Who needs an AR-15???

[Bignugget 0]

oldwomanc6

I'm a little curious here. What gives you the right to decide what other people have access to?

Nevermind the ridiculous assumption that those 280 million guns will miraculously cease to exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I just have a right to life.

AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means).

We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use.

Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means).

Is it really that hard to follow the logic?

I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict.


Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest...

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

I realize you all think just as many people would be murdered.

I don't.

no... you've already told us that you're willing to take rifles away from millions to potentially save the lives of the 322 people murdered with rifles, and in exchange, you're OK with having thousands more raped, robbed and assaulted.

based on the smallest number of estimated annual defensive gun uses, 100,000 (estimates based on different studies range all the way up to 3.6M DGU's annually) split on the proportions of 2011 violent crimes means you're OK with more than 7000 additional rapes, almost 30000 additional robberies, and more than 63000 additional assaults.

Sound about right?

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

rhaig

***
I realize you all think just as many people would be murdered.

I don't.

no... you've already told us that you're willing to take rifles away from millions to potentially save the lives of the 322 people murdered with rifles, and in exchange, you're OK with having thousands more raped, robbed and assaulted.

based on the smallest number of estimated annual defensive gun uses, 100,000 (estimates based on different studies range all the way up to 3.6M DGU's annually) split on the proportions of 2011 violent crimes means you're OK with more than 7000 additional rapes, almost 30000 additional robberies, and more than 63000 additional assaults.

Sound about right?

Ill trust your math, you seem like a level headed guy.

So, yes that sounds about right except for the part about the rifles.

I am ok with taking ALL the guns away to potentially save the lives of ALL the people killed with guns.

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

So, yes that sounds about right except for the part about the rifles.

I am ok with taking ALL the guns away to potentially save the lives of ALL the people killed with guns.

and if there was a big shiny red button that could magically make them all go away. Then your plan would work.

But since there isn't, there will still be at least the same number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Likely more, as we know the chances of NONE of the confiscated weapons making it back onto the street is essentially nil.

This is why I wish there was a category in the UCR stats for "legally purchased firearm" and "illegally purchased firearm". Confiscation would only affect the legally purchased firearms.

And since there will still be criminals with firearms wanting to do bad things, and the police respond to phone calls in an average of 7 minutes in cities in my county (ignoring that most of the county is rural). I would expect that we could see those firearms continued to be used against law abiding citizens. Perhaps with more frequency than before.


The efficacy of your plan relies on the magic "gun eraser" button.

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

rhaig

***
So, yes that sounds about right except for the part about the rifles.

I am ok with taking ALL the guns away to potentially save the lives of ALL the people killed with guns.

and if there was a big shiny red button that could magically make them all go away. Then your plan would work.

But since there isn't, there will still be at least the same number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Likely more, as we know the chances of NONE of the confiscated weapons making it back onto the street is essentially nil.

This is why I wish there was a category in the UCR stats for "legally purchased firearm" and "illegally purchased firearm". Confiscation would only affect the legally purchased firearms.

And since there will still be criminals with firearms wanting to do bad things, and the police respond to phone calls in an average of 7 minutes in cities in my county (ignoring that most of the county is rural). I would expect that we could see those firearms continued to be used against law abiding citizens. Perhaps with more frequency than before.


The efficacy of your plan relies on the magic "gun eraser" button.

Since there is no magic red button we are doomed to remain as homicidal as Yemen.

Maybe you are right.

I like magic.

[skybill 18]

Nataly

OK, I was just clicking through different links on youtube and ended up on this (warning to all Piers Morgan haters: contains Piers Morgan!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2btKEnfuA4


I don't know how much you can stand to get through since everyone is talking at the same time but the question he poses made me think:

Quote

Why would anyone need an AR-15?

(Or any other automatic or semi-automatic weapon or a magazine that can hold more than a handful of rounds...)

It's a good question... Why *would* any civilian need these? (Other than the obvious: they're fun!!!) The US bans other weapons that have far less potential for harm... Would banning these types of riffles (or high-capacity magazines - or both) actually reduce mass murders? The argument being that law-abiding citizens (ie: people who have legally purchased these) are not the ones committing crimes in the first place... So banning these only punishes law-abiding citizens... Truthfully I don't know... I honestly can't think of a reason you would really *need* one, but I'm not convinced banning them would *actually* make people safer...

Thoughts?

Hi Nataly,
Who is going to be "Safer" the person with or without the gun?? As the old sayin' goes,"God created men, but Colt made them 'Equal!!!!'" We tend to think we live in a "Sanitized" society with a false sense of security. After all, when confronted by criminal activity and "Seconds" count, the police are only "Minutes" (sometimes hours) away!! So when Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have guns!! When you find yourself in the middle of a "Gunfight" I'm sure you would like to be "Armed!!" BTW the AR-15 has been callled the "Evil Black Rifle" (EBR) by the Hoplophobic Comunity, however, like your Stiletto 120 or the like, the EBR comes in a variety of "COLORS!!!!" Anne Barnhardt has one all decked out in "P-I-N-K!!!" How cute. Just think, you can get one to match your canopy!!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

***I'm a little curious here. What gives you the right to decide what other people have access to?

Nevermind the ridiculous assumption that those 280 million guns will miraculously cease to exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I just have a right to life.Yes, and you just stated you cant control the actions of others. Nor can I . But I can try an limit what they might try and do to me by keeping my weapon handy. You want to take the right for me to keeping my life away. Quite the double standard you have here

AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means).

We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use.

Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means).

Is it really that hard to follow the logic?

I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict.


Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest...

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

I like ponies.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

I like ponies.

Unicorns?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Rick 67]

turtlespeed

***I like ponies.

Unicorns?

Snuffleupagus

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[normiss 622]

They're always horny.

[Rick 67]

normiss

They're always horny corny.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

They're always horny.

And Dangerous!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skypuppy 1]

rhaig

***
So, yes that sounds about right except for the part about the rifles.

I am ok with taking ALL the guns away to potentially save the lives of ALL the people killed with guns.

and if there was a big shiny red button that could magically make them all go away. Then your plan would work.

The efficacy of your plan relies on the magic "gun eraser" button.

Then your plan MIGHT work. FIFY

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rhaig 0]

normiss

I like ponies.

Little Ponies?

--
Rob

[propblast 0]

Bignugget

***I'm a little curious here. What gives you the right to decide what other people have access to?

Nevermind the ridiculous assumption that those 280 million guns will miraculously cease to exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I just have a right to life.

AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means).

We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use.

Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means).

Is it really that hard to follow the logic?

I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict.


Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest...

Methinks, just like that class on Nuclear nonproliferation you also are not schooled in logic. Your arguments lack logic and you refuse with pure stubbornness to see the logic in the arguments that are being made.

Tell me why do you have this irrational fear, why do you hate firearms?

You keep saying your less safe in the US than elsewhere, I have lived all around the world and, your Argument is besting you. Given all those dangerous firearms, the US is still one of the safest places you can live...

Unless you are a criminal.

I will say that I can't believe you want to see more people raped, assaulted, and robbed so that you can remove firearms from the equation. That shows a lot about your irrational argument.

I am not stating that, that will or will not happen but the fact that you are willing to accept such a egregious idea to get rid of a tool to me is unfathomable. I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position.

Propblast

[Bignugget 0]

propblast

******I'm a little curious here. What gives you the right to decide what other people have access to?

Nevermind the ridiculous assumption that those 280 million guns will miraculously cease to exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I just have a right to life.

AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means).

We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use.

Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means).

Is it really that hard to follow the logic?

I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict.


Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest...

Methinks, just like that class on Nuclear nonproliferation you also are not schooled in logic. Your arguments lack logic and you refuse with pure stubbornness to see the logic in the arguments that are being made.

Tell me why do you have this irrational fear, why do you hate firearms?

You keep saying your less safe in the US than elsewhere, I have lived all around the world and, your Argument is besting you. Given all those dangerous firearms, the US is still one of the safest places you can live...

Unless you are a criminal.

I will say that I can't believe you want to see more people raped, assaulted, and robbed so that you can remove firearms from the equation. That shows a lot about your irrational argument.

I am not stating that, that will or will not happen but the fact that you are willing to accept such a egregious idea to get rid of a tool to me is unfathomable. I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position.

"I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position."

Murder is worse than rape and assault.


Try answering this:

"We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use.

Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means). "

Answer that, and then re-frame it in the context of small arms.


The statistics for homicide world wide do not backup your assertion that the United States is safer than most of the world.

[Kennedy 0]

Dont bother arguing with him

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[OHCHUTE 0]

Egyptian Mussy Bro's?

[Bignugget 0]

Kennedy

Dont bother arguing with him

Just try answering the questions.

[champu 1]

rushmc

And to date, all the guns I own and have maybe built, have all turned up defective. Because as of today, none have ever put a round down range into human.

rushmc

***For the record, I own several guns and I have never shot nor killed anyone.

Of course you havent
but what about those guns??????

DaVinci

Nor have I.... I guess our guns must all be defective.

And that is strange since I own more than one semi auto with detachable magazine and even a few machine-guns.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news guys, but you should know this. The NRA petitioned the federal government a long while back for mandatory test-murderings to be conducted with all new firearms. It's true... little-known, but true... just by purchasing a gun, you're murdering people.

I know what you're thinking, "But I built my firearms," and I've thought the same thing myself. While you may not have bought the whole thing did you machine the barrel yourself or did you buy it? If you bought the barrel... yep... test murders conducted with those too.

[Kennedy 0]

Bignugget

***Dont bother arguing with him

Just try answering the questions.

Why? You don't use logic, refuse to answer my/our questions, constantly change your arguments, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change your mind. That is not a discussion, that is a yelling match. Why bother with someone as boring as you? (see image below)

You can hold any opinion you want, but as soon as you say it is superior to another or should be implemented as policy, you have I support it. Simply repeating "they're bad, I don't like them, ban them" is not good enough, and not worth continuing.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Bignugget 0]

Kennedy

******Dont bother arguing with him

Just try answering the questions.

Why? You don't use logic, refuse to answer my/our questions, constantly change your arguments, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change your mind. That is not a discussion, that is a yelling match. Why bother with someone as boring as you? (see image below)

You can hold any opinion you want, but as soon as you say it is superior to another or should be implemented as policy, you have I support it. Simply repeating "they're bad, I don't like them, ban them" is not good enough, and not worth continuing.


Understandable you cannot answer it.

I also have a hard time reconciling the desire for peace and non-violence with our desire to keep nukes out of Iran's hands.

MORE means of destruction and death are clearly avenues that lead to less violence as you guys have so aptly demonstrated through statistics showing how non-violent America is.... so wtf is the deal?

I dunno, you dunno, maybe Jesus knows.

But I do understand your inability to answer.

[Kennedy 0]

Your analogy is broken. Your refusal to honestly discuss the topic is clear. Further interaction appears pointless. My interest in replying is spent. You. Are. Boring.

And honestly your sarcasm is so badly executed sometimes it is difficult to know when you're using it and when you're just no making any sense at all.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Croc 0]

This thread has made me want to buy another AR, as I sold the first two. So yesterday I bought a Colt with a removeable Magpul rear sight. The salesman said I could remove (or merely flip down) the rear sight and attach a red dot and "co-witness" the red dot with the front sight in place. Anyone ever hear of this term? I asked him what it meant and he said, "You know, co-witness!" (This thread has become so lame I felt all righteous in hijacking it.)

"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so."

Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy