Who needs an AR-15???

[normiss 620]

Bringing jebus into a gun discussion?


Enjoy your circle dancing folks.

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

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?

Well, as seen in federal crime statistics reports, mass murder and crime in general have been going DOWN since the 90's and even earlier. And the number of guns owned in this country have increased significantly. Also, states that have loosened up the requirements to conceal carry have NOT seen increases in crime and and high percentage of them have seen crime go down!!

Say it isn't so

So, how do you reconcile these FACTS against your opinion?

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

[rushmc 18]

Croc

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.)

The optic would look through the iron sight with little interference
If your red dot fails you can still use the iron sights

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

[champu 1]

Croc

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.)

Co-witnessing just means you have two sights in your field of view at the same time. Depending on how high you mount your optic, they may be aligned together (meaning your head/cheek sits in the same place to use either) or the iron sights may be lower (so you can use either, but you have to position your head slightly differently to use one or the other.)

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

***

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?

Well, as seen in federal crime statistics reports, mass murder and crime in general have been going DOWN since the 90's and even earlier. And the number of guns owned in this country have increased significantly. Also, states that have loosened up the requirements to conceal carry have NOT seen increases in crime and and high percentage of them have seen crime go down!!

Say it isn't so

So, how do you reconcile these FACTS against your opinion?


This way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List


I'll be happy when we murder as many people each year per capita as Croatia and Serbia.

You know, hot vacation destination locations.

[Bignugget 0]

normiss

Bringing jebus into a gun discussion?


Enjoy your circle dancing folks.

Jesus is in everything, you can't bring him places.

Didn't you know that?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvAepQXI8sM

[ryoder 1,381]

champu

***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.)

Co-witnessing just means you have two sights in your field of view at the same time. Depending on how high you mount your optic, they may be aligned together (meaning your head/cheek sits in the same place to use either) or the iron sights may be lower (so you can use either, but you have to position your head slightly differently to use one or the other.)

I hadn't heard of it, but here is a video that explains it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogX-cIx9hpk

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

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.

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime.

Quote

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?

The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool.

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes.

Quote

I dunno, you dunno, maybe Jesus knows.

But I do understand your inability to answer.

then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime.

Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order.


So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with.
An additional
rapes: 35K-211K
robberies: 149K-894K
assaults: 316K-1,895K

That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats.

Why do you promote an increase in violent crime?

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

rhaig

***
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.

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime.

Quote

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?

The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool.

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes.

Quote

I dunno, you dunno, maybe Jesus knows.

But I do understand your inability to answer.

then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime.

Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order.


So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with.
An additional
rapes: 35K-211K
robberies: 149K-894K
assaults: 316K-1,895K

That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats.

Why do you promote an increase in violent crime?


Didn't we cover this already?

We already decided that I was in fact for more rapes and assaults if that meant less murders.

Why? Because rape and assault don't end the life of people.



I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality.

I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself.

[Croc 0]

Thanks. (I thought he made that up.)

"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

[Kennedy 0]

rushmc

***

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?

Well, as seen in federal crime statistics reports, mass murder and crime in general have been going DOWN since the 90's and even earlier. And the number of guns owned in this country have increased significantly. Also, states that have loosened up the requirements to conceal carry have NOT seen increases in crime and and high percentage of them have seen crime go down!!

Say it isn't so

So, how do you reconcile these FACTS against your opinion?

You're wasting your breath. According to him, guns are used in murders, so guns are only good for murder, so guns cause murder. The fact that there are more more guns and less crime, including less murder, over the years has no impact on someone who won't listen. Using logic and statistics to refute his assertion has no effect. He's made up his mind, don't bother him with the facts.

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

[Bignugget 0]

Yes.

Guns, like nukes, were designed to end life.

We (the US) end life with guns at the same rate as Uruguay and the Philippines, and quite a bit worse than Serbia , Croatia, etc etc, and factors worse than any other modern industrial country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List


I agree.


I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality.

I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself.

[Kennedy 0]

No, he didn't make it up, but it does sound like he was throwing out a buzzword he doesn't really understand. If you want to quiz a shop geek, ask him whether he suggests absolute cowitness or lower third cowitness, and why. If he can answer that without giving "uh, ah, well er um", I'd give his answer serious consideration. He may still just be a shop geek, but at least an informed one. If he can't even do that, he's only good for telling you the list price and suggesting what he's been told to suggest this week.

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

[propblast 0]

Bignugget

******
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.

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime.

Quote

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?

The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool.

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes.

Quote

I dunno, you dunno, maybe Jesus knows.

But I do understand your inability to answer.

then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime.

Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order.


So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with.
An additional
rapes: 35K-211K
robberies: 149K-894K
assaults: 316K-1,895K

That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats.

Why do you promote an increase in violent crime?


Didn't we cover this already?

We already decided that I was in fact for more rapes and assaults if that meant less murders.

Why? Because rape and assault don't end the life of people.



I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality.

I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself.

Your problem is you don't understand MAD or for that matter the NPT. Go read a book, get educated and tell us what those are factually. Then we will have common ground to talk about it and firearms. I don't have time to educate you on nuclear law, on proliferation, and the NPT. You use them as an example which just shows me you don't have the foundation to discuss what you talk about. I'm serious go read something, maybe even eisenhowers atoms for peace speech, then come back and argue with everyone.

Propblast

[Bignugget 0]

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It has nearly190 Parties, giving it the largest membership of any arms control treaty in the world. The Treaty comprises legally binding nonproliferation commitments and is the basis for international cooperation on stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. It is widely regarded as the legal and political cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and as containing three main concepts or “pillars” – nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In Prague on April 5, 2009 President Obama said that the basic bargain at the core of the Treaty is sound: “countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.” The President also called on NPT parties to take steps to strengthen this vital nonproliferation instrument."

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/npt/index.htm



So as I understand it, the idea is to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons and prevent countries without them from acquiring them.

Am I missing something?


"Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons by the enemy against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome)."


As I understand it, MAD is the idea that if I have a nuke, it deters you from using the nuke you have, under the premise of you use yours/i use mine, we both die.

So no one uses one, and no one dies.

Am I missing something?

[turtlespeed 212]

Bignugget

Am I missing something?

Something?

No, not just something.

The enumeration of what you are missing is to tedious to spend the amount of time it would take to illuminate you.

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

[rhaig 0]

Bignugget

So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with.
An additional
rapes: 35K-211K
robberies: 149K-894K
assaults: 316K-1,895K

That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats.

Why do you promote an increase in violent crime?

Didn't we cover this already?

Yes, I actually noted that in the post you quoted.

Quote

We already decided that I was in fact for more rapes and assaults if that meant less murders.

Why? Because rape and assault don't end the life of people.

Yes, you already agreed to that. I was just noting the new numbers based off of the defensive gun uses cited by the CDC in the study we heard nothing about in the media because it doesn't support the ideas being pushed by the administration.

Considering the initial numbers listed were from the lowest estimates. They were off from the CDC numbers by more than an order of magnitude. So I just thought I'd put the new numbers out there for you to agree to.



To put a slightly different perspective on it, with no non-criminals owning firearms for self defense, you'd rather they live in fear of the greatly increased violent crime (up by a factor of 10). This, knowing that of the 8583 firearms murders, somewhere between 60-80% of them were committed by criminals with prior felony arrest records (based on FBI crime stats) and therefore couldn't have purchased their guns legally. So you're balancing somewhere between 1717 and 3433 murders vs the above numbers (unless you found your magic gun eraser button), in which case, why are we still discussing this?


and you say yes dammit, I already said twice I'm OK with more violent crime as long as it doesn't end life!! (it's the "think of the children" line isn't it)

Of course you're OK with that. So when violent crime goes up by a factor of 10, the government will take care of us right? Sure... hire more police. Equip them like military, enforce curfews, raise taxes, property crime will go up too, business start shutting down, tax revenues fall... where does the cycle end??

Yes, the guns are making it easier for criminals to murder. But living in constant fear of becoming a victim is not freedom. nobody is stopping you from moving to the south side of Chicago if that's the world you want to live in. Guns are effectively (yes, effectively) unavailable legally to most of the populace and practice with them is next to impossible legally. So move there, and let us know how it feels to be so safe from firearms murders.

--
Rob

[OHCHUTE 0]

Every man and women, to protect themselves against an over bearing government, and criminals. Of course the liberal works to prevent self preservation.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I can't control peoples actions.

And then you can't stop a criminal from breaking the law and getting a gun illegally.

Quote

I can try and control their access to weapons.

1. The Constitution is pretty clear.
2. The 18th Amendment didn't work
3. The war on drugs didn't work.

So not only is your goal against the constitution, but every time your goal has been tried it has been an utter failure.

Quote

It's really not that hard to grasp unless you are being intentionally obtuse.

And that is how I feel about you. Removing my right to own a firearm is not going to remove a gun from a criminal. Trying to outlaw them has been shown not to work.... DC has higher crime rates than any other city per capita.

Quote

You can try and twist my words, but it isn't effective.

I take your words and show that your data is flawed and your process faulty.

Quote

I don't "blame" the gun. I can simply realize that when you cannot control peoples actions, the next best thing is to limit their access to the TOOLS they use.

And you think that you can stop a criminal from breaking the law.... Again, using your logic it should be impossible to get pot but we all know that it is easy to find pot on a DZ.

Quote

Let them go about their actions, with 280 million less firearms.

Armed with boomerangs, clubs, and pointy sticks.

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

I don't.

And yet we have data that proves you wrong.... Yet you just ignore it, along with the Constitution. Your dream requires that criminals actually follow the law.

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

Quote

***Let them go about their actions, with 280 million less firearms.

Armed with boomerangs, clubs, and pointy sticks.

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

I don't.

And yet we have data that proves you wrong.... Yet you just ignore it, along with the Constitution. Your dream requires that criminals actually follow the law.

I am pretty sure there is no data that shows murder statistics in the USA with 280 million fewer guns.

Pretty sure.

But if there are, please link me.

If in fact I was asleep at some point and we had some several years with no guns in the USA, and people were getting stabbed to fuck with pointy sticks, at homicide rates on par with Yemen and other shit holes, I will apologize publicly for my ignorance.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

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

Again, I don't think you have been to Yemen.

Quote

"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.

And so do I.... And I think I am more likely to survive an attack if I am armed. Having an AR also makes me happy.

So you think your rights trump mine?

Quote

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).

AGAIN, how did the work with the 18th Amendment or making pot illegal? ANSWER: It didn't

And more guns are in the US than ever before, and crime rates are going DOWN. Explain that if you can.

More States allow concealed carry (All now that IL was required by the 7th circuit court).... and yet will more legal carry, crime has gone DOWN... Explain that if you can.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am pretty sure there is no data that shows murder statistics in the USA with 280 million fewer guns.

There is data with fewer guns.... Just look at 20 years ago compare to today. And then look at murder rates for both sections of time.

And you will see your position is proven false.

Quote

If in fact I was asleep at some point and we had some several years with no guns in the USA, and people were getting stabbed to fuck with pointy sticks, at homicide rates on par with Yemen and other shit holes, I will apologize publicly for my ignorance.

Ah yes.... When beaten with facts you start acting like that.

[champu 1]

champu

***Okay, let's begin the discussion there. Yes, firearms are designed to end life. My turn to make a point: Ending a life (human or otherwise) isn't necessarily a bad thing all the time. It can actually be a moral, justified, and beneficial action. Your turn.

Well and, despite being designed to kill, they don't necessarily have to kill people or even be fired to get the job done. Police all carry guns and few ever actually have to shoot anyone with them.

In some cases people they are "used on" will fair better than other weapons. Compare an AR-15/Remington 870/whatever your preference and a baseball bat when used for home defense by a fit but not particularly large or intimidating person. If all I have is a baseball bat I pretty much have to try and sneak up on the person and hit them with it to defend myself. I'm not going to confront someone who broke into my house holding a baseball bat, and I'm certainly not going to hide with the baseball bat and hope they just go away. Meanwhile you can point an AR-15/Remington 870 at someone and say "get out of my house or I'll shoot you." Or you can cycle the bolt/slide without even getting them in view and if they recognize the sound, that might be enough of a deterrent and they'll get out of your house.

With guns, no one has to get hit over the head with a baseball bat.

Good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/stranger-looking-to-steal-car-keys-stabs-homeowner-in-jefferson/article_74b1eab6-838d-5819-8ad0-da171d5b1459.html

A firearm (which we can agree was designed to kill things as the son was taking it hunting the next morning) was used to stop a drunk women who was in the process of murdering someone so that she could steal a car and drive it drunk to another location and continue murdering. (not exaggerating, read the story.) While it would have exposed him and his father to more risk, he could have alternatively gotten a baseball bat and hit her over the head with it to get her to stop.

So, since this is speakers corner, I have to ask, "Why do gun grabbers love drunk driving and beating women so much?"

[etasyepitan 0]

You just answered your own question without realizing it. law enforcment has them! I used to be law enforcment and used the AR. I left law enforcment so I could afford to skydive and do not own one because I do not like them. I would rather have my pump 30.06. but I know law enforcment is not as well trained as most people think (always money issue) and some are not trust worthy. so if you ban any kind of firearm, you must ban them for everybody. if not, then look for better ways to prevent violence. and there are better ways, as you said banning any firearm will not make anyone safe. if you are interested in learning how to prevent or predict violence, start with the book, "the gift of fear" by Gavin De Becker.

Quote

• Quote

[regulator 0]

Bignugget

***

Quote

***Let them go about their actions, with 280 million less firearms.

Armed with boomerangs, clubs, and pointy sticks.

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

I don't.

And yet we have data that proves you wrong.... Yet you just ignore it, along with the Constitution. Your dream requires that criminals actually follow the law.

I am pretty sure there is no data that shows murder statistics in the USA with 280 million fewer guns.

Pretty sure.

But if there are, please link me.

If in fact I was asleep at some point and we had some several years with no guns in the USA, and people were getting stabbed to fuck with pointy sticks, at homicide rates on par with Yemen and other shit holes, I will apologize publicly for my ignorance.


Aint nobody got time for that!