Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[Delta4Embassy]

I have to agree. While what DeltaE writes is true, it is not relevant to the situation, namely out of control hordes of young black men intent on burning and looting. For that, hokey religions and antique weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

LOL! Gotta love the reference.

This isn't about anything but the guy holding two rifles. Rifles are heavy, they're not supersoakers you can raise and whirl around with ease. Having one against an enemy close-in is awkward and ungainly enough, nevermind two. It's physics. By the time he realizes someone's coming at him with a knife from close in he's physically incapable of putting the rifle on target before the blade from anyone enters his body. A little girl could jab a knife into his throat before he could react. Doesn't take a lot of skill.

Wanna stand post with a weapon, pick one and get competant with it. Look like a fucking idiot with two.

 

[Youch]

Yeah, OK they do. Here's a guy proving it.
This guy exercising his 2nd Amendment right to defend his store in Ferguson is AWESOME | SOOPERMEXICAN

Yeah, OK they do. Here's a guy proving it.
This guy exercising his 2nd Amendment right to defend his store in Ferguson is AWESOME | SOOPERMEXICAN

Oh hell yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perfect American right! Protect (the right to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

GREAT POST!!!!

 

[billdad19912114]

Them hard shells
Los can go up the doctors ass

 

[M14 Shooter]

... centers around the presence of "trained combat knife fighters" who intend to murder the shopkeeper.
And thus, because it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation at hand,. it fails.

Go to school kiddo. You don't have clue one what you're talking about.

Apparently you refuse to understand why your argument, however correct it may be, is irrelevant to the situation described in the OP.
Not much I can do about that.

 

[rightwinger]

some retard disagreed with my claim that guns in private circulation has gone up but crime has gone down. I'd like them to post some statistics supporting their claim. I bet they cannot

The percentage of families who own guns has gone down dramatically. The number of guns owned by gun nuts has increased. The fact that you now own twelve guns where you used to own eight does nothing for the crime rate
Crime has gone down everywhere. In cities with tough gun laws and cities with lax gun laws. There is no correlation

 

[rightwinger]

Can

It is a problem if the number of deaths caused by guns per 100,000 far outweighs those of other civilised countries. Mass shooting have buttoned off in the US over the past six months, but the previous 2/3 years there was almost one a month. That occur in Ireland? Sweden? France? Germany? Canada? Australia? NZ?

Sorry Shooter, the prevalence of guns in your society is directly related to the people killed by such guns. Look, I'm not under the illusion that the US will get rid of its guns. It will never happen - too many people love their peashooters, lobby groups abound and you have the second. But please, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining that the plethora of guns you have in your society haven't been the cause of death, misery and mayhem for large parts of your society.

Well, sadly, the anti-gun side of the argument...like your point above only ever mentions the criminal use of guns...

Each year there are 11-12,000 murders with guns in the United States, committed mostly in very small sections of major cities by drug gangs, in cities largely controlled by democrat party social policies....the 24 most violent cities in America have been under democrat control for decades...

The part of the equation the anti-gunners hope is ignored is how many times a year guns are,used to stop crime and save lives...they ignore it and don't mention it because the numbers,put to shame their anti-gun argument...

Each year over 250-350,000 crimes are stopped and lives are saved by victims using guns for protection. That's right...11-12,000 vs 250-350,000 so it is easy to see why the anti-gunners ignore the other side of the equation.

Keep in mind...250-350,000 is probably low...it doesn't include the lives saved,when a criminal is shot or captured by a victim...For example...there was a woman with a concealed carry permit who was raped...because the college campus she was on would not allow her to carry her gun...it had a "gun free zone" policy which she obeyed because she is a law abiding citizen...she was raped by a man with a gun...because he ignored the gun free zone policy...she stated in her testimony that if she had had her gun, she could have stopped the rape...this would have stopped the rapist from raping another two women, the second woman who he killed....so the number is probably far higher...

Even the number given by the anti-gun researchers, which under counts these defensive/life saving gun uses puts the number at over 100,000 crimes stopped and lives saved..

so tell me...which is better...disarming those 250-350,000 people, and thus making them victims...or stopping those crimes and saving those lives...

The anti-gunners would let those people be raped, robbed, beaten or murdered because for them...the victims matter less than their fear and hatred of guns...

Can you provide a credible link to 250,000 or more crimes stopped by guns each year?

 

[Bush92]

You're not defending the OP. The OP provided a situation where having an AK 47 with high capacity magazine was quite useful. You chose to ignore the OP completely and talk about school and movie theater shootings. Why are you so concerned with these mass shootings anyway? We're talking about a very small percentage of murders anyway, rightwinger.

I am agreeing with the OP. In shooting up a school or movie theater, you need the right weapon

Thank god, the second amendment protects your right to a high capacity magazine when you shoot school children

Wow. You took the high ground. All the conservatives are blood thirsty. You brought up children and theaters . But you ignored the fact that this manis protecting his property from rampaging savages.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're not defending the OP. The OP provided a situation where having an AK 47 with high capacity magazine was quite useful. You chose to ignore the OP completely and talk about school and movie theater shootings. Why are you so concerned with these mass shootings anyway? We're talking about a very small percentage of murders anyway, rightwinger.

I am agreeing with the OP. In shooting up a school or movie theater, you need the right weapon

Thank god, the second amendment protects your right to a high capacity magazine when you shoot school children

Wow. You took the high ground. All the conservatives are blood thirsty. You brought up children and theaters . But you ignored the fact that this manis protecting his property from rampaging savages.

That's the problem - he's doing it himself.
There are those who would have him rely in the police.
Heh.

 

[turtledude]

some retard disagreed with my claim that guns in private circulation has gone up but crime has gone down. I'd like them to post some statistics supporting their claim. I bet they cannot

The percentage of families who own guns has gone down dramatically. The number of guns owned by gun nuts has increased. The fact that you now own twelve guns where you used to own eight does nothing for the crime rate
Crime has gone down everywhere. In cities with tough gun laws and cities with lax gun laws. There is no correlation

that's horsecrap. its based on polls conducted by telephone and the one time someone called me and asked me if I owned firearms, I denied I had any. I was a federal prosecutor for over two decades and I also represented several big time gun dealers before I joined the DOJ and now that I am retired, I am constantly at two major dealers. The number of new people buying guns has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. applications at gun clubs have too. Two of Cincinnati's bigger gun clubs have a 3-4 year WAITING period to get in. 20 years ago, you got in the week you applied.

so you claim there is no correlation. but that cuts your own throat. we don't have to prove that gun ownership decrease crime since freedom is the default position. rather you gun hating statists have to prove that gun ownership increases crime and you cannot prove that.

so you lose an we win

 

[2aguy]

Can you provide a credible link to 250,000 or more crimes stopped by guns each year?

Yes. I'll find it and post it here...there is a quick link at wikipedia that sites the anti-gunner number of 100,000 defensive gun uses a year that stop crimes and save lives...but many don't like wikipedia...

Here is another source...

Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law,Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.[37] It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,[38] that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.

In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1 was measuring something different; simple estimates derived from each of them is not comparable in any straight-forward way. The figures in the bottom row reflect adjustments designed to produce estimates which are roughly comparable across surveys. The adjustments were based on a single standard, the Mauser survey. That is, all survey results were adjusted to approximate what they would have been had the surveys all been, like the Mauser survey, national surveys of non institutionalized U.S. adult residents in 1990, using the same question Mauser used. The question was addressed to all Rs; it concerned the experiences of all household members; it pertained to the use of any type of gun; and it excluded uses against animals. The full set of adjustments is explained in detail elsewhere.[39]

Eleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable adjusted estimate of DGU frequency. Two surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the Cambridge Reports and the Time/CNN. Neither asked the DGU question of all Rs; thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been among those Rs not asked the DGU question. All of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied over 700,000 uses per year. None of the surveys implied estimates even remotely like the 65,000 to 82,000 figures derived from the NCVS. To date, there has been no confirmation of even the most approximate sort of the NCVS estimates. Indeed, no survey has ever yielded an estimate which is of the same magnitude as those derived from the NCVS.

 

[Dr Grump]

ntries.
Yawn.
Two questions, to again render your point moot:
-What % of the guns in the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and France are used to commit murder?
-How does the murder rate in the US compare to the UK, Germnay, Canada, Australia and France once you back out the murders committed with guns?

1) A lot lower than the US

Show this to be true. Post numbers and citations.

2) Huh?

I didn't think you'd get it.
When you back the gun-related murders out of the US murder rate, you'll find a number as large as if not larger that the total murder rate of those other countries. Conclusion?

er, no, you don't get it. I like how you didn't quote all the post. Why WOULDN'T I include the murder rate including guns. This is a gun thread and murder rates are part and parcel of it.

As to your first question:

Per 100,000

France 0.06
Germany 0.14
New Zealand 0.16
Australia 0.19
Canada 0.51
US 2.97

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com

 

[Lakhota]

Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

No, they don't.

 

[2aguy]

Here is the info. from wikipedia looking at defensive gun uses...

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Estimates of frequency[edit]
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3]Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7]DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.[9][10]

Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[8] Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[11][12]

Another explanation of this discrepancy is that the NCVS estimate is too low because it never asks a respondent about defensive gun use. (It asked a generic, open-ended question about anything that the victim might have done for self-protection.)[16] Kleck notes that many other surveys (at least 20) have likewise obtained huge estimates of DGU frequency, from 500,000 to over 3 million per year -common enough to outnumber criminal uses[16] and further notes that studies of methodological errors in surveys concerning other crime-related behaviors and experiences have consistently found that the errors produce, on net, underestimates of the frequency of the behaviors, including victimization experiences, offending behavior, and gun ownership.[16] He has pointed out that critics' assessment of possible errors in surveys are one-sided - that they consider only flaws that would contribute to overestimation of defensive gun use frequency.

 

[2aguy]

No, they don't.

Hmmm...that opinion would be based on what exactly...? First, for those who like to emphasize the point...the 2nd amendment is a right...and so requires no justification for its excercise...then...

Do you live in a border state? On an isolated ranch where you have drug cartels running drugs and illegals across your property and if they decide you are a problem they need to kill...police could be a long time coming...and since the cartels have automatic weapons with standard magazines...(some provided by obama and holder) having a rifle with 30 round magazines will keep you alive...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmmm...obviously you don't follow the tactics,of the anti-gun crowd as they do their best to get categories,of guns outlawed...and then "grandfather" whatever guns are still in private hands but make it impossible to pass those guns on to relatives...assault rifle bans, bans on certain types,of guns....one of my guns came in a case...on the case was the statement...."not legal in California"...in New Jersey, once the first "dumb" gun comes on the market their law states that three years from that date all guns sold will have to be "dumb" guns or they won't be allowed in the state...since the alleged smart gun tech sucks...they will have achieved a ban of all guns in everything but name...

Chicago...has fought gun stores,locating inside the city and even with a court order to allow it, they are going to force any gun store in the most remote and hard to access location to make it almost impossible for a gun store to succeed....and try to get a gun in New York State...you need a lawyer to help you get through the red tape,,,

So you need to do your homework...they are trying to get rid of as many guns as they can and if they could they would do it in one fell swoop...Anti gunners will do it piecemeal until then...and they will use dumb things like background checks and gun registration to make it harder and harder for regular people to afford owning a gun for self defense...

Actually you need to realize that this is paranoid, delusional, and idiotic – no one is secretly trying to 'take away' your guns, no one as a fact of law can 'confiscate' guns, to maintain otherwise is ignorant demagoguery.


And again, it's this sort of delusional paranoia and idiocy that most jeopardizes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, not anything an 'anti-gunner' might do.


Laws such as New York's SAFE Act need to be challenged in court, as is indeed the case with that state's gun control law, to eventually come before the Supreme Court where a determination can be made confirming the fact that AR and AK platform rifles are 'in common use' and entitled to Constitutional protections.


As I've already demonstrated, current Second Amendment jurisprudence does not comport with the Heller Court's intent as to the regulation of firearms, where measures such as the SAFE Act will likely be invalidated as un-Constitutional.

 

[turtledude]

Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

No, they don't.

actually we need them in case people like you try to take them away based on your desire to dictate to us what we need

 

[2aguy]

no one is secretly trying to 'take away' your guns, no one as a fact of law can 'confiscate' guns, to maintain otherwise is ignorant demagoguery.

Your right, they aren't being secret about it they are doing it in the open...and if they make your gun illegal, they don't have to confiscate it...you will have to do something with it and then report what you did...as they did when the assault weapon ban went into effect...

And you can sit in a polite debate society and argue the legal aspects of the 2nd amendment all day long...but as you ponitificate and bloviate about it...the left, anti-gunners are installing leftist judges at all levels of the judiciary, and they will be the ones "interpreting" the law as it applies to an individual right vs. a collective right...and the left isn't concerned with legal precedent and preserving precedent that they don't like. We need people to vote democrats out of power, especially in the Senate where the next Supreme Court justices are going to be appointed by the next President, and the next President will be appointing the next generation of federal judges...

So while you can discuss Heller and Mcdonald, and Lopez all day long and point out the fine points of current law regarding the 2nd amendment...the left will be dragging out the bodies of the last mass shooting and telling the people who only pay attention to the issue the day they vote that "something" must be done, and that the 2nd amendment is outdated...and no one needs a "high" capacity magazine, or an "assault" rifle, or even a pistol that holds more than 5 or six rounds...and then...when the next mass shooting happens they will push for the next level of prohibition and banning...

The fight to keep our right has to be engaged on all fronts...the legal front depends on judges who understand and believe in the Constitution...and the only way to get those is for people to vote for conservatives/libertarians/tea party members...otherwise you will have judges ruling against gun rights all day long...

By the way...a judge declared the AR-15 and the AK-47 unprotected by the constitution...right? And the Safe act has been upheld by some judges...right?

So if the average voter is terrified of guns...who isn't presented with the truth about defensive uses of guns vs. murders committed by guns, they will see the 2nd amendment as silly and dangerous and will allow politicians to create laws that violate it...

 

[turtledude]

Hmmm...obviously you don't follow the tactics,of the anti-gun crowd as they do their best to get categories,of guns outlawed...and then "grandfather" whatever guns are still in private hands but make it impossible to pass those guns on to relatives...assault rifle bans, bans on certain types,of guns....one of my guns came in a case...on the case was the statement...."not legal in California"...in New Jersey, once the first "dumb" gun comes on the market their law states that three years from that date all guns sold will have to be "dumb" guns or they won't be allowed in the state...since the alleged smart gun tech sucks...they will have achieved a ban of all guns in everything but name...

Chicago...has fought gun stores,locating inside the city and even with a court order to allow it, they are going to force any gun store in the most remote and hard to access location to make it almost impossible for a gun store to succeed....and try to get a gun in New York State...you need a lawyer to help you get through the red tape,,,

So you need to do your homework...they are trying to get rid of as many guns as they can and if they could they would do it in one fell swoop...Anti gunners will do it piecemeal until then...and they will use dumb things like background checks and gun registration to make it harder and harder for regular people to afford owning a gun for self defense...

Actually you need to realize that this is paranoid, delusional, and idiotic – no one is secretly trying to 'take away' your guns, no one as a fact of law can 'confiscate' guns, to maintain otherwise is ignorant demagoguery.


And again, it's this sort of delusional paranoia and idiocy that most jeopardizes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, not anything an 'anti-gunner' might do.


Laws such as New York's SAFE Act need to be challenged in court, as is indeed the case with that state's gun control law, to eventually come before the Supreme Court where a determination can be made confirming the fact that AR and AK platform rifles are 'in common use' and entitled to Constitutional protections.


As I've already demonstrated, current Second Amendment jurisprudence does not comport with the Heller Court's intent as to the regulation of firearms, where measures such as the SAFE Act will likely be invalidated as un-Constitutional.

I have been dealing with the anti gun scumbags for almost 40 years and there has been a constant attempt by some to ban guns. worse yet, most gun banners only publicly support the next incremental step lest they alarm too many people who really don't pay attention to the incremental creeping crud of confiscation. But Diane FienSwine admitted that if she had the votes, she would have made all the weapons banned under the clinton AWB contraband and forced people to turn them in.

the main goal of the plotters is to cut down the ability of groups like the NRA to funnel so many votes and funds to mainly GOP candidates. that is what really upsets the Democrats about the NRA. They know they cannot ban all guns but if they make shooting sports too expensive or too much a hassle to engage in, lots of people won't keep supporting the NRA and similar groups with membership dues

so that is what the leaders of the anti gun movement wish to do.

but there are plenty of leftwing scum who would like to ban lots of guns if they could

 

[2aguy]

By the way...how did the SAFE act get passed in the first place...because voters voted in anti-2nd amendment politicians who used the killings at Newton to pass it...and they didn't care about the constitutionality of the law...and then the judges who have upheld it didn't care about the constitutionality of the law...did they?

The fight has to be on all fronts, and not one more piece of equipment, magazine or category of gun should be sacrificed to make people feel better...

 

[2aguy]

Another look at the numbers...

How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

The problems with Hemenway's numbers are due to his use of the NCVS numbers...

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

This sort of bland and spurious even-handedness is misleading. For example, Reiss and Roth withheld from their readers that there were at least nineother estimates contradicting the NCVS-based estimate; instead they vaguely alluded only to "a number of surveys,"[23] as did Cook,[24] and they down played the estimates from the other surveys on the basis of flaws which they only speculated those surveys might have. Even as speculations, these scholars' conjectures were conspicuously one-sided, focusing solely on possible flaws whose correction would bring the estimate down, while ignoring obvious flaws, such as respondents (Rs) forgetting or intentionally concealing DGUs, whose correction would push the estimate up. Further, die speculations, even if true, would be wholly inadequate to account for more than a small share of the enormous nine-to-one or more discrepancy between the NCVS-based estimates and all other estimates. For example, the effects of telescoping can be completely cancelled out by the effects of memory loss and other recall failure, and even if they are not, they cannot account for more than a tiny share of a discrepancy of nine-to-one or more.

Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.[25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.