Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KimGordon67]

Y'know what I've noticed across my time in arguing gun control on Lit ... that people defending the 'right' to bear arms often (not always, but often) get very, very angry in these online debates with complete strangers. This apparent correlation between likely high levels of gun ownership and an inability to control rage is a little worrisome.

 

[zotique]

What I'm getting here is that life in the U.S. is so horrible that everyone needs a gun.

Okay, fine.

Enough said.

Enjoy that.

 

[WarBondsSwingers]

The USA and their weapons

Wow. Really surprised when I logged in the site to get my daily dose of erotica, and to see such a large number of intense of posts related to weapons in the U.S. Yes, we are a little protective of our guns. Yes that is our culture.

Should we be selling guns at Walmart or other stores selling diapers and food. Probably not.

Should only those in the law enforcement jobs be authorized to carry a gun. As an American do I have the right to own a gun, no matter how big or how many rounds it sends down range. I feel I do.I think that as Americans, as long as you have not been convicted of a crime or have been found mentally incompetent you should have the right to bear arms.

I have taken classes in the community and have passed a background check in order to poses a gun. I fire my hand gun typically twice a month to ensure I am trained. My gun is kept in a safe so as not be accessible by children.

To cause those readers in countries in which you don't have a second amendment right into an even greater panic. I just ordered 1000 rounds of ammo for my personal weapon which will be delivered to my doorstep. I carry a concealed handgun pretty much any time possible. And when I visit those few states in the U.S. that have open carry laws, I don't bother concealing my hand gun and carry out in the open for anyone to see.

If our founding fathers had removed weapons from the common man, this would not be an issue today. But that will not be the case. It is our culture, it is our right.

War Bonds Swingers
Paul

 

[My I]

Where's your citation for these stats - because I've tried quite hard to find exactly these data and haven't been able to. Can you provide a link to where you got the figures from?

Wow. My post is logged at 6:19pm (CST) and you posted a reply quoting me at 6:22pm (CST)

If you saw my post the very instant it was submitted then you had a min of 30 sec to read it and I'm guessing it took you more like 45. Then you thought about a response for at least 30 sec before you hit the quote button and another 15 sec to type your response. that left you with 90 sec to open a new browser tab and type whatever you did for a search and read all of the results.

I can see that must have been EXHAUSTING for you.

I have several links here with statistics on it. I'm gonna hold them for a day to give you some time to actually DO a search instead of BULLSHITTING me.

 

[phrodeau]

Wow. My post is logged at 6:19pm (CST) and you posted a reply quoting me at 6:22pm (CST)

If you saw my post the very instant it was submitted then you had a min of 30 sec to read it and I'm guessing it took you more like 45. Then you thought about a response for at least 30 sec before you hit the quote button and another 15 sec to type your response. that left you with 90 sec to open a new browser tab and type whatever you did for a search and read all of the results.

I can see that must have been EXHAUSTING for you.

I have several links here with statistics on it. I'm gonna hold them for a day to give you some time to actually DO a search instead of BULLSHITTING me.

Not everyone reads and types as slowly as you do, I'm afraid.

 

[KimGordon67]

Wow. My post is logged at 6:19pm (CST) and you posted a reply quoting me at 6:22pm (CST)

If you saw my post the very instant it was submitted then you had a min of 30 sec to read it and I'm guessing it took you more like 45. Then you thought about a response for at least 30 sec before you hit the quote button and another 15 sec to type your response. that left you with 90 sec to open a new browser tab and type whatever you did for a search and read all of the results.

I can see that must have been EXHAUSTING for you.

I have several links here with statistics on it. I'm gonna hold them for a day to give you some time to actually DO a search instead of BULLSHITTING me.

I've tried quite hard months ago, in response to someone else making a similar point but without hard data. If you know where they are, just share them - what's the point in trying to make me do unnecessary searching. Unless you take pleasure in being juvenile.

I wouldn't even post data like that without providing a link. It's sloppy, and makes it seem like you just pulled numbers out of your arse.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Advertising slogan dreamed up by the NRA in the 1970s when someone came up with the bright idea of selling guns to impressionable, insecure men.

No.

I'm sorry to inform you but that is a legal reality.

You don't have ANYWHERE near the numbers to get rid of 2A legally, if it's even possible as it is arguably self protecting.

So your only real option on that is to deny federal supremacy, declare your own independence from the union in order to skirt the BoR and violate US citizens 2A rights....thus initiating a civil war.

This has already been settled. You can't just do whatever you want, not even with a popular vote.

 

[phrodeau]

President Trump found a reason to ban bump stocks today. He thinks Obama made them legal, so he's making them illegal. Good for him.

 

[My I]

I've tried quite hard months ago, in response to someone else making a similar point but without hard data. If you know where they are, just share them - what's the point in trying to make me do unnecessary searching. Unless you take pleasure in being juvenile.

Yeah. I believe you that's why I'm done listening to someone who isn't even from here telling me why I'm a criminal. Get bent.

I have yet to see you provide any hard data on why ANY type of gun should be banned here and can't even ADDRESS the concept of "Punish the Criminals".

So go have a cup of tea and be happy and content in your country where there is no violent crime and the police don't even carry guns and everyone is safe.

Brittish gun control in action.

 

[BotanyBoy]

President Trump found a reason to ban bump stocks today. He thinks Obama made them legal, so he's making them illegal. Good for him.

Still got beltloops or rifle slings though so....fucky do!

Continue bump firing!!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah. I believe you that's why I'm done listening to someone who isn't even from here telling me why I'm a criminal. Get bent.

I have yet to see you provide any hard data on why ANY type of gun should be banned here and can't even ADDRESS the concept of "Punish the Criminals".

So go have a cup of tea and be happy and content in your country where there is no violent crime and the police don't even carry guns and everyone is safe.

Brittish gun control in action.

Yes it's VERY safe there....where nobody ever gets butchered in the streets.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lxbcLOi_GIs/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[KimGordon67]

Yeah. I believe you that's why I'm done listening to someone who isn't even from here telling me why I'm a criminal. Get bent.

I have yet to see you provide any hard data on why ANY type of gun should be banned here and can't even ADDRESS the concept of "Punish the Criminals".

So go have a cup of tea and be happy and content in your country where there is no violent crime and the police don't even carry guns and everyone is safe.

Brittish gun control in action.

So you clearly don't have any actual research or data to back up your claims. Colour me surprised.

 

[Blue]

I have yet to see you provide any hard data on why ANY type of gun should be banned here

More guns and looser restrictions on their availability, especially the latter, correlates to a higher homicide rate.
If you want people to be more safe then you should at the very minimum treat gun ownership similar to cars or alcohol production licences.

and can't even ADDRESS the concept of "Punish the Criminals".

Oh damn, I never thought about punishing criminals.
I think you're on to something there.

So go have a cup of tea and be happy and content in your country where there is no violent crime and the police don't even carry guns and everyone is safe.

Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

 

[My I]

So you clearly don't have any actual research or data to back up your claims. Colour me surprised.

Believe what you want to. You clearly didn't actually look for yourself, as you claimed, or you would be showing me links to prove me wrong.

Start here.

I'll find you some more when I finish dinner.

 

[KimGordon67]

Believe what you want to. You clearly didn't actually look for yourself, as you claimed, or you would be showing me links to prove me wrong.

Start here.

I'll find you some more when I finish dinner.

Yeah, I have looked. I can't show you negative data - there just wasn't any to support the claim. At best, correlating the ten states with the highest rates of violent crime stats against rates of gun ownership demonstrated there was absolutely no pattern at all - the states in the top ten had high, medium, and low rates of gun ownership in almost equal proportion.

 

[KimGordon67]

Start here.

I'll go through these stats in more detail later, but a quick look would suggest that this is hardly a neutral source. I clicked through on some of the references, and they go ... more information provided by the same organisation, or other gun lobby organisations.

One of the fundamental aspects of reliable data is that they are neutral. This looks far from neutral to me. Have you actually dug beyond the first page, or did you just accept their stylish infographic as 'fact' because they said they're facts?

 

[Hypoxia]

This is interesting, eh? So even in the Constitution, the 'right' to bear arms is linked to a specific purpose. It's not a universal right, nor related to your personal amusement, but a right that comes with responsibilities - the responsibility of defending the free state. If you're not doing that, then what are you needing a gun for?

With a standing army in place, a citizen militia is obsolete. If we want to keep the citizen militia we need to eliminate the permanent army and it's spinoff air force. The US Navy is constitutional, and its marine and air components, and it should include the Coast Guard. The rest? Consider.

http://constitutionus.com

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power...

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In other words:

(12) Armies are to be 'raised', not to stand for more than two years.
(13) The navy is permanent.
(14) Congress regulates all military forces.
(15) The regulated militia provides national defence and security.
(16) States administer their Militias under Congressional rules.

I see nothing here or elsewhere authorizing the existence of the FBI or other federal police agencies "to execute the Laws of the Union" -- that's the job of the regulated militia when called up. And the word 'border' is not in the Constitution but A2 ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) seems to give border security to the Militia also.

The national defence model of the US Constitution no longer exists. State militias were called the National Guard. Permanent federalization of NG kills any excuse for an unregulated militia, armed civilians who do not rush to defend the nation from invasion or insurrection.

 

[BotanyBoy]

One of the fundamental aspects of reliable data is that they are neutral.

LOL there is no such thing.

The most "neutral" sources are the ones with whatever preferred bias the presenter wants to push.

 

[KimGordon67]

LOL there is no such thing.

The most "neutral" sources are the ones with whatever preferred bias the presenter wants to push.

I know there's no such thing as actual neutrality, but an organisation clearly pushing a specific agenda publishing 'facts' that basically relies on it's own publications to support their 'facts' is ... well, a little suspect, to say the least.

 

[My I]

Yeah, I have looked. I can't show you negative data - there just wasn't any to support the claim. At best, correlating the ten states with the highest rates of violent crime stats against rates of gun ownership demonstrated there was absolutely no pattern at all - the states in the top ten had high, medium, and low rates of gun ownership in almost equal proportion.

So look at the cities. Chicago has a total gun ban. It's one of the 20 cities with the highest crime in the country. Washington DC lead the country in the number of murders for YEARS despite a total gun ban being in effect. Baltimore has extremely tight gun regulation and again is in the top 20 for crime.

By contrast Kenisaw, Ga instituted a city ordinance requiring all households to have at least one firearm. burglaries dropped more than 80% and while the law is not enforce their crime rates in general are still 80% lower than the state of Georgia and the National stats. My hometown of Columbus still has a fairly high crime rate but it dropped significantly when concealed carry laws were passed in 2004.

Gun control has never worked here. It's been done and failed. MANY times. But again, the solution is to punish the BAD guys. NOT the GOOD guys. Why is that concept so hard for you?

 

[Blue]

Start here.

I'll go through these stats in more detail later, but a quick look would suggest that this is hardly a neutral source. I clicked through on some of the references, and they go ... more information provided by the same organisation, or other gun lobby organisations.

One of the fundamental aspects of reliable data is that they are neutral. This looks far from neutral to me. Have you actually dug beyond the first page, or did you just accept their stylish infographic as 'fact' because they said they're facts?

Some of them are true but grossly lack context.
E.g. violent crime in the USA vs UK, I don't know if those numbers in the site are exactly true but in 2015-2016 the UK did have an overall crime rate per 100,000 almost twice that of the US, but only about 20% of the homicide rate per 100,000.
And for example you're ~20x more likely to be killed in a mugging in NYC than London.

So in that case it's a question of whether you'd rather live in a country where you're more likely to be victimized or more likely to be killed. Obviously the site doesn't develop their reasoning that far because it only exists to spoon-feed the ideology of gun lobbyists instead of actually encouraging contemplation.

 

[My I]

I'll go through these stats in more detail later, but a quick look would suggest that this is hardly a neutral source. I clicked through on some of the references, and they go ... more information provided by the same organisation, or other gun lobby organisations.

One of the fundamental aspects of reliable data is that they are neutral. This looks far from neutral to me. Have you actually dug beyond the first page, or did you just accept their stylish infographic as 'fact' because they said they're facts?

Actually the problem I have been running into this evening is that when I try to search for valid statistics Google want to block sources I had before and even throws me a loop when searching for FBI or DOJ statistics. Not surprising since Youtube (owned by Google) has been taking down pro gun videos and even closing accounts and pages.

There are a few websites I had bookmarked in the past that referenced data from The FBI and DOJ, but they have been closed. And trying to do a direct search of the FBI and DOJ websites just gives me pages with nothing but how they get their data without actually giving the data.

But I'm still looking, while my GF is telling me to get off the computer and come eat. Honestly, I'm getting pretty hungry. And frustrated with the brick walls.

So try fbi.gov and justice.gov and see if they get YOU anywhere. all I get from them is links to pages that don't tell me shit.

 

[coachdb18]

I think the bottom line, you're far more likely to be attacked in the UK, but the attacks are 'friendlier' attacks because they only use baseball bats and knives. So they expect you should be more gentile in your response, even if you're several time more likely to be killed, but it's simply unsavory to take such advantage of a poor BRITISH assailant by blowing his lame ass away.

 

[coachdb18]

Actually the problem I have been running into this evening is that when I try to search for valid statistics Google want to block sources I had before and even throws me a loop when searching for FBI or DOJ statistics. Not surprising since Youtube (owned by Google) has been taking down pro gun videos and even closing accounts and pages.

There are a few websites I had bookmarked in the past that referenced data from The FBI and DOJ, but they have been closed. And trying to do a direct search of the FBI and DOJ websites just gives me pages with nothing but how they get their data without actually giving the data.

But I'm still looking, while my GF is telling me to get off the computer and come eat. Honestly, I'm getting pretty hungry. And frustrated with the brick walls.

So try fbi.gov and justice.gov and see if they get YOU anywhere. all I get from them is links to pages that don't tell me shit.

Maybe after they take a few billion out of Zuckerberg's censoring hide, they'll actually have to cut the crap and stop being left wing propaganda outlets, forced in courts to provide content, not biased bullshit.

 

[KimGordon67]

Some of them are true but grossly lack context.
E.g. violent crime in the USA vs UK, I don't know if those numbers in the site are exactly true but in 2015-2016 the UK did have an overall crime rate per 100,000 almost twice that of the US, but only about 20% of the homicide rate per 100,000.
And for example you're ~20x more likely to be killed in a mugging in NYC than London.

So in that case it's a question of whether you'd rather live in a country where you're more likely to be victimized or more likely to be killed. Obviously the site doesn't develop their reasoning that far because it only exists to spoon-feed the ideology of gun lobbyists instead of actually encouraging contemplation.

Also, even the link My_I linked to notes that the definition of 'violent crime',and in fact 'crime' in general is hugely variable across countries. That's why I compared the stats for states when I looked at risk of violent crime vs level of gun ownership, because I figured that at least within the US, the measures would be somewhat consistent.

But yes, there's a notable lack of analysis in that infographic - just lots of impressive 'looking' numbers. I love stats, but they're only as good as the person working out what they actually mean. (The classic correlation between ice cream consumption and shark attacks is worth mentioning here.)