“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[evenflow1969]

How many bullets required to stop an attack?

Unknown till after the attack is over this is unknown. Only one well placed bullet can end a single attackers attack, how many it will take to place one in the right place depends on situation and person making the shots!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unknown till after the attack is over this is unknown. Only one well placed bullet can end a single attackers attack, how many it will take to place one in the right place depends on situation and person making the shots!

That's the thing that cracks me up.

This illustrates the mentality of these gun grabbers. They say that we are such lousy marksmen/women that in a shootout situation in a public place, we will all miss the attacker and hit other people, children, dogs, and the trigger on a nuclear war head, but magically, in a home defense situation, we only need one bullet to stop a home invasion.

So, to answer the question of "how many bullets do you need" to stop a home invasion, my answer is MORE. Always more. Arbitrary magazine capacity limits, that MAY have a small probability of saving 2 people a year MAXIMUM, are not justified.

 

[evenflow1969]

Unknown till after the attack is over this is unknown. Only one well placed bullet can end a single attackers attack, how many it will take to place one in the right place depends on situation and person making the shots!

That's the thing that cracks me up.

This illustrates the mentality of these gun grabbers. They say that we are such lousy marksmen/women that in a shootout situation in a public place, we will all miss the attacker and hit other people, children, dogs, and the trigger on a nuclear war head, but magically, in a home defense situation, we only need one bullet to stop a home invasion.

So, to answer the question of "how many bullets do you need" to stop a home invasion, my answer is MORE. Always more. Arbitrary magazine capacity limits, that MAY have a small probability of saving 2 people a year MAXIMUM, are not justified.

I certainly like to err on the side of caution.I am not looking to make it a fair fight when it is my domicile, I will slant the odds in my favor any way I can and lose no sleep! Not all of those slant include fire arms, I'll slant the odds in my favor in any way possible!

 

[Pop23]

Unknown till after the attack is over this is unknown. Only one well placed bullet can end a single attackers attack, how many it will take to place one in the right place depends on situation and person making the shots!

That's the thing that cracks me up.

This illustrates the mentality of these gun grabbers. They say that we are such lousy marksmen/women that in a shootout situation in a public place, we will all miss the attacker and hit other people, children, dogs, and the trigger on a nuclear war head, but magically, in a home defense situation, we only need one bullet to stop a home invasion.

So, to answer the question of "how many bullets do you need" to stop a home invasion, my answer is MORE. Always more. Arbitrary magazine capacity limits, that MAY have a small probability of saving 2 people a year MAXIMUM, are not justified.

I certainly like to err on the side of caution.I am not looking to make it a fair fight when it is my domicile, I will slant the odds in my favor any way I can and lose no sleep! Not all of those slant include fire arms, I'll slant the odds in my favor in any way possible!

You are wise indeed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I certainly like to err on the side of caution.I am not looking to make it a fair fight when it is my domicile, I will slant the odds in my favor any way I can and lose no sleep! Not all of those slant include fire arms, I'll slant the odds in my favor in any way possible!

There are people on this very forum who think it should be a fair fight when you defend yourself from a home invader. They believe the attacker should have a fair chance to survive. Remember that Oklahoma grandfather who complained that the home owner who shot his grandson with an AR15 had an unfair advantage? We have those types here.

 

[evenflow1969]

I certainly like to err on the side of caution.I am not looking to make it a fair fight when it is my domicile, I will slant the odds in my favor any way I can and lose no sleep! Not all of those slant include fire arms, I'll slant the odds in my favor in any way possible!

There are people on this very forum who think it should be a fair fight when you defend yourself from a home invader. They believe the attacker should have a fair chance to survive. Remember that Oklahoma grandfather who complained that the home owner who shot his grandson with an AR15 had an unfair advantage? We have those types here.

Same people that bring five freinds to fight one guy I bet! Ya, do not expect a fair fight at my house. If you do it is your error not mine! Hell, in my experience there is no garentee of a fair fight on the block either!

 

[jbander]

Courts do not legislate or regulate.

Some people need a civics class.

You fail to understand the system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations, i.e., Marbury v. Madison made law.

Better known as the supremes granting themselves powers not granted in the Constitution.


.

You don't have a clue do you. every gunnbubbas here, has there own interpretation of the constitution most being like this crap

You dumb ass, you've already proven you can't even find the first sentence of the Constitution, even after I told you where to find it.


.

You don't get your own interpretation of the constitution. but the court does , you have no clue like I said before.

 

[jbander]

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

Here... I will do it for you....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!

Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.

Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."

Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."











Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.

You can't make people believe that more guns means less death by guns, thats as silly as it's not the gun it's the person who pulls the trigger.

You people take up the most ridiculous ideas and try to sell the bullshit that anyone with a brain just laughs at. More guns less death by guns. Straight out stupid. You won't understand this in the slightest because you people that are gun Bubbas just aren't very smart at all. Since No guns will stop all deaths by guns , then there is no possibility that more guns can cause less death by guns. I hope that Gun bubbas respond , we need a laugh.

I'm not saying it...actual research shows it......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

I'll show you how these clowns only deal in crap, there is less houses with guns in them. just the last people in the world that should have a gun, these mental gun bubbas , are collecting arsonals , they don't even understand that they only have one trigger finger, they are mental. they prove it in almost every one of their air head responses here. There are many less households with guns in them because they are watching what the brain dead out there are doing with them. Shooting themselves in the foot mostly, my gun regulation would say no gun Bubbas is allowed to have a gun. They are mental cases across the board and dangerous as hell/ You don't ever want one as your neighbor.

Sorry to break it to ya, someone else’s firearm ownership is personal... none of your business.

Well that would make you totally wrong as you have shown in all your comments. I can push the government and the courts to regulate any gun that I see fit in regulating and I can invest the money it takes to change these gun laws , so you have zero clue. You don't even know how a republic operates./

 

[jbander]

Your conclusion is ridiculous. A car is made to transport people or persons to work, home, school, shopping etc. A gun is made to put people, persons or animals to death.

You conclusion is ridiculous. A gun is also made to prevent people, persons (don't see a difference), or animals from being put to death.

No, the gun is made to kill. Period. It is not a utility which has any other purpose. It maybe used to protect someone, but the threat to kill is always there.

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

The target is not chosen by the gun.

It is the simplest concept yet you cannot seem to grasp the meaning

NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.

 

[Pop23]

You conclusion is ridiculous. A gun is also made to prevent people, persons (don't see a difference), or animals from being put to death.

No, the gun is made to kill. Period. It is not a utility which has any other purpose. It maybe used to protect someone, but the threat to kill is always there.

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

The target is not chosen by the gun.

It is the simplest concept yet you cannot seem to grasp the meaning

NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.

A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No cars, no death by MVAs. No knives, no death by knives. No bats, no death by bats. No dogs, no death by dogs ripping out guts.

We could do this bullshit all day.

No guns = intolerable assault on inalienable rights

 

[jbander]

You conclusion is ridiculous. A gun is also made to prevent people, persons (don't see a difference), or animals from being put to death.

No, the gun is made to kill. Period. It is not a utility which has any other purpose. It maybe used to protect someone, but the threat to kill is always there.

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the public

There is absolutely no difference between the AR 15 and any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Well that just shows how little you know about guns, that and Bullet designed for this gun, makes it as hamburger making as possible at the balance between hamburger making and accuracy. No clue, this gun was designed from day one as a military weapon and was never designed for the general population. You people can't bullshit your way through this.

 

[Pop23]

No cars, no death by MVAs. No knives, no death by knives. No bats, no death by bats. No dogs, no death by dogs ripping out guts.

We could do this bullshit all day.

No guns = intolerable assault on inalienable rights

He doesn't care about the loss of the life, just what tool was used in that loss.

Kind of sad that people like this actually exists.

 

[jbander]

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the public

Lol
...and AR15’s have never been used in any military theatre... ever
Because they are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less. They do make for great varmit to large game rifles though.

There were 4000 AR-15s used in Vietnam in 1964 by the Air Force. In fact, the AF still had some in service as late at 1990. The AR-15 orginally was the AR-15 model 601. The 602 became the XM-16 and the 604 became the M-16A-1. When the full auto version of the M-16 was phased out along with it the full auto AR-15 was also phased out in 1990. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the 604 quickly and called a M-16. Unlike the semi auto AR-15, the AR-15 Model 601 used the same basic parts as the M-16A-1 and operated full Auto. Plus, the AR-15 was already being used world wide as early as 1959 in it's full auto version. Malaysia and other countries on a budget were using them. The AR-15 that you know today was introduced AFTER the introduction of the AR-15 Model 601 was discontinued for the Model 604 M-16. Welcome to the History of MY Military Career.

Now, I suggest you do a little research before you make another damned fool of yourself. I am having quite a laugh fest at your expense. And you say you are an arms dealer? Is there a hand attached to that arm you deal in?

Were they ever used in combat?

The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All guns were designed for military use. ALL of them. EVER SINGLE ONE!!! ******* MUSKETS were designed for military use.

The design is irrelevant.

Even MORE irrelevant and false is the 5.56 bullet design. It was made to be much lighter than the 7.62. A secondary purpose was to make a bullet that did not cause death with one shot, like the 7.62, but to injure only. More injured means less death but also more man-power diverted to medical care, rather than fighting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He doesn't care about the loss of the life, just what tool was used in that loss.

Kind of sad that people like this actually exists.

It is evidence that many of these gun-grabbing fools only care about disarming the population for political reasons...namely, the communist revolution. It is the only possible rational purpose.

 

[jbander]

No, the gun is made to kill. Period. It is not a utility which has any other purpose. It maybe used to protect someone, but the threat to kill is always there.

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

The target is not chosen by the gun.

It is the simplest concept yet you cannot seem to grasp the meaning

NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.

A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,

The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.

 

[Pop23]

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

They designed different things in the AR 15 to increase it's ability to make hamburger. This gun was designed from the beginning as a military weapon , that worked on different aspects of its kill and wound ability out side the control of multiple arms treaties. It was never designed to be used by the public

Lol
...and AR15’s have never been used in any military theatre... ever
Because they are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less. They do make for great varmit to large game rifles though.

There were 4000 AR-15s used in Vietnam in 1964 by the Air Force. In fact, the AF still had some in service as late at 1990. The AR-15 orginally was the AR-15 model 601. The 602 became the XM-16 and the 604 became the M-16A-1. When the full auto version of the M-16 was phased out along with it the full auto AR-15 was also phased out in 1990. The AR-15 Model 601 was upgraded to the 604 quickly and called a M-16. Unlike the semi auto AR-15, the AR-15 Model 601 used the same basic parts as the M-16A-1 and operated full Auto. Plus, the AR-15 was already being used world wide as early as 1959 in it's full auto version. Malaysia and other countries on a budget were using them. The AR-15 that you know today was introduced AFTER the introduction of the AR-15 Model 601 was discontinued for the Model 604 M-16. Welcome to the History of MY Military Career.

Now, I suggest you do a little research before you make another damned fool of yourself. I am having quite a laugh fest at your expense. And you say you are an arms dealer? Is there a hand attached to that arm you deal in?

Were they ever used in combat?

The air force increased that number by 45,000. It was the AR15 , it had no other name at the time. Changing the name doesn't make it a different gun. Changing the original design meant to make it a hamburger gun To make it more accurate of more of a hamburger gun , doesn't change a thing . It was designed from day one as a military weapon.

And exactly, whether military grade or not, are these guns used in homicides each year, and in these, how many would have been successful using a differrent type gun or other weapon?

 

[jbander]

No cars, no death by MVAs. No knives, no death by knives. No bats, no death by bats. No dogs, no death by dogs ripping out guts.

We could do this bullshit all day.

No guns = intolerable assault on inalienable rights

He doesn't care about the loss of the life, just what tool was used in that loss.

Kind of sad that people like this actually exists.

Kind of ridiculous aren't you. You have to make up shit , because you have nothing else.

 

[Pop23]

So its made to provide the threat of force. Just like any other weapon or just like anything else that can be used as a weapon


And a gun is designed to launch a projectile at a chosen target.

Whether or not a gun kills is for the person firing it to decide

Bullshit. You watch too many cowboy movies. Once the projectile enters the body of a human being, it can hit an artery or not, it can hit a bone and create a number of secondary projectile which can nick an artery. I've read coroner reports, it appears once again you post opinions to defend your narrative. No one can control what the projectile does once it enters the body of the victim..

The target is not chosen by the gun.

It is the simplest concept yet you cannot seem to grasp the meaning

NOT , no guns, no death by guns and that fact alone makes any premise of the opposite mute.

A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder. Your answer is laughable,

The gun existing is definitely the key to death by guns. NO guns no death by guns.

A gun is not a prerequisite to a murder, so stating "No gun no death" is not a correct statement, and including the "by gun" is, an outrageously stupid comment. A death is a death no matter what tool.