Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KimGordon67]

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.

So are you saying the AmericanGunFacts infographic isn't reliable? Because if that's the case, I won't waste my time researching the evidence they use to back up their data.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Up until the mid-1970s the NRA was a woos organization for sportsmen and hunters.

ALL of this b.s. today is a product of the ramping up of arms manufacturing along with the ideology they used to sell it. It is ALL a product of the last 40 years, during which the NRA duped the dopes with the idea that guns = "rights."

The whole thing was a response to the 60s and the Women's Movement of the 70s. Men began to feel threatened and the NRA came along to tell them a great tale about the precious phallus being in jeapordy.

It was a huge money maker. People like Bitter Boy and all the idjits on this thread crying their eyes out are complete puppets of an industry that is only out to make money off their panicked masculinity.

Once the NRA is castrated, the whole thing is going to crumble and die off.

A factoid: the NRA did not rise to power easily. They organized and protested and formed grass roots organizations and threatened and used boycotts like any mass movement.

So turn on the TV tomorrow and watch the wave of the future.

 

[My I]

Up until the mid-1970s the NRA was a woos organization for sportsmen and hunters.

ALL of this b.s. today is a product of the ramping up of arms manufacturing along with the ideology they used to sell it. It is ALL a product of the last 40 years, during which the NRA duped the dopes with the idea that guns = "rights."

The whole thing was a response to the 60s and the Women's Movement of the 70s. Men began to feel threatened and the NRA came along to tell them a great tale about the precious phallus being in jeapordy.

It was a huge money maker. People like Bitter Boy and all the idjits on this thread crying their eyes out are complete puppets of an industry that is only out to make money off their panicked masculinity.

Once the NRA is castrated, the whole thing is going to crumble and die off.

A factoid: the NRA did not rise to power easily. They organized and protested and formed grass roots organizations and threatened and used boycotts like any mass movement.

So turn on the TV tomorrow and watch the wave of the future.

Wow. That was TOTAL bullshit. You have no clue what the NRA is about. What you THINK you know you got from morons like Piers Morgan and Jimmy Kimmel. Neither of them know a damn thing either.

I'm beginning to understand though. You're just another feminist who feels victimized by men and need some empowerment. Equal rights my arse. Just like everyone else crying for equal rights, that is NOT what you really want. You want SUPERIOR rights with no responsibility.

 

[My I]

So are you saying the AmericanGunFacts infographic isn't reliable? Because if that's the case, I won't waste my time researching the evidence they use to back up their data.

Most of it is reliable but it doesn't give the whole story. And as it is not exactly a neutral website, less credible to you. I would rather you see the actual FBI and DOJ stats as they are from the government agencies. I have to consider them the most reliable sources though even that is iffy. The FBI is predominantly Liberal and answers to Congress, while the DOJ is under the Executive Branch of our Government (Presidential) and thereby predominantly conservative.

Get BOTH sides.

But keep in mind, you can stare at the stats all day long and at the end all you really gained was a headache. Looking at the National statistics is skewed because crime rates are higher in large metropolitan areas but lower in rural areas. So New York or California are going to have higher crime rates than Iowa or North Dakota. I have my theories on why that is but that's a totally different conversation and this conversation gets steered 5 different directions on every page as it is.

 

[KimGordon67]

Are there comparisons with how many crimes are stopped without guns?

 

[My I]

Are there comparisons with how many crimes are stopped without guns?

To be honest, I don't really know. Never looked for them. I do know that even the statistics out there for guns are not entirely accurate as it has been speculated that twice as many as reported go unreported. And I can see that. Someone sees a suspicious character looking in the back wind and they grab their gun, suspicious character sees the gun and runs. Why report it? My own experience along those lines was seeing a young man with a slim jim trying to break into my car. I walked toward him and pulled back my jacket to reveal my handgun and he ran. Left his slim jim in my window. Why report it? He was wearing a hoodie and gloves. I couldn't even tell you what race he was. He was unsuccessful and prob'ly at least thinks twice before he tries breaking into a car.

But even if you take the absolute lowest number you find, even if it's only a couple hundred thousand. That's still that many crimes prevented and not in the committed stats. You can say what you want but ANYTHING that effectively PREVENTS crime is a good thing.

Again I can make the comparison of the Parkland FL shooting last week and the Maryland shooting this week. The parkland shooter killed 17 (?) and injured twice that. He was unopposed the entire time and actually escaped the school and later caught at a local store. The maryland shooter killed one (sadly the girl he shot was pulled off life support this morning) and injured one. (the boy was treated and released and will make a full recovery) the shooter was dead on the scene because of a good guy with a gun. And it doesn't matter if he was a law enforcement officer hired to keep the students safe or a janitor who had a gun his lunch box. The good guy with a gun STOPPED a mass shooting BEFORE it became a mass shooting.

Which of those situations would you prefer? After Sandy Hook the Liberals passed legislation making schools gun free zones. Didn't work. If anything there were MORE school shootings after passing that law. Why? Because the shooter knows he will be the ONLY one with a gun. He knows it will take police at least 10 minutes to respond. He's shooting fish in a barrel.

Gun control does not work. Taking guns from law abiding citizens who are no threat to anyone, does not work. What works is eliminating the criminals. THAT is what we need to focus on.

 

[KimGordon67]

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?

Rates of gun ownership don't seem to be disaggregated on the basis of cities, only states. I don't think the level of gun regulation gives you an accurate estimation of gun ownership, just how difficult it is to own a gun.
The data I found on a state basis didn't prove my hunch that more guns result in MORE violent crime, but it didn't prove the 'more guns = less crime' argument either.

You're basically just cherry picking a bunch of specific circumstances that theoretically illustrate your point. I could have done that too, but I didn't.
(In the instances you cite, I'd be really interested to know if there's a correlation between the average socio-economic status of a city and it's crime rate.)

 

[Blue]

But even if you take the absolute lowest number you find, even if it's only a couple hundred thousand. That's still that many crimes prevented and not in the committed stats. You can say what you want but ANYTHING that effectively PREVENTS crime is a good thing.

Not if it makes the perpetrated crime astronomically more severe.

Homicides for example: We already know for sure that homicides are not prevented due to high gun proliferation. In actual fact high gun proliferation in the US' case is a primary factor in the highly disproportionate homicide rate you have compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In a place like Switzerland there is less of a correlation because guns are still tightly regulated in a way similar to cars even with the high proliferation.

Extremely loose rules on gun ownership may prevent a few thousand muggings a year but it is also linked to increased homicides. Which of those two would you rather have more of?

You can parrot on about how "Well its the BAD GUYS that are the problem duhhh" however many times you want but that contributes nothing to the conversation since humans aren't a race of psychic mind readers we have no way to accurately pre-empt future criminals and prevent them from being able to make their future crimes more severe without more gun control.

 

[coachdb18]

To be honest, I don't really know. Never looked for them. I do know that even the statistics out there for guns are not entirely accurate as it has been speculated that twice as many as reported go unreported. And I can see that. Someone sees a suspicious character looking in the back wind and they grab their gun, suspicious character sees the gun and runs. Why report it? My own experience along those lines was seeing a young man with a slim jim trying to break into my car. I walked toward him and pulled back my jacket to reveal my handgun and he ran. Left his slim jim in my window. Why report it? He was wearing a hoodie and gloves. I couldn't even tell you what race he was. He was unsuccessful and prob'ly at least thinks twice before he tries breaking into a car.

But even if you take the absolute lowest number you find, even if it's only a couple hundred thousand. That's still that many crimes prevented and not in the committed stats. You can say what you want but ANYTHING that effectively PREVENTS crime is a good thing.

Again I can make the comparison of the Parkland FL shooting last week and the Maryland shooting this week. The parkland shooter killed 17 (?) and injured twice that. He was unopposed the entire time and actually escaped the school and later caught at a local store. The maryland shooter killed one (sadly the girl he shot was pulled off life support this morning) and injured one. (the boy was treated and released and will make a full recovery) the shooter was dead on the scene because of a good guy with a gun. And it doesn't matter if he was a law enforcement officer hired to keep the students safe or a janitor who had a gun his lunch box. The good guy with a gun STOPPED a mass shooting BEFORE it became a mass shooting.

Which of those situations would you prefer? After Sandy Hook the Liberals passed legislation making schools gun free zones. Didn't work. If anything there were MORE school shootings after passing that law. Why? Because the shooter knows he will be the ONLY one with a gun. He knows it will take police at least 10 minutes to respond. He's shooting fish in a barrel.

Gun control does not work. Taking guns from law abiding citizens who are no threat to anyone, does not work. What works is eliminating the criminals. THAT is what we need to focus on.

When was the last time you saw a crime that DIDNT happen reported on the nightly news? The news is all about sensationalism, and things that DIDN'T don't up the ratings, never is that going to be reported. "Guy tries a holdup, the target pulled a gun and the assailant ran away'. It happens many times EVERY day, but who calls to tell that it did, and who reports it as a lead story for the ratings driven news? NADA

 

[KimGordon67]

To be honest, I don't really know. Never looked for them. I do know that even the statistics out there for guns are not entirely accurate as it has been speculated that twice as many as reported go unreported. And I can see that. Someone sees a suspicious character looking in the back wind and they grab their gun, suspicious character sees the gun and runs. Why report it? My own experience along those lines was seeing a young man with a slim jim trying to break into my car. I walked toward him and pulled back my jacket to reveal my handgun and he ran. Left his slim jim in my window. Why report it? He was wearing a hoodie and gloves. I couldn't even tell you what race he was. He was unsuccessful and prob'ly at least thinks twice before he tries breaking into a car.

But even if you take the absolute lowest number you find, even if it's only a couple hundred thousand. That's still that many crimes prevented and not in the committed stats. You can say what you want but ANYTHING that effectively PREVENTS crime is a good thing.

Again I can make the comparison of the Parkland FL shooting last week and the Maryland shooting this week. The parkland shooter killed 17 (?) and injured twice that. He was unopposed the entire time and actually escaped the school and later caught at a local store. The maryland shooter killed one (sadly the girl he shot was pulled off life support this morning) and injured one. (the boy was treated and released and will make a full recovery) the shooter was dead on the scene because of a good guy with a gun. And it doesn't matter if he was a law enforcement officer hired to keep the students safe or a janitor who had a gun his lunch box. The good guy with a gun STOPPED a mass shooting BEFORE it became a mass shooting.

Which of those situations would you prefer? After Sandy Hook the Liberals passed legislation making schools gun free zones. Didn't work. If anything there were MORE school shootings after passing that law. Why? Because the shooter knows he will be the ONLY one with a gun. He knows it will take police at least 10 minutes to respond. He's shooting fish in a barrel.

Gun control does not work. Taking guns from law abiding citizens who are no threat to anyone, does not work. What works is eliminating the criminals. THAT is what we need to focus on.

As I've said every time I've gotten involved in this debate, every time I've been in an instance of clear and present thought, I have NEVER thought 'fuck, I wish I had gun'. In retrospect though, in every instance I've been extremely glad the other person didn't have a gun.

And trotting out the defence against mass shootings things is ridiculous. Using the US definition of mass shooting as 4+, we've had 17 here. Since 1772. Mass shootings happen because people have easy access to guns. Period.

Actually 16 - on further investigation, one of them was a hammer and a knife. SEVEN people - that's some determination.

 

[Blue]

I really hate this logic of "well there are more 'good guys' than 'bad guys' so if everybody is armed then the good guys will just take out the bad guys!"

...Because it doesn't actually play out in reality.

You don't live in a parallel universe where everybody is Rambo, for every one example you can pull out where that actually happened there are a hundred cases where that didn't happen and people died exclusively because the 'bad guy' had a gun. More guns involved in any given crime, overall/nationwide/annually, mean more people die. Individual examples don't disprove a trend. That's not a fact you can argue around because it's just blatantly borne out by the facts and that's the data you should be focusing on.

 

[Blue]

If I'm not making much sense (cause I don't think I am) it's because I've slept 3 hours in the past 45.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not if it makes the perpetrated crime astronomically more severe.

Homicides for example: We already know for sure that homicides are not prevented due to high gun proliferation. In actual fact high gun proliferation in the US' case is a primary factor in the highly disproportionate homicide rate you have compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In a place like Switzerland there is less of a correlation because guns are still tightly regulated in a way similar to cars even with the high proliferation.

Extremely loose rules on gun ownership may prevent a few thousand muggings a year but it is also linked to increased homicides. Which of those two would you rather have more of?

You can parrot on about how "Well its the BAD GUYS that are the problem duhhh" however many times you want but that contributes nothing to the conversation since humans aren't a race of psychic mind readers we have no way to accurately pre-empt future criminals and prevent them from being able to make their future crimes more severe without more gun control.

Actually, there is some research that demonstrates that, again on a state-by-state basis, higher homicide rates are directly proportional to the increased rate of homicide-by-shooting. (I would find the link but I doubt anyone would read it - if anyone wants it, let me know.)

 

[KimGordon67]

I really hate this logic of "well there are more 'good guys' than 'bad guys' so if everybody is armed then the good guys will just take out the bad guys!"

...Because it doesn't actually play out in reality.

You don't live in a parallel universe where everybody is Rambo, for every one example you can pull out where that actually happened there are a hundred cases where that didn't happen and people died exclusively because the 'bad guy' had a gun. More guns involved in any given crime, overall/nationwide/annually, mean more people die. Individual examples don't disprove a trend. That's not a fact you can argue around because it's just blatantly borne out by the facts and that's the data you should be focusing on.

Had one of my 'bad guys' had a gun, I absolutely would have been raped. I very much doubt me also having a gun would have changed that, as I'm highly sceptical I would have got to it in time - he knew he was going to attack me, so he was prepared; I didn't know I was going to be attacked until it happened.

 

[coachdb18]

We already know for sure that homicides are not prevented due to high gun proliferation. In actual fact high gun proliferation in the US' case is a primary factor in the highly disproportionate homicide rate you have compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In a place like Switzerland there is less of a correlation because guns are still tightly regulated in a way similar to cars even with the high proliferation.

Switzerland?

https://i.imgur.com/SpY8P8a.jpg

'Peaceful' Switzerland actually has a higher mass shooting death rate (0.75) than the US (0.72)!

 

[phrodeau]

Fresh from the Boston Globe: http://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/graphics/2018/03/seven-steps/

There's a handy section that lets you look up any state's standing in regards to gun deaths, safety and current laws.

The seven steps proposed are:

1. Require all gun purchases to meet approval by local LEO's.
2. Remove access to guns from mentally vulnerable and suicidal people.
3. Impose manufacturing, safety and marketing standards on gun makers.
4. Require all gun sales and transfers of ownership to be made through licensed and regulated dealers.
5. Require safe and secure storage of firearms.
6. Track statistics on gun use at the state level.
7. Ban semi-automatic assault weapons (as defined in federal law), high-capacity magazines and sniper rifles.

 

[KimGordon67]

Switzerland?

https://i.imgur.com/SpY8P8a.jpg

'Peaceful' Switzerland actually has a higher mass shooting death rate (0.75) than the US (0.72)!

In these instances, it's important to also look at raw numbers. That's a total of SIX fatalities from two rampage shootings for Switzerland - there could have been something in the water one year. Countries with relatively low populations just have to have a blip one year to suddenly appear high on a proportional basis. You'd really want to be looking at those stats across a longer period.

(Also, you've stupidly just provided more stats that disprove your position - here on the basis of Swiss and US figures, it would appear that there is a direct correlation between high levels of gun ownership and mass shootings ... so hmmm.)

 

[coachdb18]

The Crime Prevention Research Center has an interesting fact about gun deaths in the US vs EU in the time frame 2009-2015...

The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.
Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2017-11-01-at-Wednesday-November-1-12.30-AM.png

 

[phrodeau]

The Crime Prevention Research Center has an interesting fact about gun deaths in the US vs EU in the time frame 2009-2015...



https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2017-11-01-at-Wednesday-November-1-12.30-AM.png

Freshly-picked cherries are the tastiest, don't you think?

 

[KimGordon67]

The Crime Prevention Research Center has an interesting fact about gun deaths in the US vs EU in the time frame 2009-2015...



https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2017-11-01-at-Wednesday-November-1-12.30-AM.png

The more Coach Binky trots out the mass shooting data, the more I think it's actually irrelevant. These are glitches, caused by psychos. Admittedly, easier access to guns increases the likelihood of negative outcomes, but at the end of the day, it's the overall rates that are of more relevance.

 

[coachdb18]

Freshly-picked cherries are the tastiest, don't you think?

How is that, in the 'Gun Free Zone' that the EU purports itself to be, there are any cherries to pick at all?

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/country-and-state-rankings-Murders-Casualties-MPS.png

 

[KimGordon67]

How is that, in the 'Gun Free Zone' that the EU purports itself to be, there are any cherries to pick at all?

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/country-and-state-rankings-Murders-Casualties-MPS.png

When did the EU present itself as 'gun free'?

 

[coachdb18]

An interesting tidbit from the CPRC data, comes the following:

Casualties from mass shootings per million people:
........California .................. 0.219
........U.S.A.........................0.088

Murders from mass shootings per million people:
........California .................. 0.1204
........U.S.A.........................0.0879

So much for California's vaunted position against guns vs the rest of the country!

 

[phrodeau]

How is that, in the 'Gun Free Zone' that the EU purports itself to be, there are any cherries to pick at all?

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/country-and-state-rankings-Murders-Casualties-MPS.png

What makes 15 deaths a relevant number?

 

[coachdb18]

What makes 15 deaths a relevant number?

Well, I realize, and apologize, for the fact that these gun deaths are such a small number in comparison to abortions as to make you question their relevance. I mean, they're nothing in comparison to the figures for abortion (214,000 in the US so far this year alone).

You can see how many abortions there have been for the world and the US here...
http://www.numberofabortions.com/