Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Yeah, great movie. Philip K. Dick saw the future for sure.
Shoot a camera, not a gun
- Thread starter Jubb Jubb
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 684
- Views 34K
- Status
Yeah, great movie. Philip K. Dick saw the future for sure.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I don't get the term "assault rifle". If I take a non-functioning rifle and smack someone upside the head with it, does that make it an assault rifle or an assault by rifle?
From the Department of Justice website.
From 1976 thru 2005, there were a total of
98,550
and
29,917
Homicides....by knife and by blunt object.
In fact there were MORE homicides by knife in that period of years, than in homicides by guns other than handguns...i.e., the group that includes so-called 'assault weapons.'
Also, it must also be pointed out, the peak number of handgun homicides was in 1993...by 2005, the number had dropped nearly 40%.
Lastly, during this period, there were nearly as many homicides by 'other weapon' as there were homicides by knives and other guns.
Perhaps others will find this as eye-opening as I have.
Data here.
From 1976 thru 2005, there were a total of
98,550
and
29,917
Homicides....by knife and by blunt object.
In fact there were MORE homicides by knife in that period of years, than in homicides by guns other than handguns...i.e., the group that includes so-called 'assault weapons.'
Also, it must also be pointed out, the peak number of handgun homicides was in 1993...by 2005, the number had dropped nearly 40%.
Lastly, during this period, there were nearly as many homicides by 'other weapon' as there were homicides by knives and other guns.
Perhaps others will find this as eye-opening as I have.
Data here.
'Assault rifle' and the associated 'assault weapon' are essentially scare terms used by the antigun lobby. There is no real definition, other than what legislatures decide.
Most people, including many participating in this thread, aren't familiar with weapons terminology so this term serves the desires of many politicians and their backers.
E__WOK
Well-known
You can be assured he and the rest of them understand that. They just refuse to admit it.
E__WOK
Well-known
StG 44, the daddy of all assault rifles.
Generally capable of selective fire using an intermediate cartridge using a detachable magazine.
BTW, invented by the Germans. I love German firearms.
E__WOK
Well-known
I should maybe read some of his books.
E__WOK
Well-known
Do you care only about gun deaths or deaths in general?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
This doesn't really make any sense. Ok, so what about all those "crazies" who don't have guns? How come we never hear of them driving their cars into schools and killing 20 kids because they had to wait 5 days due to "cool down" regulations? Or because they failed a background check? I don't think I've ever read a story where somebody decided they had to run down children with their car, because a mandatory cool down period or background check kept them from getting a better machine for killing people.
The "they will find other ways so let's just stick our heads in the sand" argument is lamer than lame at this point. I'm frankly surprised by how many people have a "everybody should just bend over and take it" attitude when it comes to something like this.
While we're at it, the car equation is really just daft. You have to pass a test to get a license to operate a car. You have to (in most states) have the car insured in case you damage somebody else's property. You have to register your car, and in MANY places have it inspected! Yes cars are dangerous, but they're also regulated because of it. Also because cars are dangerous people have lobbied to make them safer, and manufacturers have had to make them safer and all sorts of laws have been enacted to make them safer.
If you buy a gun in my state - you don't have to register it, you don't have to demonstrate you know how to operate it you don't have to have it inspected to make sure it works correctly, you don't have to provide any proof that you have even a shred of respect for the property and lives of others (well other than not to be a recent felon). You have basically no incentive to be responsible save for keeping yourself from accidentally blasting your own face off. A lot of people can't even do that much.
So there is zero sense in saying "cars kill and they don't regulate cars" seriously, what?
Avotius
Some guy
Seems like the only way to take care of these problems is let planet earth hit the reset button and wipe us all out because regardless if they ban guns or not, we are going to keep killing each other.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
I think we can all agree to disagree.
Soeren
Well-known
Yes most understand and admit that but thats not the point. The point is for what do you need high capacity fast shooting weapons meant for efficient killing a lot of opponents in warlike situations? How many perps do you expect to attack you at home or in the city? A platoon? A regiment? 1, 2, 5? When attacked at home how many are participating in the assault? isn't mostly 1-3 persons? Youll need no more than a shotgun with 5 cartridge capacity at most. 1 warning shot should do the trick and Ill suspect the average villan give up when his partner had his legs shot off. Is america really like the images we see in actionmovies and the policeseries in the telly?
Best regards
jtm6
Well-known
I'm not sure where that connection came from. I don't know if a waiting period for guns is relevant, considering some people do intentionally run down children with cars, even targeting playgrounds when planning it in months in advance. Guns had nothing to do with it.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I thought the argument was that putting more controls in place for firearms would result in people seeking other weapons to carry out their slaughter? I haven't seen anything that suggests that a person having been foiled by controls (like a waiting period), then decided to use a car as a weapon. Which seems to be what was suggested:
isoterica said:
It is a pretty shaky conclusion to draw.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I do, and I'm sure everyone else understands your point that no object kills without the intent or otherwise of the person who controls it, be it a gun knife or car.
The point being made that seems to go completely over your head is how the magnitude of death that can be achieved by one individual with a gun is so much greater, and the type of gun can have an impact on those numbers as well.
Answer me this. Do you really think that the attack on the island in Norway last year could possibly have reached the total of 77 lives lost had he used a car, or indeed a knife. Not even remotely close.
I can't believe I'm having to pitch the point so low, but you seem not to be able to move beyond "inanimate objects don't kill, people do", therefore you should be allowed to own anything that you desire irrespective of that objects destructive potential.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Phrased a different way, what if you had these choices:
1: Getting shot at by a man equipped with a semi-automatic firearm
2: Getting chased by a man with a knife
Paul T.
Veteran
Firstly, I love the propaganda term "the politicians and their backers" when the NRA boast how many politicians they have in their pocket, and have managed to promote the interests of their own membership, 4 million or so, over the majority of Americans, around 60%, who don't own guns.
Secondly, people understand the term Assault Rifle quite well. They mean semi-automatic, modified military items like the Bushmaster, which can shoot 49 bullets in 60 seconds, which are sold, incidentally, on the basis of their "military and law-enforcement" applications, ie to shoot humans. Why would any sane person need such a weapon except to kill other human beings? And to kill more of them, more quickly, than with a car, or a knife, or a baseball bat.
For gun-fans to promote themselves as reasonable people, they need to disavow the extremists who load themselves up with military grade hardware in readiness for a world apocalypse.
THose who dislike guns, like me, or more specifically those who abhor seeing huge numbers of people die, are mostly prepared to accept a compromise, which will at least diminish the likelihood of some mass killings like the ones we've just seen. Reasonable gun owners will have to accept some compromise, too. What also remains undeniable is that the evil practice of selling weapons, without any paperwork at gun fairs etc - as promoted by the NRA - has to end now.
sanmich
Veteran
Again, by the same token, we should allow free circulation of weapons of mass destruction.
objects hey?🙄
Roger Hicks
Veteran
"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." (Joe Stalin)
When ALL guns are banned it will be because of the utter intransigence of those who can't see the difference between owning a large-magazine rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle (for those who dislike the term 'assault rifle') and a hunting rifle. Or an Ingram MAC-10 with a Sionics suppressor and a Colt 45.
I don't want see guns banned. Pistols are effectively banned in the UK now because of knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings, but actual deaths by shooting are on the rise. To me this demonstrates pretty clearly that bans and demonization don't work. But nor does intransigence on the part of the pro-gun lobby.
This brings me back (yet again) to the point I made at the beginning of the thread: it's mostly cultural. A culture in which extraordinary numbers of rational people seem to think it's their right to shoot everyone else. A culture in which far too many buy a package of (for example) right wing + anti-abortion + pro-gun + Christianity + 'family values', without ever actually thinking about any of them. They're all perfectly defensible viewpoints but many people aren't prepared to think about any of them, as evidenced by the fact that so few are willing to discuss any of them rationally.
Cheers,
R.
When ALL guns are banned it will be because of the utter intransigence of those who can't see the difference between owning a large-magazine rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle (for those who dislike the term 'assault rifle') and a hunting rifle. Or an Ingram MAC-10 with a Sionics suppressor and a Colt 45.
I don't want see guns banned. Pistols are effectively banned in the UK now because of knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings, but actual deaths by shooting are on the rise. To me this demonstrates pretty clearly that bans and demonization don't work. But nor does intransigence on the part of the pro-gun lobby.
This brings me back (yet again) to the point I made at the beginning of the thread: it's mostly cultural. A culture in which extraordinary numbers of rational people seem to think it's their right to shoot everyone else. A culture in which far too many buy a package of (for example) right wing + anti-abortion + pro-gun + Christianity + 'family values', without ever actually thinking about any of them. They're all perfectly defensible viewpoints but many people aren't prepared to think about any of them, as evidenced by the fact that so few are willing to discuss any of them rationally.
Cheers,
R.
pdh
Established
The notion that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is often used as a core part of the anti-gun-control argument.
This has both a practical and logical corollary that seems rarely to be attended to: That every death as a result of gunshot would have occurred by some other means had the person with the gun not been in possession of a gun.
Even weakening this somewhat, at the very least it implies that there would be as many deaths and injuries even if guns did not exist. Considering just the Battle of Mons as an example demonstrates the faultiness of the logic.
Relying on the "guns don't kill people" premiss is not a secure basis for opposing gun-control.
This has both a practical and logical corollary that seems rarely to be attended to: That every death as a result of gunshot would have occurred by some other means had the person with the gun not been in possession of a gun.
Even weakening this somewhat, at the very least it implies that there would be as many deaths and injuries even if guns did not exist. Considering just the Battle of Mons as an example demonstrates the faultiness of the logic.
Relying on the "guns don't kill people" premiss is not a secure basis for opposing gun-control.
- Status