Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[gunthernehmen]

Let's get real here. No one's going to kill as many with a knife in three days that he could kill in three minutes and from a distance with an AR-15. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says a civilian has a right to own, specifically, an AR-15. Let's not be stupid about this.

Nothing in the First Amendment specifies internet forums, either. Yet here we are (subject of course to the private owners of any particular site).

Let's not be... you know...

 

[KimGordon67]

Im advocating that taking away the gun and it will change to knives.

Taking away the guns will fix a now problem and may help some of those people who have suffered because of this, but it is only a stepling stone.

If the underlying cause is not fixed, then its only a bandaid.

Have you seen a skilled knifeman in action?
I guarantee the carnage from knife attacks if executed properly will be far more dangerous than the guns themselves.

Look up accuthesia induced by ssris and have some further food for thought

I actually am on the fence about gun control I have no stake in the claim to be honest, but there is more underlying the phenomenon that the amendment, and the shooters.

No it won't. In countries where guns are far less accessible, there isn't an equivalent proportion of people killed in mass stabbings. Given that, the reason this happens mostly in the US is either (a) accessibility of guns; or (b) there's something fundamentally broken about the US that's creating an unusual amount of disaffected angry young men.

 

[KimGordon67]

2014 PA knife attack seriously injures 22

How quickly they forget.

The root cause of these attacks whether by AR15, Glock pistol, knife, bomb, bottles of acid, etc., is mental illness. People who are mentally disturbed and have violent tendencies need to be taken off the streets. Teachers see these kids every day. They should be watching for that "Loner" behavior and the violent tendencies and report it. Then DO something about the report. There may be some of them that can be helped, some not. But get them away from other children until you can make that determination.

Punish the criminals, not the innocent. The simple fact that people don't seem to understand that concept tells me their arguments have NOTHING to do with the children.

So if knives are just as effective as guns as weapons, and if the main argument for law-abiding citizens carrying guns is self-defence, why can't the law-abiding citizens just carry knives instead?

 

[KimGordon67]

Its the current state of discourse if you cant win on merit, if you cant bring up valid points, cry, sling out accusations character assainate so you can avoid having your feelings hurt by possibly seeing a different point of view,

It isnt just far lefts its also now happening on the right, intellectual discourse is revolving around how someone feels as opposed to objective reality.

A pathological feminization of society. Because we attack all aspects of masculinity as if men in and of themselves are toxic but we do not address toxic femininity.

The female address of power is social ostraciztion and character assaination to cut you off from the group. Its uswd as a means of emotional control and manipulation.

Where as masculine is hyper agressive and violent, the affect of both is just as damaging.

The balance of masculine and feminine is fucked based on ideological obsession with gender politics. Thw qhole driving force of society is based in our ability to have rational discourse, feelings based arguements and hiding behind emotional shields "think of the children" shuts up those with empathy and ruins the validity of arguementation.....

Who's for kids being shot?
Who's for watching yoing men kill themselves
and others?

So hiding behind a wall of virtue signalling shames and silences rational discourse and the laws pass without proper discussion. Its a loop hole in democratic principals. I say we need to fuck of empathy as a discussion director.

These are broad accusations and I would like to see a good solid rebuttal to then

Which is precisely why I ask for citation for the emotive comments that people fling around disguised as 'facts'. But you seem to have a problem with people using actual facts in their points as well, because they're apparently so open to abuse.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Thanks for giving an explanation for gun violence.

"I say fuck empathy," he says, as he blows people away.

Its the current state of discourse if you cant win on merit, if you cant bring up valid points, cry, sling out accusations character assainate so you can avoid having your feelings hurt by possibly seeing a different point of view,

It isnt just far lefts its also now happening on the right, intellectual discourse is revolving around how someone feels as opposed to objective reality.

A pathological feminization of society. Because we attack all aspects of masculinity as if men in and of themselves are toxic but we do not address toxic femininity.

The female address of power is social ostraciztion and character assaination to cut you off from the group. Its uswd as a means of emotional control and manipulation.

Where as masculine is hyper agressive and violent, the affect of both is just as damaging.

The balance of masculine and feminine is fucked based on ideological obsession with gender politics. Thw qhole driving force of society is based in our ability to have rational discourse, feelings based arguements and hiding behind emotional shields "think of the children" shuts up those with empathy and ruins the validity of arguementation.....

Who's for kids being shot?
Who's for watching yoing men kill themselves
and others?

So hiding behind a wall of virtue signalling shames and silences rational discourse and the laws pass without proper discussion. Its a loop hole in democratic principals. I say we need to fuck of empathy as a discussion director.

These are broad accusations and I would like to see a good solid rebuttal to then

 

[gunthernehmen]

No it won't. In countries where guns are far less accessible, there isn't an equivalent proportion of people killed in mass stabbings. Given that, the reason this happens mostly in the US is either (a) accessibility of guns; or (b) there's something fundamentally broken about the US that's creating an unusual amount of disaffected angry young men.

And yet people are murdered in other countries at the same rate (sometimes higher) as here.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-london-homicides-20180403-story.html

If people would choose orgasms over violence then the world would be a happier place.

#orgasms4peace

 

[KimGordon67]

And yet people are murdered in other countries at the same rate (sometimes higher) as here.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-london-homicides-20180403-story.html

If people would choose orgasms over violence then the world would be a happier place.

#orgasms4peace

In this link is a chart showing the homicide rates in the OECD countries (so you're comparing like with like more reliably. As you'll see, only Mexico, Turkey and Estonia top the US.
Clearly gun control isn't the only variable at play, but these data tend to suggest that, overall, the homicide rates are pretty high in the US when compared with other OECD countries.

 

[KimGordon67]

And yet people are murdered in other countries at the same rate (sometimes higher) as here.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-london-homicides-20180403-story.html

If people would choose orgasms over violence then the world would be a happier place.

#orgasms4peace

In this link is a chart of intentional homicide rates of all countries. You can arrange that in descending order. The US ends up sitting at 94. Almost every other country above the US is either in Central/South American or Africa, contexts in which I think we could agree the notion of 'gun control' is a little problematic.

 

[gunthernehmen]

In this link is a chart showing the homicide rates in the OECD countries (so you're comparing like with like more reliably. As you'll see, only Mexico, Turkey and Estonia top the US.
Clearly gun control isn't the only variable at play, but these data tend to suggest that, overall, the homicide rates are pretty high in the US when compared with other OECD countries.

So what you're saying is, yes. Orgasms would help.

Homicide rates are not a function of weapons. They're a function of culture and of people.

Take away guns from our society (assuming the impossible) and you'll simply have people killing each other in more creative ways.

Honestly, I'd rather be shot with a gun than with an arrow or a spear... Or hit in the head with a hammer (which, by the way, is more likely in our modern world than my being shot)

 

[KimGordon67]

So what you're saying is, yes. Orgasms would help.

Homicide rates are not a function of weapons. They're a function of culture and of people.

Take away guns from our society (assuming the impossible) and you'll simply have people killing each other in more creative ways.

Honestly, I'd rather be shot with a gun than with an arrow or a spear... Or hit in the head with a hammer (which, by the way, is more likely in our modern world than my being shot)

In OECD countries where access to guns is lower, homicide rates drop.

Within the US, research demonstrates that "where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." (Source) Note that quite a lot of the research is within the US, so while the cultural different argument may still have some traction, it's certainly not nearly so strong.

I agree that there are myriad variables at play. But this research would tend to suggest that if you make guns less accessible, there is a commensurate drop in homicide rates - that's a pretty freaking convincing correlation by anyone's standards.

 

[JackLuis]

US judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

A federal judge on Friday upheld a Massachusetts law banning assault weapons including the AR-15, saying the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of Americans’ right to bear firearms does not cover them.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large-capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms.

He also rejected a challenge to an enforcement notice Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued in 2016 clarifying what under the law is a “copy” of an assault weapon. Healey announced that notice after a gunman killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The decision released on Friday came amid renewed attention to school shootings, gun violence and firearms ownership after a gunman killed 17 students and faculty at a Florida high school in February, prompting a surge of gun control activism by teenage students.

In a 47-page ruling, Young cited former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who died in 2016, as having observed that weapons that are most useful in military service may be banned. Young said the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was such a weapon.

An opinion with weight this time.

 

[KeithD]

Nothing in the First Amendment specifies internet forums, either. Yet here we are (subject of course to the private owners of any particular site).

Let's not be... you know...

Yes, that's a weak and stupid response.

 

[Hypoxia]

So if knives are just as effective as guns as weapons, and if the main argument for law-abiding citizens carrying guns is self-defence, why can't the law-abiding citizens just carry knives instead?

Reloading is a pain. And full-auto knife launchers are heavy.

 

[KimGordon67]

Reloading is a pain. And full-auto knife launchers are heavy.

It's such a ridiculous argument ... 'if there weren't guns, people would use knives ... but WE have to have guns - clearly knives aren't right at all'.
*sigh*

 

[todski28]

Which is precisely why I ask for citation for the emotive comments that people fling around disguised as 'facts'. But you seem to have a problem with people using actual facts in their points as well, because they're apparently so open to abuse.

I have no issues with any of it. I actually have no stake in gun control i am ambivalent in either direction. My main point is it is a cultural problem. Where else in the world is this behaviour happening on the same scale as america?

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Millions of people who live in the US don't own a gun. In the 40 pages of this thread, has anyone given a reason why they NEED a gun?

 

[Hypoxia]

Millions of people who live in the US don't own a gun. In the 40 pages of this thread, has anyone given a reason why they NEED a gun?

To protect themselves from others with firearms. And armed bears. PS: Change your display settings to 100 posts per page. Then you're only on page 3. Scrolling past trash goes faster.

 

[WandaGrabowski]

To protect themselves from others with firearms. And armed bears. PS: Change your display settings to 100 posts per page. Then you're only on page 3. Scrolling past trash goes faster.

thanks. I'm a lurker who only posts occasionally.

 

[gunthernehmen]

In OECD countries where access to guns is lower, homicide rates drop.

Within the US, research demonstrates that "where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." (Source) Note that quite a lot of the research is within the US, so while the cultural different argument may still have some traction, it's certainly not nearly so strong.

I agree that there are myriad variables at play. But this research would tend to suggest that if you make guns less accessible, there is a commensurate drop in homicide rates - that's a pretty freaking convincing correlation by anyone's standards.

Except For every state where guns are readily available, like New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, etc. Except for countries like those referenced in the article I cited that you clearly didn't read because you are prejudiced.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yes. To defend themselves against "tyranny." I kid you not. I hear it all the time. Individual rights vs. government control.

Millions of people who live in the US don't own a gun. In the 40 pages of this thread, has anyone given a reason why they NEED a gun?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Yes, that's a weak and stupid response.

Well, it IS your argument, so I guess that fits.

 

[todski28]

Thanks for giving an explanation for gun violence.

"I say fuck empathy," he says, as he blows people away.

Hahshahahahaha

Nice work
you build that strawman yourself?

 

[KeithD]

Well, it IS your argument, so I guess that fits.

No it wasn't my argument. The stupidity is the weak analogy you tried to make out of it. Obviously. you're quite limited mentally, so can be added to list of those who should never be allowed to have a gun--and can safely go on ignore here.

 

[gunthernehmen]

No it wasn't my argument. The stupidity is the weak analogy you tried to make out of it. Obviously. you're quite limited mentally, so can be added to list of those who should never be allowed to have a gun--and can safely go on ignore here.

Thankfully, the intolerance and ignorance that you show so freely is NOT the law of the land. That would be the Constitution.

(And it was substantially your argument, just turned around)

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's protect liberty, rights, and freedom with ballots, not bullets.

Yes. To defend themselves against "tyranny." I kid you not. I hear it all the time. Individual rights vs. government control.

Only tricked-up assault rifles can defeat UN Black Helicopters, CIA armed drones, US Army lasers, and IRS snoopers?

I worked commo in a US Army division artillery command (DivArty). We had a slogan based on a recent movie blurb-line:

FIELD ARTILLERY MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY "WE MISSED"​

I think crews flying gunships have a similar saying.