Why Restricting Guns & Magazines in NOT the Answer

Deterrence isn't the purpose of a weapon. The purpose of a weapon is to kill. The ability to kill serves as a deterrence based on the motive of the entity that has the weapon. A nuke isn't a deterrent weapon for someone people believe is intent on blowing up a country. In fact it makes use of force against that actor much more likely, ie Iran.

 

Jesus Christ with the 3d printers. We have people with actual guns killing actual people every damn day and you've completely glossed over that to talk about your 3d printers. Actually we shouldn't even be talking about guns because laser technology is pretty advanced and we won't be able to stop phasers from evaporating people soon.

 

No, but then again, there is no data to suggest that serious crime rates are positively correlated with access to weapons.

How many ICBMs have been used to kill? How many ICBMs have been used for deterrence? How many countries that have ICBMs have been attacked by other nation-states? Since you bring up Iran, why do you think they are trying to develop nuclear weapons?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Without doing research and just scanning the list by homicide rate, seems pretty clear at least there's some correlation.

 

I don't know who you are, nor your friends. What I know of gun enthusiasts comes from watching the news and watching laws pass. Since this is a debate about a national issue, I would think their opinions count more than yours or your friends. Because they have the numbers/power.

Technology also makes it easier to find criminals and act as deterrent. I was just asking for evidence that technology helps criminals more than it helps the police, hence tilting the balance of power to one side or the other. Government tracking/intervention of private life has never been closer with today's technology? I would absolutely feel more likely to get away with murder 50 years ago than today.

 

How many people can own a car without registration and a licence legally? How many people can own a gun without any sort of regulation? Gun Shows.

 

If I was going to argue about a subject, the news would never be a source, unless it was real unbiased investigative journalism, which rarely happens anymore.
The only things news outlets care about is advertising. They get advertising dollars from viewership. Which do you think sells better? Transparent honest stories or skewed graphs and numbers, body counts and negativity? Why do you think Fox News has more viewers than any other news outlet?

If you want an accurate opinion, then go out and see for yourself. Try to buy a few guns. Go shoot a few handguns, shotguns and assault rifles. Perhaps you'll actually find that gun owners are really not right wing nut bags on the verge of breaking and wiping out half a town.

 

As a veteran who has more than half his friend list full of veterans and gun lovers I should show you my facebook wall.... politcal meme after meme of Obama is the next Hitler etc....

 

LOL at Mr Spelling Nazi....

And you can defend your family without an assault rifle and high capacity cartridges. Where is it that you live that a shotgun, rifle or revolver isn't enough for you to defend your family. You use stupid logic to support a losing argument.

 

I am well aware as I have my fair share too, some worse than others. I also have those on the left side who do it too. Regardless of opinions, I don't think any less of them as a person. Shootings rarely have anything to do with politics. As long as they store and operate their weapons safely and don't promote violence, im fine with them.

 

Since you still can not differentiate between assault rifles and rifles, lets get you some visuals. (and for the others who still have a hard time with this concept)



This gun is a rifle that the naive anti-gun crowd believes is acceptable to own, whether to defend ones self, hunt or go out back and target practice. It is not classified as an Assault weapon.


This gun is an AR15 and is considered an assault weapon. To clarify your misconception, assault rifles have been heavily regulated (banned unless one possess a federal permit) since 1934.

There are five key differences between these two rifles:
1) One looks scarier and more threatening than the other (the biggest difference)
2) One has a folding or telescoping stock
3) One has a bayonet mount
4) One has a pistol grip
5) One has a flash suppressor (not to be confused with a silencer)

These two rifles have these in common:
1) Both rifles can fire the popular .223, .556, or 7.62x39 (ak47 round).
2) Both have detachable magazines, whether laws limit them to 7 rounds, 10 or no limit.
3) Both are semi-automatic

Explain to us how the five differences between these two rifles would have made a difference in the Sandy Hook or Colorado Theater shooting, or any other shootings that used a rifle?

 

What is the difference in the rate of fire?

 

Sure, one is optimized for delivering slaughter to large numbers as fellow human beings as quickly as possible. The other is not.

As you can see, this works equally well for kindergarteners as it does for Viet Cong.

It should sicken you, but instead you embarrass yourself, which a considerable feat at this stage of your posting career.

 

Somehow I remember Granville and myself on different sides of the ideological fence but I'm glad we can agree about the folly of assault rifle and high capacity cartridges.

10 years ago my dad bought a .45. Then he bought a 30-round clip for it. I was like, "Dad, you live in Iowa. Rambo is not breaking into your house."

 

Rate of fire?? They are semi-automatics, the same has handguns, the same as 99% of all guns used in crimes. That means they fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Assault rifles (not to be confused with assault weapons) have selectable firing rates, whether its semi-automatic, short burst or fully automatic. Assault rifles are BANNED and have been for decades. The AR15 is NOT an assault rifle.

 

You have failed at reading comprehension.

If you had bothered to take the two minutes to study the differences, you would have understood a few facts.

Both of the guns are semi-automatic ONLY.
Both are magazine fed.
Both use the .223/5.56/7.62x39 rounds

These are both the same gun except for the following:

The 'ranch rifle' does not have a telescoping or folding stock. Explain to me where a folding stock has lead to an increase of deaths.

The 'ranch rifle' does not have a bayonet attachment. Explain to me where bayonets has lead to an increase of deaths.

The 'ranch rifle' does not have a pistol grip. Explain to me where a pistol grip has lead to an increase of deaths.

The 'ranch rifle' does not have a flash suppressor. Explain to me where a flash suppressor has lead to an increase of deaths.

 

It's not a failure at reading comprehension - It's a voluntary failure at reading - I did not really read any of your post (and have not really read most of the above). I don't think I missed anything.

My point stands unrefuted. You don't need a military weapon designed to maximize the body count in civilian hands. I dont' give a **** which particular ones qualify, thought he AR-15 and its variants obviously do by any reasonable definition. Interweb Numbnuts posting about bayonets doesn't make a dime's worth of difference on that issue.