Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Blue]

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent ...
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ...
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"

Yeah, GUN crime went down. but just like the UK overall crime rates went UP. Why? Because they took away the honest, law-abiding citizens means of defending themselves.

In the UK in 2015-2016 there were 571 homicides.
In the same time frame (recorded between different months of the years but also in a 365 day period) there were 15,883 homicides in the USA. The 8th highest rate in the world for the years 2014-2015 and 5000 more than China (12th) which had a population >5x larger than the USAs. Compare with the UK and Australia at the same time: 70th and 102nd respectively.
Even if you adjust for population, the USA still has a homicide rate 4.2x that of the UK in that year.

In the same time frame the USA had an overall crime rate of 372.6 per 100,000 and the UK roughly 730 per 100,000.

Conclusion: Crime is higher in the UK than the USA but you are far more likely to be killed by crime in the USA. By a tremendous margin.
I don't even need to wonder why that is; it's because of the insanely easy access to guns in the USA. More guns = vastly deadlier crime. Hypothetically; If I'm going to choose a country to live in based solely on its mugging statistics. In the UK I have the option of being 2x more likely to be mugged but 20% as likely to die from it than in the USA. Obviously the odds are that it is significantly more acceptable to live in the UK. Where there is more crime but less guns.

You can't reduce a complex issue like the severity of international crime rates down to dichotomous single-issue talking points like you did in your post and expect to have an accurate view of the problems.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It doesn't. Just another typical Liberal tactic.

"Let's distract everyone from the truth and the facts by trying to steer the debate towards a meaningless tangient and use hypothetical situations to prove... well they don't really prove anything other than we don't really know what we're talking about. But that's beside the point."

Phro isn't a liberal and that 'tactic' isn't really specific to any one group of partisans or ideologues. It's more of a human thing.

You can't reduce a complex issue like the severity of international crime rates down to dichotomous single-issue talking points like you did in your post and expect to have an accurate view of the problems.

100%

 

[coachdb18]

I don't even need to wonder why that is;

Yea, you really DO need to wonder 'why that is'!!!

It's because the crime actually exists at very high levels in 5% of the counties in the US, and ALL of them are Liberal controlled areas...

https://i.imgur.com/VzEM6RX.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/26/us-murders-concentrated-in-5-percent-counties.html

it's because of the insanely easy access to guns in the USA.

No, it's not. In fact, more guns have led to less crime.

https://i.imgur.com/LaM1PhZ.gif

 

[dan_c00000]

I wouldn't call Arizona, Southern Nevada or San Diego county hot beds of Democratic activity.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Why yes, America's high death by gun rate is because of liberals.

Yea, you really DO need to wonder 'why that is'!!!

It's because the crime actually exists at very high levels in 5% of the counties in the US, and ALL of them are Liberal controlled areas...

https://i.imgur.com/VzEM6RX.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/26/us-murders-concentrated-in-5-percent-counties.html



No, it's not. In fact, more guns have led to less crime.

https://i.imgur.com/LaM1PhZ.gif

 

[coachdb18]

Probably the one great benefit of Literotica to the world, is that there is such an exorbitantly high number of liberals wasting their time here blogging to each other and tooting the communal bullhorn, thereby sparing the normal and informed world of their daftness and inane rants.

 

[Blue]

Yea, you really DO need to wonder 'why that is'!!!

It's because the crime actually exists at very high levels in 5% of the counties in the US, and ALL of them are Liberal controlled areas...
[/URL]

Ah yes, of course, 'liberals' are just more likely to commit crimes.
Or it's because that map represents the total number of homicides and is almost an exact copy of the population density.
More people = more crime, who knew?
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/USA-population-density-per-square-mile.jpg
When you break it down per capita the top 25 states with the most homicides are overwhelmingly republican majority.
Oops.

No, it's not. In fact, more guns have led to less crime.

No they don't. That's such a ridiculous statement I can't believe you can't see it.
The USA has the single highest rate of gun ownership in the world by an insane margin, only Yemen comes close, and nowhere near the lowest crime rate. If your logic was true it would have the very lowest crime rate. In actual fact the USA has an average crime rate and a massively disproportionate amount of deaths due to crime compared with the rest of the world.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So has anyone come up with or even tried to argue why 'assault weapons' need to be banned?


Or are we still on "because reasons!! and scary looking!!" ??

 

[phrodeau]

So has anyone come up with or even tried to argue why 'assault weapons' need to be banned?


Or are we still on "because reasons!! and scary looking!!" ??

How sad, nobody wants to discuss what you want them to.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Let me begin by saying I am not a "gun person." A friend took me to a shooting range once and taught me how to fire her pistol. It was interesting, even fun, but not so much that I got myself a gun, or have even gone out of my way to shoot one again. Thus, I have nothing directly at stake in the whole gun debate.

What I do have at stake is the integrity of the Bill of Rights.

The whole notion that you should have to show some sort of "need" to exercise a constitutional right is a dangerous precedent to seek. The "right to bear arms" is in the Second Amendment. The First Amendment includes the right to say and write what you want. I would think at a site like this, no one would want to make such rights conditional on "need."

After all, why does anyone need to write erotica? If we only have the right to do what we need, and not also what we want, then what constitutional protection remains for Literotica?

If you don't like that it is good enough for someone to simply want a gun to have one, then amend the Constitution. For now, please don't try to limit the constitutional rights of others, because that will justify others coming to limit yours and mine!

well spoken I salute you

Thank you, but isn't it telling that those whose argument it undercuts simply try to ignore it!

 

[cripple92996]

j

A privilege can be taken away. A right cannot. As a wheelchair user, I am constantly surrounded by people who want total control

 

[Blue]

Thank you, but isn't it telling that those whose argument it undercuts simply try to ignore it!

This made me decide to read the OP. (Post now directed at My_I)

The original post is ultimately stating that all tools, even ones that have no practical value other than killing things and exist solely for that function, should be not just tolerated, but even more lightly regulated than recreational drugs (if you're implying we maintain the status quo in the USA), and their ownership allowed because personal choice should be a an unconditional and absolute justification for that. And to infringe on people's freedom even that much is totalitarian. You compared the ownership of luxury items to guns so you can't be concerned with the concept of regulation as a compromise between the social/economic/political necessity of an item and its inherent danger so I have to assume that your 'personal choice' argument extends infinitely as an ideological filter of sorts.

But literally nobody actually believes that, not even you @My_I, because the implication of that is that people should be allowed to construct/own bombs, mustard gas, tanks, naval artillery, RPGs, gene targeting bioweapons that only kill cops, and heck maybe even functioning Tsar Bomb replicas. Everybody has a line somewhere at which point they say "No a normal person should not have access to that thing because it's too dangerous".

I'm not actually trying to rebut anything but I don't think you've thought about where your 'line' is and should probably do that if you want to actually have a coherent ideology. And if you do ultimately decide that your 'line' doesn't imply more gun regulation then ok, at least you actually thought about it.

 

[Hypoxia]

A privilege can be taken away. A right cannot. As a wheelchair user, I am constantly surrounded by people who want total control

Do you want to shoot them? Would that help?

Funny how a constitutional 'right' to possess firearms only exists in USA, and in Guatemala, which imposes strict legal regs. Mexico and Jamaica also have provide for ownership, with legal restrictions. The 'right' exists nowhere else. Yes, laws are widely ignored. Therefore, abolish all laws, right?

US Constitution contains the word 'freedom' (do what you want) only once (FREEDOM of speech and he press). We find 'liberty' (requiring responsibility) thrice, and 'right' about 30 times, mostly VOTING rights. Freedom, liberty, and rights are granted by the Constitution, not by any mystical pre-existence.

USC also says other unlisted tights exist. But the Declaration of Independence proclaims basic rights: "...among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..." If anyone can arbitrarily shoot me, my right to live as a person born doesn't exist, and neither do any other rights -- except the right to kill or be killed.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How sad, nobody wants to discuss what you want them to.

That's because the reality of the topic of the thread escapes them.

You and the other 'assault weapon'~~! but can't state what the fuck that even means nor explain why it needs to be banned don't want to discuss the facts.

Feelz only!!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do you want to shoot them? Would that help?

Funny how a constitutional 'right' to possess firearms only exists in USA, and in Guatemala, which imposes strict legal regs. Mexico and Jamaica also have provide for ownership, with legal restrictions. The 'right' exists nowhere else. Yes, laws are widely ignored. Therefore, abolish all laws, right?

What an absolute load of shit again from Hypoxia the liar.

The right exists naturally.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

--Just wanting something is no basis for anything.

I may WANT to steal, commit murder, or rape, but oh no, my "freedom" is being curtailed because I can't, it's against the law!

But but but I wanted to is no legal defense.

You could say civil society is a compromise with our individual wants and the rest of society. We're not running around as a pack of wild animals are we?

--You cannot say anything you "want." Free speech has limitations. The First Amendment, like ALL laws, is not absolute and beyond discussion and refinement and constant debate, because, again: civil society. We have COURTS. We're not a fundamentalist sect where the Bible is true forever and ever, amen Jesus

--Take the 2nd Amendment. As someone else said, there are limits to the kinds of weapons you can own, because: SOCIETY.

Saying "But do you need a bomb-making kit or an assault rifle" is part of the debate of weighing your "individual" rights vs the wants and needs of your fellow citizens.

The 2nd Amendment includes the clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." thereby linking your "wants" to your own SECURITY, DEFENSE, and to the overall defense of SOCIETY. It's not protected as a mere consumer item of conspicuous consumption.

Why do you NEED certain weapons for the security of a well REGULATED militia is a valid question.

Thank you, but isn't it telling that those whose argument it undercuts simply try to ignore it!

 

[BotanyBoy]

The 2nd Amendment includes the clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." thereby linking your "wants" to your own SECURITY, DEFENSE, and to the overall defense of SOCIETY. It's not protected as a mere consumer item of conspicuous consumption.

You left out the part of 2A which confers an individual right to armament.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2A is not just about the defense of society, but also your individual security....explicitly so.

Why do you NEED certain weapons for the security of a well REGULATED militia is a valid question.

There is no such thing as the security of a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state.

So the question is really what kind of weapons are valid for a militia to use? Most folks consider pretty much anything short of WMD's a valid answer to that question.

Which is why we can have machine guns, tanks, cannons and fighter jets.

I even have a neighbor who has a military air assault vehicle of WAR!!!

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/33084_1511367937.jpg

 

[coachdb18]

It’s an INDIVIDUAL right, and it is NOT dispensed by the government. The Bill of Rights is a set of PROMISES by the government that it recognizes these rights as ones inherent to a free people, and the promise is made NEVER to challenge (ie infringe) on these most basic rights, that are uniquely promised to Americans, as the world’s example of what it is to be a free people.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It’s an INDIVIDUAL right, and it is NOT dispensed by the government. The Bill of Rights is a set of PROMISES by the government that it recognizes these rights as ones inherent to a free people, and the promise is made NEVER to challenge (ie infringe) on these most basic rights, that are uniquely promised to Americans, as the world’s example of what it is to be a free people.

https://media.giphy.com/media/EysAMIOt4GOmk/giphy-downsized-large.gif


Well we all see how that freedom bit worked out.....our students are all protesting for the government to take their rights away.

Freedom of speech...right to armament....(D)'s fucking HATE our civil rights and (R)'s only care about a couple of them and most of those are situationally so.

 

[Blue]

It’s an INDIVIDUAL right, and it is NOT dispensed by the government. The Bill of Rights is a set of PROMISES by the government that it recognizes these rights as ones inherent to a free people, and the promise is made NEVER to challenge (ie infringe) on these most basic rights, that are uniquely promised to Americans, as the world’s example of what it is to be a free people.

Well we all see how that freedom bit worked out.....our students are all protesting for the government to take their rights away.

Freedom of speech...right to armament....(D)'s fucking HATE our civil rights and (R)'s only care about a couple of them and most of those are situationally so.

The amendments aren't part of the bill of rights though?

 

[coachdb18]

You left out the part of 2A which confers an individual right to armament.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2A is not just about the defense of society, but also your individual security....explicitly so.



There is no such thing as the security of a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state.

So the question is really what kind of weapons are valid for a militia to use? Most folks consider pretty much anything short of WMD's a valid answer to that question.

Which is why we can have machine guns, tanks, cannons and fighter jets.

I even have a neighbor who has a military air assault vehicle of WAR!!!

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/33084_1511367937.jpg

In fact, you can, as of right this moment, own your very own F4 Phantom II fighter jet (N815WF), for $3.9M!!

http://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2
http://www.platinumfighters.com/warbirds

 

[LincolnDuncan]

https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...oIHaAhUBj1kKHdVpBWIQ_AUICygC&biw=1587&bih=742

 

[BotanyBoy]

The amendments aren't part of the bill of rights though?

How did you come up with this after reading either of those posts?

 

[BotanyBoy]

In fact, you can, as of right this moment, own your very own F4 Phantom II fighter jet (N815WF), for $3.9M!!

http://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2
http://www.platinumfighters.com/warbirds

And A4 Skyhawks.

First gen 16's and 18's' are being sold now too.

Oh man if I ever win the lotto....the one I really want though because it's the coolest warbird EVER, will likely never be released to the public because Iran.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/US_Navy_051105-F-5480T-005_An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_mission_over_the_Persian_Gulf-region.jpg/1200px-US_Navy_051105-F-5480T-005_An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_mission_over_the_Persian_Gulf-region.jpg


I'm ok with my RC toy version though....

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's a dependent clause, dependent on the first.

Noted. It's about "security," not conspicuous consumption. So why do you need an assault rifle for your security?

There are plenty of weapons you cannot have, just because you want them.

You left out the part of 2A which confers an individual right to armament.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2A is not just about the defense of society, but also your individual security....explicitly so.



There is no such thing as the security of a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state.

So the question is really what kind of weapons are valid for a militia to use? Most folks consider pretty much anything short of WMD's a valid answer to that question.

Which is why we can have machine guns, tanks, cannons and fighter jets.

I even have a neighbor who has a military air assault vehicle of WAR!!!

https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/5/33084_1511367937.jpg