CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[2aguy]

We have over 8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines in the United States....each year knives, clubs and bear hands murder more people than all rifle types combined.....

out of 8,000,000 rifles.....248 people were murdered....

That means less than 248 rifles out of 8,000,000 were used illegally to commit a crime.....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



For 2014 included......


All rifles: 248 ------------(2013....285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that))

Knives: 1,567-------------( 2013....1,490)

Hands and feet: 660----( 2013 .......687 )

Blunt objects: 435------ ( 2013....428)

And gun murders by rifle...been going down....

2008...380

2009...351

2010...367

2011...332

2012...298

2013...285

2014...248

After the assault ban was lifted in a country of over 320 million people with 90 million homes with guns

And over 5,000,000 AR-15s in private hands.........

5,000,000 legal AR-15s....less than 285 murders and we don't have the actual number for just AR-15s

..knife murders.....2009-2013.....



Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2009

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Crime in the United States 2008

murder by knife......

2004---1,866
2005---1,920
2006---1,830
2007---1,817
2008---1,888
2009----1,828
2010----1,732
2011----1,716
2012---1,604
2013---1,490
2014---1,567

Rifle murder....

2004---403
2005---445
2006---438
2007---453
2008---380
2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285
2014---248

 

[nat4900]

MOD EDIT - Someone forgot they were in the FZ .....

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

No...oh great uninformed one.....the AR-15 is in many ways far better than a shotgun...

--easier to shoot for different sized people, from men to women to even teenage girls....

--the small round does not over penetrate walls

--the ability to add lights and lasers to the rifle make it easier to shoot in stressful self defense situations...

--the 30 round magazine means that if you are injured in the fight, you don't have to reload as often, especially if adrenaline has made small motor movement difficult...not an issue for mass shooters, very much an issue for a law abiding citizen....

--you can hold the AR-15 one handed easier than a shot gun.....so you can use your phone if you have to...

So you are wrong on all counts....

 

[2aguy]

Criminals and terrorists in France get fully automatic rifles and weapons easily......



Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

Nitwits forget the open borders in Europe where you can drive from Turkey all the way to France carrying in your car trunk all the weapons you may wish to carry.

Doesn't matter ...France has every single gun law you want up to and including banning and making completely illegal fully automatic weapons..........and terrorists on French government terrorist watch lists got fully automatic weapons easily.....

 

[2aguy]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizen's to defend themselves.

Neither would this one done properly, you have never defended yourself with a gun, much less an assault style weapon. You need home protection? Shot gun, covered, and much better.

Yes, it would, laws don't prevent criminals from using assault weapons, but it would prevent citizens from using them for self protection. Assault weapons are more effective than a shot gun, show guns fire 1-2 shots, then have to be reloaded, and won't shoot as far. I also just pointed out that criminals will ignore the law. So, you're hindering citizens and doing nothing to criminals. the law is counterproductive.

Might as well jetison laws against murder, folks keep doing it, same, "logic". I own, I carry, unlike most of you, I don't claim to know the answer to what is a societal problem. But many of you will never even consider a conversation, so here we will remain for what I feel to be forever. I've already accepted that here in america, this is the best we can do, and mass murders are just a way of life in american society - even of school children. That's just who we've chosen to be as a people and what we;re willing to abide with.

And then next time we'll act shocked and have the same "conversations" again while accepting this as part of american culture.

Wrong...how many times do we have to correct you anti gunners.......

You are arrested when you commit murder, not before....

So you saying we should get rid of murder laws is foolish....

we have gun laws ....if you use a gun to commit a crime, you are arrested...not before.

If you are a felon caught with a gun, you are arrested....

We already have those laws on the books.....and they actually work, where they fall apart is with prosecutors and judges who don't put criminals in jail long enough....

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

It’s not up to law enforcement to determine what firearms should be available to the public, that’s the responsibility of lawmakers, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Most on the right oppose common sense firearm regulatory measures – such as universal background checks and a comprehensive mental healthcare policy – because it would take from them ‘guns’ as a perceived partisan weapon, where most on the right contrive and propagate lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation,’ when in fact there will never be a ‘new’ AWB, and ‘gun confiscation’ will never happen because any such authorizing measure would be invalidated by the courts.

For conservatives ‘guns’ is a wedge issue used by the right to further divide the American people, as conservatives try to divide Americans on other issues.

Last, less than two percent of gun crimes are committed with long guns, semi-automatic weapons such as AR and AK/M platform rifles considerably less than that, where ‘banning’ such firearms would have little effect on decreasing overall gun crime, if at all.

Explain how a universal background check is common sense...you don't get to just say that and then think you are being clever and superior.....

Right now, criminals get their guns buy using friends and family with clean records to buy those guns....nullifying current, federally mandated background checks that must happen at all gun stores....

If a criminal wanted a gun a private individual had, he would simply send in the same friend or family member, making the universal background check just as useless.......

Try again.

 

[2aguy]

So called "assault weapons" account for a very small fraction of all murders committed with a gun

Yet they account for the greatest majority of mass murders.

No they don't....

In 34 years......1982-2016...they murdered 154 people......

Hand guns and shot guns murdered 7,876 in 2014 alone....

And as for mass murders....there isn't one mass murder that was done with a rifle that couldn't have been done with a shotgun or pistol...

Virginia tech...the shooter used a pistol and murdered 32 people....

you are completely wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

A discussion based on an outright lie is meaningless.

Aside from a few high-up officials, motivated more by politics than by concern for the responsibilities that go with their jobs, the police have never been supportive of the fraudulent “assault weapon” bans and restrictions.

And even if they were, so what?

If police were begging for the authority to burst into people's homes, and conduct invasive searches, without a warrant, and without probable cause, the answer should be exactly the same. Whatever interests the police or other agents of government might claim, they do not take precedence over the explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights of the people.

Perhaps you

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Perhaps you two could read this:

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

The IACP has long advocated for the adoption of common sense policies that will assist in reducing gun violence. These proposals are drawn from the association resolutions and policy positions adopted by the over 21,000 members of the IACP over the past several years. The items listed below are not comprehensive—for the full position paper, please visit http://www.theiacp.org/firearms.


Armor-Piercing Ammunition. The IACP supports legislation and policies that will prohibit the sale or transfer of armor-piercing ammunition. In addition, the IACP believes that the process utilized to determine whether a round of ammunition is armor piercing should include performance-based testing conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Assault Weapons Ban. First passed in 1994, the federal assault weapons ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992.

Body Armor. The IACP supports legislation to prohibit the mail order sale of bulletproof vests and body armor to all individuals except sworn or certified law enforcement officers. In recent years, the safety of law enforcement officers has often been compromised due to the possession of body armor and bulletproof vests by the criminals they were attempting to apprehend. The IACP believes that the sale, transfer, or acquisition of these items should be conducted in person in order to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire and use these items while committing crimes of violence.

Concealed Weapons. The IACP continues to oppose any federal legislative proposals that would either pre-empt, mandate, or both pre-empt and mandate the liberalization of individual states’ carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) laws pertaining to the carrying of concealed weapons in other states without meeting that state’s requirements. This applies to private citizens as well as active, former, and federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. The IACP believes it is essential that state governments maintain the ability to legislate CCW laws that best fit the needs of their communities.

Firearms Enforcement. The IACP urges Congress to increase resources to better allow state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice to enable greater prosecution of individuals for Brady Act violations. In addition, the IACP supports firearms enforcement programs that involve local, state, and federal agencies, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile, which have shown significant reductions in firearms-related violent crime.

Firearms Offender Registry. The reduction of firearms-related violent crime has been and continues to be a major goal of the IACP. Studies have shown that firearm offenders have a higher recidivist rate for committing other firearms-related violent crime with firearms than the rate for sexual offenders. Therefore, the IACP supports creating a federal registry, similar to the sexual offender registry, for offenders who have been previously convicted of a felony firearm violation or a misdemeanor that involved violent or threatening acts with firearms. At little cost, this registry would have great benefit toward preventing and investigating a myriad of violent crimes, as well as establishing a computerized list of dangerous offenders that could be utilized as a notification system to alert officers
of potential danger.

Firearm Purchase Waiting Period. The IACP has gone on record supporting a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. In the past, waiting periods have served not only as time for a thorough background investigation but also as an informal cooling-off period for handgun purchasers. However, the time needed to perform most background checks has become obsolete due to the transition to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Nevertheless, the IACP believes there must still be a cooling-off period in place before an individual can purchase a handgun. Therefore, the IACP supports legislation to create a mandatory five-day waiting period prior to the completion of a handgun purchase.

Gun Show Loophole. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are required to conduct background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain gun sales and transfers between private individuals, however, are exempt from this requirement. The laws we have in place to ensure gun purchasers go through FFLs are undermined by oversights in the law that allow an individual prohibited from owning firearms to obtain weapons at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check. The IACP supports legislation to close these loopholes and preserve the effectiveness of the laws in place.

Illegal Firearms Trafficking/Firearms Tracing. The IACP opposes any legislation that would limit or reduce the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to combat the sale of illegal guns. The IACP believes that the ability to trace illegal firearms effectively plays a critical role in law enforcement’s ability to protect communities from the scourge of firearms violence. ♦

And please don't bring out the PoliceOne "survey" from a few years back. It's been disproven.

NRA Misrepresents Police Survey, Legislation

Police chiefs are appointed by mayors......mayors in democrat cities are anti gun, so their police chiefs are anti gun....

 

[2aguy]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

In other words, police departments are filled with "stupid" people who request something (a ban on such weapons), BUT the right wing morons who supposedly "support" the police are basically raising their collective middle finger to the police departments' request.......

Go figure !!!

wrong...the cops I know want civilians to own rifles and pistols.......

 

[2aguy]

Other laws don't hinder the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

here is a right wing moron who must "defend" herself on a fucking daily basis....right nitwit?

This is the CDZ you have been reported....

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Assault weapons are a genie that is out of the bottle.

You need assault weapons to protect yourself FROM assault weapons.

That's the answer to your question.

However the recent SCOTUS decision NOT to hear an anti assault weapons ban shows that the SCOTUS does not particularly care about assault weapons one way or the other.

So the states and cities are free to ban them if they wish.

However that does not change the reality of the genie being out of the bottle.

No....it let the anti rifle decision of the lower court stand.....

 

[2aguy]

If they are criminals, then they should fail the background check process, bub...and not be able to legally purchase a gun.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious........Criminals are labeled criminals the day AFTER they commit a crime....The day before the criminal act, the individual is just another citizen exercising his or her right to LEGALLY purchase a military style deadly weapon......thanks to you and your ilk (and, of course, the NRA)

Wrong......of the gun murder in this country 90% of the killers have long criminal records and histories of violence...they are not normal people who just decided to commit a crime.......that isn't how it works.

 

[2aguy]

Assault is an action NOT a damn weapon moron.

I really don't give a fuck WHAT you morons choose to call a weapon whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period as possible......

No...the purpose of any firearm is to preserve the life of the user....and usually it doesn't even take shooting the weapon to achieve this.....

 

[2aguy]

So, are you now trying to argue that nobody has to defend themselves ever?

You arrived at THAT conclusion from sitting on a toilet bowl and grimacing a bit.

How often have YOU had to defend yourself with a military-style type of weapon? Come on, be just a tiny bit honest.

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight them off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

On the border, it could very well happen....Mexico only allows the police, the military and their drug cartel allies to have rifles with detachable magazines....and they use those rifles to murder 10s of thousands of Mexican citizens every year...and they are now spilling over the border with their violence....

And isolated rancher and his family may very well need a rifle to save their lives........

 

[2aguy]

Every medium is filled with stupid people. Assuming people know what they're talking about because of their occupation is just ignorant. Besides, you failed to address any part of my post, and that's obviously because you have no way to argue that criminals follow the law...

Here is a simple scenario for morons like you.....Would a would be criminal prefer,

a. To purchase his military style weapon on the black market risking that the weapon is sold by an undercover ATF agent...OR
b. To purchase that same weapon LEGALLY by just walking to a local gun show venue?

Criminals already get around background checks that are mandated at all gun stores...they use people with clean records to buy those guns....

 

[2aguy]

So, are you now trying to argue that nobody has to defend themselves ever?

You arrived at THAT conclusion from sitting on a toilet bowl and grimacing a bit.

How often have YOU had to defend yourself with a military-style type of weapon? Come on, be just a tiny bit honest.

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight them off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

Or you may need to defend you home from looters after a flood or a tornado....or during race riots by black lies matter....just like in Ferguson where the stores who had guys with AR-15s guarding them...weren't looted and burned......

Those rifles kept the store safe without firing a shot....

 

[2aguy]

You're far more likely to meet other criminals, especially on the Deep Web. Your scenario is invalid. Besides, this administration showed us that they're more than happy to provide criminals with weapons, no strings attached.

It would have easier and more honest if you just skipped the questions and admit that you have no fucking idea on how to answer them.....But, of course, you couldn't pass up yur moronic accusation of the dreaded Obama administration....What an asshole you must surely be.

Do you realize this is the CDZ...or are you just trying to get the thread shut down for some reason....?

 

[2aguy]

It was proven Holder shipped guns to the drug cartel.

So, YOUR "rationale" is that Holder and Obama are now part of a drug cartel?? Just asking for reference sake.

Some of the guns used in the Paris attack have been traced back to holder and obama's Fast and Furious scandal.......so they helped murder people in France to, not just in Mexico....

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Nevermind that it's worked in every major industrialized country on earth. Except ours.

Cuz, you know. Murica.

No...it hasn't.....even the Yakuza in Japan...when they decided to murder each other instead of making money, got guns and grenades easily......in France.....they get fully automatic weapons easily....dittos the rest of Europe...I have linked to the articles in numerous other threads...

You are wrong.

 

[DarkFury]

It was proven Holder shipped guns to the drug cartel.

So, YOUR "rationale" is that Holder and Obama are now part of a drug cartel?? Just asking for reference sake.

Some of the guns used in the Paris attack have been traced back to holder and obama's Fast and Furious scandal.......so they helped murder people in France to, not just in Mexico....

Plus two border agents in Arizona.