Who needs an assault rifle?

[Bigfoot]

Here's a better hypothetical.

I own 20 semi auto assault weapons all with 30 round mags. I walked out my door to take out the trash and there was a criminal waiting with a 10 shot pistol, who stuck it in my ear.

What good will my semi auto assault weapons do me now?

If the guy with the pistol was a democrat you could show him your scary looking black bang bang and he would give you his hurtful pistol.

 

[CMike]

Wait a minute, I had my decmil n the wrong place. It is actually much lower than the 1.8 examples I cited. My bad. It is .18 tims a day over eight years.

You asked for 10 examples not all incidents.

The department of justice study quoted said 1.5 million times a year.

 

[thanatos144]

The question should not be who needs one but who wants one? To me that should be anyone who can pass a through background check meaning you have no criminal record, no history of violence, no history of mental illness and I would even be willing to go along with having you take a gun safety course.

The more I think of it the less I like the idea of a universal background check. I shouldn't have to prove I can exercise my rights

 

[CMike]

"Who Needs an Assault Rifle?" - YouTube

Serial killers, for one. Can you imagine going into a movie theater with a single action revolver. Hell, in the time it takes to pull back the hammer for the second kill all of your targets will be on the move. How frustrating is that.

Or they can use a bomb.

 

[Bigfoot]

The question should not be who needs one but who wants one? To me that should be anyone who can pass a through background check meaning you have no criminal record, no history of violence, no history of mental illness and I would even be willing to go along with having you take a gun safety course.

The more I think of it the less I like the idea of a universal background check. I shouldn't have to prove I can exercise my rights

I'm not in agreement with universal background checks either, they are to close to registration which I absolutely do not want. Even now it's difficult to tell the difference between the two.

 

[zeke]

Wait a minute, I had my decmil n the wrong place. It is actually much lower than the 1.8 examples I cited. My bad. It is .18 tims a day over eight years.

You asked for 10 examples not all incidents.

The department of justice study quoted said 1.5 million times a year.

Among Kleck’s findings:

For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.


Have you changed your source of info now? Hey and you still didn't come up with 10 examples a year. But I am sure you could. And is 10 more or less than 6000?
And Kkeck (who you linked to) was not a Justice Deparment study.

 

[eflatminor]

"Who Needs an Assault Rifle?" - YouTube

Serial killers, for one.

Correct. So why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing a serial killer with an "assault rifle"? We know for a fact that your bans do not deter serial killers/crazies/thugs from obtaining the firearms they need for their crimes. Why would you want to put good people at a disadvantage?

...in the time it takes to pull back the hammer for the second kill all of your targets will be on the move...

You're ignorance on this subject is profound. All 19th century-style firearms:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw]Top Gun - Fastest Cowboy Action Shooter - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bigfoot]

"Who Needs an Assault Rifle?" - YouTube

Serial killers, for one.

Correct. So why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing a serial killer with an "assault rifle"? We know for a fact that your bans do not deter serial killers/crazies/thugs from obtaining the firearms they need for their crimes. Why would you want to put good people at a disadvantage?

...in the time it takes to pull back the hammer for the second kill all of your targets will be on the move...

You're ignorance on this subject is profound. All 19th century-style firearms:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw]Top Gun - Fastest Cowboy Action Shooter - YouTube[/ame]

Damn, thanks, that was great!

 

[zeke]

Yea the way I figure it, if you won't consent to a background check then you are hiding something that would keep you from owning a gun.

What you all hiding?

Buddy of mine got the gun he used to kill himself with from a private seller. This guy had a domestic violence charge against him and couldn't pass a background check. Got his gun though. But he only owned it a couple days before he was dead.

 

[CMike]

You are confused.

They are two different studies.

The university of Florida study concluded 2.5 million.

The DOJ study concluded 1.5 million.

Both studies concluded a gigantic amount.


The liberal media doesn't report it because it goes against promoting their left wing agenda.

Nothing much changed in the last 20 years regarding violence.

Therefore just because the study was made 20 years ago doesn't make it less valid.

 

[zeke]

Mike whatever dude. You make whatever claim you want. Tens of millions of crimes stopped with guns every day. It won't make any difference to the truth that those numbers are bull shit.

If they were not, you could read of the thousands of crimes stopped every day in the papers and on line.

And if you could have proven that thousands of crimes were stopped every day, you would have. But you can't.

And if your numbers were correct, some other gun nutter would have been all over me to prove that I was wrong and you were right.

But that didn't happen. Cause they have looked at the numbers also and went......6000 a day, no way.
Or we can adjust it to that 1.5 million you now like. Then it is only 4109 times a day.....no way dude.

 

[Koios]

Yes, necessary to a free state, exactly that which you and the rest of the left are diligently working to revoke.

So, if we are to be free, our right to arm cannot be infringed. Explaining exactly your lust to infringe that right...

We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.

And I agree. Go **** up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some ******* deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a ******* ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.

But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.

Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.

A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.

After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?

Your neighbor. Noodle on that. It'll come to you.

 

[eflatminor]

Yea the way I figure it, if you won't consent to a background check then you are hiding something that would keep you from owning a gun.

What you all hiding?

Buddy of mine got the gun he used to kill himself with from a private seller. This guy had a domestic violence charge against him and couldn't pass a background check. Got his gun though. But he only owned it a couple days before he was dead.

And your buddy would be somehow less dead if he had hung or cut himself?

He picked a more efficient means to kill himself...and you blame the firearm? How about a modicum of common sense here?

The Japanese have virtually no civilian firearm ownership, yet their suicide rate astronomical. Are their citizens somehow less dead because they didn't use a gun to off themselves?

 

[zeke]

Yea the way I figure it, if you won't consent to a background check then you are hiding something that would keep you from owning a gun.

What you all hiding?

Buddy of mine got the gun he used to kill himself with from a private seller. This guy had a domestic violence charge against him and couldn't pass a background check. Got his gun though. But he only owned it a couple days before he was dead.

And your buddy would be somehow less dead if he had hung or cut himself?

He picked a more efficient means to kill himself...and you blame the firearm? How about a modicum of common sense here?

The Japanese have virtually no civilian firearm ownership, yet their suicide rate astronomical. Are their citizens somehow less dead because they didn't use a gun to off themselves?

Damn and I thought I was blaming the fact he could so easily buy a weapon from a private seller when he would not have been able to pass a background check. Did you on purpose miss that point?

He did try a couple other methods to kill himself. Car exhaust. Running his car into a tree. Greatly disturbed individual. Are you not glad that a fuker this crazy could by a weapon with no problems. Sure you're glad. Why? Because it don't have anything to do with you.

 

[eflatminor]

Mike whatever dude. You make whatever claim you want. Tens of millions of crimes stopped with guns every day. It won't make any difference to the truth that those numbers are bull shit.

Link?

If they were not, you could read of the thousands of crimes stopped every day in the papers and on line.

Sure, cuz we all know how the media want to show all sides of the story...

And if you could have proven that thousands of crimes were stopped every day, you would have. But you can't.

Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

And if your numbers were correct, some other gun nutter would have been all over me to prove that I was wrong and you were right.

Consider yourself wrong.

But that didn't happen. Cause they have looked at the numbers also and went......6000 a day, no way.

Not every instance involves a firearm being discharged. So...way!

Or we can adjust it to that 1.5 million you now like. Then it is only 4109 times a day.....no way dude.

I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where's the lie?

Can you, or Shitting Bull, or the hate site he cut & pasted from, demonstrate that the state of Texas is handing out "assault rifles?"

You know where the lie is.

I oppose laws against pornography. According the lying ***** of the left, this means I want everyone to have porn.

 

[eflatminor]

Yea the way I figure it, if you won't consent to a background check then you are hiding something that would keep you from owning a gun.

What you all hiding?

Buddy of mine got the gun he used to kill himself with from a private seller. This guy had a domestic violence charge against him and couldn't pass a background check. Got his gun though. But he only owned it a couple days before he was dead.

And your buddy would be somehow less dead if he had hung or cut himself?

He picked a more efficient means to kill himself...and you blame the firearm? How about a modicum of common sense here?

The Japanese have virtually no civilian firearm ownership, yet their suicide rate astronomical. Are their citizens somehow less dead because they didn't use a gun to off themselves?

Damn and I thought I was blaming the fact he could so easily buy a weapon from a private seller when he would not have been able to pass a background check. Did you on purpose miss that point?

He did try a couple other methods to kill himself. Car exhaust. Running his car into a tree. Greatly disturbed individual. Are you not glad that a fuker this crazy could by a weapon with no problems. Sure you're glad. Why? Because it don't have anything to do with you.

The point is he got a firearm DESPITE the regulations and no new regulation is going to change that. Just as is the case in Japan, even if you could confiscate all the firearms, he would still be able to kill himself. So he used a firearm? So what?

Should we require background checks to buy and plant a tree? I mean, he did try to kill himself with one!

Lastly, no body is "glad". Your words, not mine.

 

[zeke]

eflat. You need to get in tune. You don't bring much to the debate when you're flat like that. You are out of key.

But it is cool. You can't back up the claim either. 6000 or 4000 a day. But how easy to just blame the lack of reporting on the MSM LMFAO

Sure dude that's the problem, the MSM, Not your numbers. just them damn MSM people. Of course I can't find any substantial (4000 to 6000 a day) numbers on FOX either. How come?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who says they are facts?

A gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times a year.

Then that is 2.5 million times a year that an Obama voter is denied their right to "get their fair share" by force...

People who don't want to be robbed, raped, or murdered are just selfish. We have to think like leftists.

 

[zeke]

And your buddy would be somehow less dead if he had hung or cut himself?

He picked a more efficient means to kill himself...and you blame the firearm? How about a modicum of common sense here?

The Japanese have virtually no civilian firearm ownership, yet their suicide rate astronomical. Are their citizens somehow less dead because they didn't use a gun to off themselves?

Damn and I thought I was blaming the fact he could so easily buy a weapon from a private seller when he would not have been able to pass a background check. Did you on purpose miss that point?

He did try a couple other methods to kill himself. Car exhaust. Running his car into a tree. Greatly disturbed individual. Are you not glad that a fuker this crazy could by a weapon with no problems. Sure you're glad. Why? Because it don't have anything to do with you.

The point is he got a firearm DESPITE the regulations and no new regulation is going to change that. Just as is the case in Japan, even if you could confiscate all the firearms, he would still be able to kill himself. So he used a firearm? So what?

Should we require background checks to buy and plant a tree? I mean, he did try to kill himself with one!

Lastly, no body is "glad". Your words, not mine.

You miss out on a lot don't you. There is no background check in the state of Ohio for private gun sales. WTF are you talking about? If the private seller had to face any consequences for selling a weapon to someone that couldn't pass a back ground check, I can pretty well assure you he couldn't have bought a weapon from that source.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?