Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[M14 Shooter]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

It's a feel good reactionary thing so that a bunch of self important corrupt power hungry politicians can tell themselves they actually achieved something.

Rifles and so called assault rifles were used in about 2.5% of murders in 2011.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

And not only has the number of rifles used to murder been declining for at least 5 years straight, in each of the last five years, shotguns have been used more frequently to murder. You know shotguns...our VP,s choice for protection.

The hypocracy is overwhelming.

Less so than the ignorance.

 

[legaleagle_45]

FBI statistics aren't as inclusive as the CDC. Since they basically only become involved in Federal Crimes.

The FBI statistics involve both state and federal crimes. The reports are derived from the police across the nation, whether they are federal police, state police or local police. CDC reports includes crimes, accidents and suicides. The CDC gets its information from coroners instead of police. Further, CDC categorizes any intentional killing of a human being by another human being as a "homicide". The FBI employs seperate categories to distinguish lawful homicides from criminal homicides. Thus, the FBI provides a distinct category for justifiable homicides by civilians and justifiable hoimicides via "legal intervention". The CDC does not have a seperate category for justifiable homicides of any sort and all intentional deaths are included whether justifiable or not.

 

[MikeK]

let's take a look at how often these guns actually kill people. yea, you are right, this assault weapons ban is a total waste of time

The passionate movement to ban so-called "assault weapons" is fueled by the kind of hysteria that comes from the unspeakably heinous murder of all those children at NewTown. The Law can't touch Adam Lanza because he already punished himself. So the focus is on how many shots he was able to get off in so little time.

A ban on high capacity magazines will occur as little more than symbolic vengeance, initiated and organized by gun-haters the majority of whom know little to nothing about guns. Most of these people are motivated by feelings which border on fanaticism and they've convinced themselves that banning high-capacity firearms will prevent massacres by firearm in the future.

The bottom line to this is the next time some psycho wipes out a room full of defenseless people with a slide-action shotgun, or an M-1 Garand, the same anti-gun fanatics will be calling for a ban on repeating firearms. And so on.

This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to keep and bear will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.

 

[Sallow]

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west

That would be too bad. The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000. Philadelphia? 21.4!

The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.

Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870. Hmm. That doesn't sound so 'wild'.

Anyway, facts are good for the soul. Try 'em sometime.

Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.

Gotta love you folks.



45 homicides.

 

[eflatminor]

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west

That would be too bad. The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000. Philadelphia? 21.4!

The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.

Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870. Hmm. That doesn't sound so 'wild'.

Anyway, facts are good for the soul. Try 'em sometime.

Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.

Gotta love you folks.



45 homicides.

We get it. When the reality of the situation doesn't fit your agenda, just claim some bias in the record keeping. Works every time...

 

[legaleagle_45]

I keep going back to hom many murders are these guns really responsible for? Given that number, why is such a huge issue being made about them? This is an agenda plain and simple. There is no logical reason so much attention is given to something that is such a non issue

The rationale is simple. Gun control advocates consider it low hanging fruit.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988.

Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), one of the most virulent anti gun organizations in America and noted for stretching the truth as well as for blatant misrepresentations.

Sugarmann was also the driving force behind the ban on "plastic guns which are invisible to X-Rays"... have been the chief researcher for Jack Anderson's hit piece against Glock.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We get it. When the reality of the situation doesn't fit your agenda, just claim some bias in the record keeping. Works every time...

And when someone dissects and destroys her post in detail, she ignores it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most of the country, however, does not want to see a return to the old west

That would be too bad. The so called "wild west" was not so wild compared to a Saturday night in Chicago.

You might want to check out "Frontier Violence: Another Look" by W. Eugene Hollon, who provides some interesting facts about the old west:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

In 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 18.7 per 100,000. Philadelphia? 21.4!

The "wild west", with it's lack of gun regulations and meddling central planners is looking less and less wild compared to the cities controlled by nanny staters.

Hollon also notes that in Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870. Hmm. That doesn't sound so 'wild'.

Anyway, facts are good for the soul. Try 'em sometime.

Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.

Gotta love you folks.



45 homicides.

Yeah because all those Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns were the real truth.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yes..they were keeping impeccable records back in the day..while today's Chicago records are pretty dubious.

Murder records are the easiest criminal statistic to compile because there is usually a dead body and almost always reported in some manner to authorities. To assert or imply anything else is either due to ignorance or dishonesty.

Here is an interesting factoid. Did you know that the homicide rate in medieval Europe prior to the invention of the firearm was 20 to 30 times its current rate? Then, and concurrently with the invention of the firearm, homicide rates began a sharp and steady decline, which decline coincided with the increasing availability and functionality of firearms? This sharp and steady decline in Europes homicide rate came to end in the early 20th century and even increased a bit after that... which coincidentally also coincides with the very first modern efforts at gun control.

 

[PaulS1950]

First we don't have any "second amendment rights" ... We do have a right to keep and bear arms that is supposed to be protected by the federal government through the second amendment. The right existed prior to the creation of the constitution and the constitution was created to limit the powers of the federal government and direct it to protect those rights listed in the bill of rights. Our rights are not "constitutional rights" and are protected from encroachment by any government or popular discretion.
The US Supreme Court is not granted the power to determine the constitutionality of any law(s) but only to settle the disputes between the people, states and federal government. According to the 9th and 10th Amendment the people are the ones who determine the constitutionality of any laws. The first amendment shows that we, the people, have the right to redress the federal and state governments for any greivence - including those laws that are unconstitutional. Since the federal government is not granted any power over the rights that we have they cannot lawfully restrict our rights.

On the issue of liability, the law is clear that either intentional, greivous or legal negligence is required to maintain liability for any accidental harm to another. Guns are inherently capable of harm when used by any individual when they are properly manufactured. The manufacturers are removed from liability because the manner in which the device is used is beyond their control. This is the same reason that car manufacturers are exempt from liability in deaths resulting from collisions. Unless the product malfunctions as a result of the care in the manufacturing process or the materials used there is no liability that can be placed on the manufacturer. The same goes for the legal owner of the car or the gun. Unless the owner is criminally negligent in the care and use of the firearm - whether by the owner or someone else - they cannot be held liable for the ownership of the gun if it is used in a crime.
If someone uses the gun to commit a crime they are solely responsible for that use. If the gun is knowingly given or sold to a person who should not possess a gun then they have committed a crime and can be prosecuted for that crime. Any "legal" gun given or sold to someone who cannot legally own or possess it is now an illegally owned gun. We have laws in place to cover those situations.
Banning lawful owners from having the guns that have been used by criminals is paramount to conviction and sentencing a population without a trial - there has been no due process of law. It is clearly an unlawful act. Our rights are neither "granted" by the government, nor provided by the general popular vote. They are a right by birth as human beings as a derivation of the right to self defense which is a natural right. All living things have a natural right to defend themselves. The deer can defend itself agains the wolf or panther. The Elm tree can defend itself against insects that destroy it, and the spider or snake can defend itself against much larger attackers. We have that same right to defend ourselves and the intelligence to make tools to protect ourselves against more severe attacks.
Removing the tools that are commonly used against us is a reduction in that right to defend ourselves. The founding fathers saw that there was an extension of the right to defend ourselves, to defend the constitution, our state's rights and our own rights. It is no different than any of the other rights that are natural rights - like free speech, to be secure in our possessions, and the rights to act as individuals so long as we do not restrict the rights of others.
We have laws in place in order to prosecute those that break those laws - not to prevent someone from doing something. We are all free to do whatever we wish to do but we are also responsible for those actions we take. If we interfere with another's rights we are guilty of a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

 

[PaulS1950]

The police, sheriff, and government are not responsible for any individual's safety because we possess the right to defend ourselves. If they remove our means to defend ourselves then they are responsible for the safety of all individuals - something that is clearly impossible for them to maintain under even the best of circumstances. If you come onto my property and I require you to be unarmed then I become responsible for your safety. I could be sued if a criminal robbed or injured you while you were on my property because I assumed the power to protect you by requiring you to give up your means to protect yourself.
I am not willing to take that responsibility so, when you are on my property your concealed weapon is welcome and should the need to use it arise then I would appreciate an appropriate amount of accuracy in the deployment of your weapon.

 

[Spoonman]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

 

[eflatminor]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

But, but, but...guns kill!

 

[Spoonman]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

But, but, but...guns kill!

so do hammers, more than AR 15's. why aren't libs banning them

 

[eflatminor]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

But, but, but...guns kill!

so do hammers, more than AR 15's. why aren't libs banning them

Because guns are icky and after all, this is really about what FEELS right, right???

 

[CMike]

The ironic part is that shotguns, the choice gun for Obama and Biden are the most powerful type of guns out there.

Go figure.

 

[CMike]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

But, but, but...guns kill!

so do hammers, more than AR 15's. why aren't libs banning them

It has to be black to be evil. Go figure.

 

[Politico]

so I shot my AR 15 today and used high capacity magazines. funny, but no one died

Funny as they aren't the problem.

 

[Circe]

There's a drunk on the corner, he decides to rape the equally drunk gal with him, I suppose it is only appropriate that all men be punished for rape. They have the equipment, they must be guilty.

That definitely works for me.

Let's do that.

 

[Circe]

This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to keep and bear will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.

Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right? A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs: I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt.


The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.

And that's what we are trying to get away from.