us military switched to the 223 from the 308 were lighter gun, lighter ammo and magazines increasing the number of rounds carried by the GI by 40%, also ammo is 25% cheaper. Just because the us military uses them its unfair to assume that they are the absolute best killing choice. Also an injured enemy is more of a hinderance to the uninjured than a dead one. There are plenty of studies that reflect that.
They have slowly transisitioned back to the 308 in some areas because of range and killing power and many AR s have an option to change to the .308 or even .338.
this past Sunday and declined, I should have went and scoped it out. I believe there is a generation gap between me and the racist. I have a loved one in an assisted living, his head is not right from stroke, he has no filter anymore. A Jamaican couple care for him. She called me one day to tell me that he called her a name. But you know, this woman bought him new pants and a shirt for Christmas that fit him perfectly. She threw a birthday party for him and her husband cooked up the best Jamaican food. She is teaching him something about love. He is nice to her now and doesn't hurt her feelings anymore. Although, I would think in her field, that she has encountered the racism before.
I am sorry that we cannot speak our truth about Obama's change without being called a racist that I am not.
.
You are right on with the inablility to speak truthfully about a lot of Obama's stuff to some groups without the threat of racisim being inserted into the mix..............Most of the Nation tip toe's around commenting about things he and his administration does out of concern for some sort of reprisal or push back........we are more divided now than in the past 50 years. Sad.....
a panoply of every type of high capacity magazine or every type of clip (and you bet your ass I know the difference) or every type of shotgun or rifle (damn right there's a difference) or every type of weapon (note Willy I didn't use the reduncant term "assault weapon". Have you ever read DC v.Heller? Doubt it Read it again. I'll be happy to translate the part about the distance between Amendment 2 and the ability to make reasonable gun control laws. Scalia (the puppy dog trainer for Clarence Thomas) who can make him sit, stay, fetch, and high five has done said it pretty plainly with his right wing law clerks.
Ah think everuh day ah done hope WW missed me and wants to have a beer or hard likoor and good booze and food with me in da Beltway someday.
Ah hope ur very upset that the Filibuster rule wasn't significantly changed because those jerkoffs in the Senate won't pass shit.
Ya gotta be happy with that. You can still shoot your street up with SAMS and AR-15s and go and face off with them deer and mooses with Srah in a chopper because of the same fuckin' 60 votes necessary for the motion to vote something to the floor of the Senate.
And fuck yeah hot wimens luvs ya more if ya has an AR-15 strapped on each shoulder and your johnson as well.
And whatever you do for a living in what I guess is your government job over there in Beltway land, the place where Congress leads the biggest circle jerk on the planet, maybe not, constitutional law professor and consultant to Larry Tribe at Harvard Law won't be one of those things. I'm betting you're not a guest lecturer at Georgetown law either.
Heller done played Hell and Havoc with Wee Willy Wonka's brain
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
I fully understand along with your galpal SARAH fired from FAUS you enjoy nothing better than riding in a chopper, one eye on Sarah's non-shaved Hairy Pussy and the other on the Moose who has an equal chance and is a terrorist that you can chop up with your twin his and hers AR-15s.
I gotta say though Willy your solemate Wayne LaPussier sure put on a comedy show at SJC yesterday. We got to see dumb and fuicking dumbest ever in one putz.
Are you still using SAMS like FIM-92 Stinger to light your tokes? I'm pretty sure Amendment 2 and Heller the Wonka version says they're fuckin' okay.
How 'bout your girlfriend the imbecile Gay7le Idiot Trotter who Lawrence O'Donnell chopped to pieces last night when she couldn't name one instance where a rifle used in combat had ever helped an attacked woman protect herself against an imaginary five guys.
She wasn't the question answerer I think you'd respect.
Again ah done missed the helloutofya WW and ah done has known ya missed me and all muh articulatenesses too. Ah read all the newspapers and periodicals that muh girl Sarah Fired from Faux does and but also.
Who ya like for that football game in NO Sunday? Yuh goin to a good party with lotsa hot wimins and cold booze to watch it? Ya think Ray Lewis done consumed that Antler powder? What would it do for yer sexuoool stamina?
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 1:59:07 PM
The Heller decision aside, I fully agree that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute. For instance, it doesn't give anyone the right to own an atom bomb, chemical or biological weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, or the like.
But what IS an absolute is the inalienable right of self-defense. From this, we can establish a principle. If a particular weapon can be used by an individual effectively and efficiency for self-defensive purposes against another individual, then it is our right to own it.
So, can an AR-15 be used for self-defense?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE
In the Heller decision, Scilia gave examples of where it would be appropriate to not permit the use of weapons. For instance, it is appropriate to bar guns in a court room or other government building. On a plane where the presence of a gun directly endangers everyone.
But that doesn't mean our inalienable rights of self-defense are non-existant. Trotter summed it up quite nicely when she said that guns are a great equalizer.
Even you can understand this. Suppose some lunatic who's 6'4 and can bench press 250 pounds comes after a 5'1 spinner who weighs 90 pounds soaking wet. There is only one way that sweet little spinner is going to make it through that alive. And that is with a gun.
Guns create an EQUALITY OF FORCE between two individuals. It no longer matters how strong someone is, but rather if they have a tool to provide for their own self-defense.
I think the citizens stripped of gun right s who are hurt because they don't have a gun to equlize the playing field will be viewed as an acceptable loss or politicians will be speachless and confused as to why crime didn't disappear after the gun ban.
I've been hearing this nonsense non-stop among bed-wetting progressives.
Latest stats I've found on this tells a different story. Far too many people die from firearm homicides, but the number is 11,000.
How many times are guns used to prevent crime and save lives? Well, the latest dad I could find on this is from 1994, but even back then, before concealed carry was established in many states, guns were used 89,500 times a year by civilians to prevent crime and save lives, according to the Justice Department.
For those who were attacked and had no weapon, or a weapon other than a gun, they ran a 1 in 2 chance of serious injury or death. For those who did have a gun, their risk of suffering serious injury or death dropped down to 1 in 5.
Yes, guns really do save lives.
You give us statistics from DOJ, a reputable source, saying guns are used 89,500 a year in self defense.
Yet in five seconds I find this study saying the number is ridiculously larger;
"* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"
Which is it - 89500 or 989,883?
You see the problem? There are no peer reviewed numbers which show us that a proper methodology was used to collect and evaluate the data. I suspect I can find a gun control site where the number is smaller than even your DOJ stats and in any event is less than number of persons who shoot themselves or toehrs accidentally or intentionally.
The numbers are so wide apart that obviously one stUdy is TOTALLY WRONG. This is like the defensive medicine numbers - no one rally knows how much it costs us when docs practice defensive medicine. People throw out ridiculous numbers and advocates treat them as fact.
UNtil we have proper peer reviewed numbers on gun control issues, we can't use statistics to support pour positions.
Consider this scenario. You're putting some groceries into your car. Two shady looking guys start to approach you. One of the guys start to go around to get behind you. One of them asks you "what time is it?" You suspect this is a diversion tactic. You reach into your coat to grab a gun that you have concealed, and audibly click the safety off. Those two guys decide to walk away. Do you call the police for what might have happened? Probably not.
When a gun is used to prevent a crime from ever happening, I suspect that the vast majority of the time, nothing ever gets reported. So, I doubt there's any way to track down precisely how often guns are used defensively.
Maybe people smarter than I could figure it out, but I think most numbers are probably just guesses. For now, I'll take the DOJ's numbers, despite that they're nearly 20 years out of date, simply because it's about as repuable a source I can find on the matter.
linking the papers news stations etc. Well you do not expect Rachel Maddow to show records of citizens defending themselves with a gun right. 
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 10:51:09 AM
the place and the landscape for credible stats is shaky, and getting reliable stats on gun defense, and a gamut of other argued gun points is tough and getting consensus from both sides of gun control on stats is equally tough.
Some of the surgical journals ncluding the thoracic ones, for years have tried to survey the number of people badly injured with their own guns by their attackers who got access for a variety of reasons.
A really excellent ER who was with Emory for years helping to run their ER program, Art Kellermann, and was an associate dean at Emory med as well has done some very well known series trying to determine a wide range of stats on gun violence. He worked long and hard to do the studies and he has been villified by the gun lobby and NRA and his stats criticized, and he has been praised by an equal number of people. No one who knows him fails to praise his other excellent literature and his outstanding skills as a teacher and an ER physician.
Art Kellermann Named New Director of RAND Health | RANDwww.rand.org › News and Events › News Releases › 2010Cached - Similar
Nov 17, 2010 – Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, one of the nation's leading public health and emergency medicine researchers, has been named as the new head of ...
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/11/17.html
I imagine his twitter stream currently is interesting because Art has looked at and studied gun stats for a long time and treated his fair share of gun injuries/GSWs as a hands on chief of ER medicine at Grady.
https://twitter.com/ArtKellermannMD
@ArtKellermann
I agree with everyone who says next to nothing will get passed as to gun control. I would expect at the most there may be an attempt to extend background checks to close the so-called straw purchase and "gun show loopholes" but I've watched any kind of needed regulation get so watered down. A lot of people (and I expect Willy would agree that Dodd-Frank) has been badly watered down and is of little help to consumers.
The genie is out of the bottle writ large, as far as high capacity magazines and guns or rifles that shouldn't be pervasive within the general lay population and should be confined to law enforcement and the Armed forces, and it is tragic when anyone gets badly hurt or killed because it takes so much of their life away. Gabby Giffords would be but one case in point. The tragic waste of lives of children in Newtown Ct. another.
I have to seriously say that LaPierre and Lindsay Graham sounded like buffoons with non-sequitor and irrational points all through the SJC hearing.
-- Modified on 1/31/2013 7:27:13 PM
And that's just on general principle. Oh, and welcome back to this shithole but don't expect to see much of me here.
Too bad your first post didn't make more sense. You keep jumping back and forth between the issue of banning assault weapons with high-capacity magazines and banning all guns, something no one, repeat, no one, wants to do. Of course those nuts in the NRA want you to think that's the true agenda of the Obama Crew, but it isn't. (He told me so himself. He communicates with me through the fillings in my teeth.)
Others have pointed out the false logic in your comparison of guns to cars. And your gun suicide point is a total red herring: no one I've heard of blames the gun used in a suicide.
Too bad, too, you didn't address the entire issue in its complexity, because no one is arguing that simply banning assault rifles and big magazines will work on its own. We need to address the mental health issues, the fact that many existing laws are not enforced, the pervasive violence of all kinds in this country, and on and on.
But no matter what anybody says and no matter what laws are passed, guns aren't going away. Like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle. Several million semi-automatic assault rifles have been sold since Sandy Hook and more are selling every day. But that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and just do nothing. I say ban them and the big magazines and buy back as many as possible. Will it help much? Maybe not but it's worth a shot.
And as far as defending your home, you'll do much better with a pump-action shotgun, with a pistol for up close. In fact, this point was well made by some guy called Zing!! on this very board a day or two ago. But I guess you missed it.
Oh, and here's something from your pal, Gambler:
problem on this thread.
Time to raise the white flag on this one, Willy, and next time bring your A game. But I will give you an "A" for your knowledge of different kinds of guns (although it worries me when anyone spends this much time studying guns, and I hope you are still not carrying your gun on the Metro) and an "A plus" for guitar identification (by the way, the recoil on your hands from firing one of those monsters you posted can't be good for your touch on the guitar).
Recoil ain't shit.
Well, well, well little boy-willy
I see you finally got the knife out of your back. Did you require surgery, or just a bunch of stitches?
Wonder what the cowardly back stabber will think of, and say about your return?
As I stated below I am a very strong advocate of gun control
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=204419&boardID=39&page=1#204419
if the need to protect/defend your home and family ever does arise a shot gun as suggested by some is very difficult to wield in a house therefore when it comes to close quarters a hand gun or an AR-15 seems to me to be the best weapon.
Now boy-willy do you realize that the guy YOU voted for and helped get re-elected surly does appear to want to take guns away from all citizens. True he has not said it in those words but when you look into his eyes I see “CONFISCATION” not support of law abiding, citizens and the 2nd amendment. And that just might include your toy cap guns too !
So clearly your guy obama, who does not know jack squat about guns, nor does biden, they are making the rules. Just remember you voted for them.
To answer your last question NO, not that I can, but even if I could I would never stop you from posting.
You’re Welcome
God Bless America
BTW jeffie-puke is not a doctor
On this thread there are several gun owners...and they throw each other under the bus just as fast as they can. Race to flaunt their superior knowledge of firearms by picking apart the other guys statements and in general discredit each other at every turn.
Meanwhile, the anti-gun folks are goose stepping in unison. Classic.
The scary thing for me as a gun owner is realizing so many other gun owners are fucking morons and ought not be armed. Yup...I go to the range, check left and right and see a whole lot of unsafe assholes with guns.
Maybe it's because I'm German and we're genetically predisposed to proper weapons crafting, handling and competency.
For the right to bear arms to remain intact a whole hell of a lot of people need to wake the fuck up and thoughtfully drag the 2nd amendment into the 21st century.
LaPierre and Co. have failed miserably, and I say the NRA is probably the greatest threat to the right to bear arms, at the moment, due to their utter incompetency in proactively addressing matters concerning modern firearms and their capability.
They just want to make a buck.
For the right to bear arms to remain intact a whole hell of a lot of people need to wake the fuck up and thoughtfully drag the 2nd amendment into the 21st century.
[/
The NRA inexcusably wasted an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and exercise guidance.
They fucked themselves and are directly responsible for the further marginalization of individual liberty which will be resultant.
The NRA inexcusably wasted an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and exercise guidance.
They fucked themselves and are directly responsible for the further marginalization of individual liberty which will be resultant.
...the several states have their own provisions in their Constitutions.
This allows for one to have a better understanding of what the Founders really meant by the 2nd amendment, at least if you look at these provisions among the 13 original colonies.
For instance, the Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights states:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The 2nd amendment IS very much about preventing tyranny by the Federal gov't.
The Virginia language is useful in understanding what was in the minds of the Founders when they created the Second Amendment. I don't support changing or removing said Amendment. However, times have changed dramatically since then, proving once again that going to "original intent" is not a useful guide when trying to interpret what should be done in this day and age.
For example, you could justify a right to an assault weapon (including a 30-round magazine) if you felt the Second Amendment supported the right of individuals to prevent tyranny by the Feds. But, in this day and age, would it really do that? To believe it would, you'd have to think a bunch of fat, old, disorganized rednecks with AR-15s constitutes a "well regulated militia" that could successfully fight the Regular Army, or even the National Guard. Good luck with that, guys. I'll be huddled in my house with my shotgun and my Army Colt.
Most red necks aren't fat and old .
"In this day and age" thousands of active duty , red neck country military boys , would not fire on their cousins in the hills , regardless of the General giving orders . There would be Generals switching sides .
There would be chaos , mass desertions and back stabbings . Both sides would have tanks and jets until fuel depots were empty or destroyed .
I have no fear of the feds invading our homes, unless it's on DVD.
For example, you could justify a right to an assault weapon (including a 30-round magazine) if you felt the Second Amendment supported the right of individuals to prevent tyranny by the Feds. But, in this day and age, would it really do that? To believe it would, you'd have to think a bunch of fat, old, disorganized rednecks with AR-15s constitutes a "well regulated militia" that could successfully fight the Regular Army, or even the National Guard. Good luck with that, guys. I'll be huddled in my house with my shotgun and my Army Colt.
which is why the Army will never be deployed against citizens. They could not be trusted to follow orders to fire on their fellow citizens. Just look at the predicament the Egyptian army is in.
BTW, nice picture of Custer, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this debate. Unless you consider Sitting Bull to be a fellow citizen of the Colonel. I'm sure the Chief didn't think he was.
I am not sure how much of a regular army there will be in a civil war. There have been many recorded instances of the common soldier refusing to obey orders in these cases. An Ar -15 is not a defense against the army and the truth is if they can do pretty much whatever they want to do if they are willing to accept the extremination of the civilian population. It s been proven by militaries with far less firepower then ours.
The reason I own an AR 15 and magazines is because I could and still can. Change the laws and make mine illegal and we can talk about turning them in. Until said time respect my right to these weapons just as you respect peoples right to smoke, drink or enjoy risky activities that are not truly necessary. Boating resulted in 5.8 deaths per 100,000 registered boats last year if you apply the same ratio to firearms excluding suicides the numbers would be 5800 gun deaths per year. Riskier activities such as boxing, skydiving, atv's and snowmobiling have higher rates.
Another gun stat that is missleading is out of the 10,000 or so gun deaths per year how many would have been committed if you took the gun completely out of the equation? If you believe that taking away guns would eliminate every one of these murders then maybe you can use that as a true number. Australia which many anti gun advocates use as an example had homocide rates fall from 1.9 deaths per 100k to 1.3 in the 10 years following the gun ban and have remained fairly constant since. So rates might be expected to fall by roughly 1/3 if you applied the same number to the USA. If you consider that homocides rates fell in the USA from 45 per 100k in 1993 to 26 per 100k this year rates actually fell more in the USA without a gun ban during the same time period. If you consider that the USA has a higher crime rate overall when compairing it to other developed nations our high homocide rate really should be shocking.
Even a complete federal gun ban would take guns out of the hands of criminals. We can't go backwards and un-invent firearms any more then we can un-invent nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The drug ban is nothing more then a monumental expense for taxpayers and our criminal justice system and I think a gun ban would be worse. Unless you are willing to execute people who violate a firearms ban.
And then you might have the US govt arguing the Supremacy Clause applies. But none of this is gonna happen so it is just fun to talk about.
-- Modified on 2/1/2013 10:13:19 PM
I've thought of getting a shotgun for home protection, but quite frankly, I hate replastering dry wall, so my primary home defense weapon is a 9mm.
Yeh, I know I voted for Obama. Hey, I figured he was too pussy to do anything about guns. He even expanded gun rights and let us carry guns in federal parks. I figured he was just another pussy Democrat. The one issue he sort of finds his spine on is the wrong issue. Oh well, I guess that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.
Oh, we all know Jeffy isn't a doctor. I just like to humor him. I bet he's just a male nurse who has to give old people sponge baths.
I agree completely willy. I watched a Cspan forum with David Keene, pres of the NRA, speaking with about 2 doz reporters at a breakfast. He was impressive with his ability to answer all questions and support his answers with facts and figures. You could see many of the reporters furiously typing on their laptops when he provided facts. I assume they were fact checking him in realtime. I was also impressed with the ignorance of the subject by the reporters. They "know" a lot of myths and BS, but very little about guns.
The progressives are pushing hard on their objective to disarm us. They are looking for a small victory which will later provide the basis for going after more severe limitations on our rights.
Completely agree. I dont have a problem with an AW ban so your only requirement to purchase is being 21 and not having been convicted of a crime. I guess I believe you should be required to take gun safety at any age to have a right to buy firearms. Also I don't have a serious issue with ammo permits that you file with the DOJ that are good for your lifetime unless you commit a crime worthy of being removed (cali has proposed this but with a $50 yrly fee that is really just another tax). Multiround clips I dont really care if they limit them to 10 rnds but don't believe having only 10 rd clips would deter someone from a mass shooting or even assist in lowering the body count.
But and here is the real thing I have an issue with, when they start compromising my rights what will prevent them from wanting another compromise in the future?
Public schools should teach gun saftey, along with proper storage techniques.
Americas children are educated on every drug available to them. Why not teach the kids how to respect firearms?
I learned it in school actually. Children should be taught at a very young age to respect gun weather they ever shoot one or not. It's no different in my opinion then being taught the stove is hot, that knives are sharp, cars on the street can kill you. Sheltering children and avoiding the fact guns exist works as well as pretending that children arent exposed to sex or illegal drugs.
Everything is not % some the effect of some minuscule % is far greater. Would you accept same % for medical care, that is, success rate of all medical care is 96.6%? or only 96.6% of Commercial Aircrafts safely take off or land.
With context, %’s are meaningless which is what you are doing. Mathematics can prove anything and context makes it useful.
Your logic and math is in line with Wayne Lapierre, the colossal idiot.
While 11,000 people dying a year is far too high, it means that your risk of getting killed with a gun is about twice as high as you dying from getting struck with a bolt of lightning.
4 times as many people die in car accidents. Is that an argument to ban cars? 14 times as many people die from alcohol use. Is that an argument to bring back prohibition? 36 times as many people die from tobacco use. 56 times as many people die from heart disease. Is that an argument to ban McDonald's?
The good doctor, Jeffy, tells us that 30,000 are killed by guns each year. He's adding the 20,000 or so who use guns to commit suicide. Yet strangely, I never see anyone blame rope when someone hangs himself.
What this really boils down to is that a bunch of chickenshits who are too busy wetting themselves to understand what an INALIENABLE RIGHT is, want to make it illegal to buy a scary looking gun. A Remington carbine that takes 30-06 ammo is far more deadly than an AR-15, yet there's no call to ban that.
From all this, I think we can establish a pretty sound rule of thumb. People who don't know jack squat about guns shouldn't make rules governing their use. After all, we don't allow the Amish to write our traffic laws, now do we?
Did anyone miss me?
Prove that violent crime will end with a complete gun banand I'll sign on, in fact prove that violet crime is down in countries with gun bans in the first couple yrs after the ban and I'll consider it. The fact is I dont think you can. %'s are all eitehr side has and weighing the greater good.
That said I dont agree with most of what the NRA says, but I do feel the right to responsible ownership of firearms isn't the true problem with america today. It's recieving a ton of attention because its inflamitory but other items have been used to commit mass murders and could be again and you don't hear talk of a ban on them.
Everything is not % some the effect of some minuscule % is far greater. Would you accept same % for medical care, that is, success rate of all medical care is 96.6%? or only 96.6% of Commercial Aircrafts safely take off or land.
With context, %’s are meaningless which is what you are doing. Mathematics can prove anything and context makes it useful.
Your logic and math is in line with Wayne Lapierre, the colossal idiot.
While 11,000 people dying a year is far too high, it means that your risk of getting killed with a gun is about twice as high as you dying from getting struck with a bolt of lightning.
4 times as many people die in car accidents. Is that an argument to ban cars? 14 times as many people die from alcohol use. Is that an argument to bring back prohibition? 36 times as many people die from tobacco use. 56 times as many people die from heart disease. Is that an argument to ban McDonald's?
The good doctor, Jeffy, tells us that 30,000 are killed by guns each year. He's adding the 20,000 or so who use guns to commit suicide. Yet strangely, I never see anyone blame rope when someone hangs himself.
What this really boils down to is that a bunch of chickenshits who are too busy wetting themselves to understand what an INALIENABLE RIGHT is, want to make it illegal to buy a scary looking gun. A Remington carbine that takes 30-06 ammo is far more deadly than an AR-15, yet there's no call to ban that.
From all this, I think we can establish a pretty sound rule of thumb. People who don't know jack squat about guns shouldn't make rules governing their use. After all, we don't allow the Amish to write our traffic laws, now do we?
Did anyone miss me?
It's not a question of "need". It a question of RIGHTS. It is my RIGHT to own a semi-auto rifle, which, by the way, isn't an assault weapon.
You don't get to decide whether I need this or that. I get to decide that. They're called RIGHTS for a reason.
Agree completely, another thing is today I dont need health insurance, home owners ins, a boat in mn, a gun or an assault weapon. But someday I might need these things and I have the right to them. You dont always buy or have items based on need its as simple as that.