Hey Liberals? Guns work!!

[whitebb2727]

Ok, so you say you need to carry because somebody else might. You treat every confrontation as if you might need to draw and this is just the way it is for you and everybody else. Am I correct?

No sir. I was robbed at gunpoint and once had a guy kick my door in at 2am. Its a last resort.

I have the control asses a threat. I also have been trained in conflict resolution.

The last thing I want is to draw my weapon.

I'm not itching to kill someone. Twice in my life I could have killed someone and legally gotten away with it. I didn't.

I have full understanding of the world and the people in it.

I love my family. That's all there is to it.

I hope that makes sense.

You're referencing a chart that a lot of right wing media has picked up on and is running with. It's a chart that adjusts casualties as adjusted per population between 2009-2013 which puts Norway as #1 for mass shootings because of Anders Breivik. That's the definition of cherry picking stats, because since Anders Breivik there hasn't been a mass shooting in Norway.

Fair is fair. You guys on the left use the "per capita" argument when it comes to black on black and white on white homicides. Why do I not get to use the per capita argument now?

Is it not fair to say that "per capita" we have fewer mass shootings and homicides than other countries?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

The bottom right two are assault rifles. They are semi-auto with [greater than] 10 round magazines. The others are bolt action with 5 rounds [or less] magazines. Unless of course I am seeing it wrong. Most of those look like bolt actions. Are my eyes going bad?

While I'm actually enjoying your civility and candor on multiple threads pertaining to gun control, I have to correct you. Every rifle on that chart is a semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14, which is not made in bolt action. I double checked and can buy a 30 round magazine for it on Amazon right now as well as several sources for 90 round magazines that would fit all of them. Just FYI.

Edit: I replied before you added the last three lines, not even sure how they got in my reply.

 

[bravedave]

That's like saying Exxon and Bank of America legislate nothing. We know that, through lobbyists, this not to be true.



Citation please. [Restrict them from doing what?]



Alarmist.

Lobbyist do not legislate either.
You also pretty much say the same thing about the NRA in your first post here.

Citation? His speech last night. Doh!

"Alarmist"? You obviously missed the point. I assume if when you register to be mj patient they might also have you sign away your gun rights to achieve it...although it certainly could be codified and not in anything you sign. Same thing though. That said, I don't agree with it.

 

[whitebb2727]

The bottom right two are assault rifles. They are semi-auto with [greater than] 10 round magazines. The others are bolt action with 5 rounds [or less] magazines. Unless of course I am seeing it wrong. Most of those look like bolt actions. Are my eyes going bad?

They are all ruger mini 14.

My point is that several rifles could be called assault or hunting rifles.

It is the same rifle in different configurations.

We could go one step farther.

I'm sure you are familiar with the "socom .458 and beowolf .50" uppers for the AR platform.

Those are large caliber barrels. They use a standard 5.56 mag. The thing is they only hold ten rounds.

So I could buy a 5.56 and .458 upper. Order the ten round clip for the 4.58 but it would still hold 30 5.56 rounds.



Things aren't that simple.

 

[NLXSK1]

I'm neither right or left. You are in fact hard left. We are fifth in the world for mass shootings per capita and even lower in per capita homicide.

You cherry pick stats. That is shady.

You are ignorant when it comes to guns. It OK. I'm not calling you stupid.

The truth is that pistols are a bigger problem. Most criminals prefer something they can conceal.

View attachment 3559290

See. Ignorant about guns. They are in fact the same guns. The grips. Ohhhh. Soooo scary.

Here is why I have a problem with a list of guns banned by manufacturer and/or model. Next year Rutger makes a large democratic donation and suddenly their gun is taken off the banned list but another gun goes on the banned list from a company that is not donating to political campaigns. Cant happen? look at the fucking tax code... Thousands of favors for donations are evident right there...

Right now we have a clear delineation. You are not allowed to own a fully automatic assault rifle without rare permission. That has been the law since the 1930's. Guns that can shoot a bullet per trigger pull cannot be outlawed, there are too many of them and just banning scary looking ones is pointless.

 

[pnwmystery]

Fair is fair. You guys on the left use the "per capita" argument when it comes to black on black and white on white homicides. Why do I not get to use the per capita argument now?

Is it not fair to say that "per capita" we have fewer mass shootings and homicides than other countries?

No because once more the chart only takes it from 2009-2013, so 1) it's out dated and 2) it shows a narrow window. It should be evidence enough that "mass shootings" and "mass public shootings" aren't even really statistics that are tracked by other countries because of the infrequency/lack there of. University of Alabama criminal justice professor Adam Lankford (@see4 this might pertain to what you were asking) has tracked mass shootings from 1966-2012 in a paper across 171 countries controlled by population sizes, and while it has yet to be officially published, he found that there were about 90 shooters in the past 46 years as opposed to 1.7 in other countries (excluding gang-related shootings, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, robberies and acts of genocide or terrorism). Moreover he said that looking at rates can be "wildly misleading" because, for example, if we did that Umpqua’s public mass shooter rate (number of offenders per capita) would be one of the highest in the nation.

Even if you look at the research by SUNY's Jaclyn Schildkraut (professor of public justice) and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass which puts the US behind Norway, Finland, and Switzerland in a period of 2000-2014 you'll still notice that we have 133 public shootings compared to 6 in those countries.

 

[see4]

Here is why I have a problem with a list of guns banned by manufacturer and/or model. Next year Rutger makes a large democratic donation and suddenly their gun is taken off the banned list but another gun goes on the banned list from a company that is not donating to political campaigns. Cant happen? look at the fucking tax code... Thousands of favors for donations are evident right there...

Right now we have a clear delineation. You are not allowed to own a fully automatic assault rifle without rare permission. That has been the law since the 1930's. Guns that can shoot a bullet per trigger pull cannot be outlawed, there are too many of them and just banning scary looking ones is pointless.

You were able to own a fully automatic rifle with little effort all the way up until 1986, with use of m16 parts. You could build your own. Now, it requires an SOT license to build and manufacture fully automatic firearms.

 

[see4]

They are all ruger mini 14.

My point is that several rifles could be called assault or hunting rifles.

It is the same rifle in different configurations.

We could go one step farther.

I'm sure you are familiar with the "socom .458 and beowolf .50" uppers for the AR platform.

Those are large caliber barrels. They use a standard 5.56 mag. The thing is they only hold ten rounds.

So I could buy a 5.56 and .458 upper. Order the ten round clip for the 4.58 but it would still hold 30 5.56 rounds.

View attachment 3559322

Things aren't that simple.

Is that what that picture was showing? You need a special bolt and barrel for calibers like 458 or 6.5 on an AR-15 platform. You cant just toss in a few 458 rounds into your AR-15 [223/556] and be on your way.

 

[see4]

Lobbyist do not legislate either.
You also pretty much say the same thing about the NRA in your first post here.

Citation? His speech last night. Doh!

"Alarmist"? You obviously missed the point. I assume if when you register to be mj patient they might also have you sign away your gun rights to achieve it...although it certainly could be codified and not in anything you sign. Same thing though. That said, I don't agree with it.

Lobbyists don't legislate, true, and Charles Manson never murdered.

I didn't watch the speech, I could care less.

No, when you apply for an MMJ card, they don't care if you own a firearm. And interestingly the wording in the FFL questionnaire is slightly ambiguous, in that one could interpret it is, at the current time of them filling out the questionnaire, they were not using or under the influence of marijuana or other illegal substances. I know that would not hold up in court.. but they need to word that a little better.

 

[Uncle Ben]

That's because there are already more than enough weapons, ammo, criminals, gangs, assholes, terrorists, and assorted douchebags on the verge of expressing their insanity - and these folks couldn't give a fuck about the idiotic gun control "debate".

People need to be realists.

Exactly. The gun debate has nothing to do with the real criminal world. Thugs are laughing their asses off as they spiff that 9 mm and Achmed sure isn't planning on taking Alia to any baseball practice this afternoon. He's plotting tomorrow's mass homicides.

"Realists"? Right wing action is the answer to left wing fantasy.

 

[pnwmystery]

Exactly. The gun debate has nothing to do with the real criminal world. Thugs are laughing their asses off as they spiff that 9 mm and Achmed sure isn't planning on taking Alia to any baseball practice this afternoon. He's plotting tomorrow's mass homicides.

"Realists"? Right wing action is the answer to left wing fantasy.

So go to the Middle East with all your guns and fight terrorism. Waiting for an update.

 

[see4]

While I'm actually enjoying your civility and candor on multiple threads pertaining to gun control, I have to correct you. Every rifle on that chart is a semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14, which is not made in bolt action. I double checked and can buy a 30 round magazine for it on Amazon right now as well as several sources for 90 round magazines that would fit all of them. Just FYI.

Edit: I replied before you added the last three lines, not even sure how they got in my reply.

Yea, most of those looked like bolt action. If they are, those are not assault rifles. They are not, then they are assault rifles, and I agree.

Fixed stock wooden ARs with fixed barrels are just weird. And should be banned for being ugly.

 

[pnwmystery]

That's what I pay the military to do shit-fer-brains. Just need to get O'Vomit out of the way and let the generals take command instead of firing them.

In other words: You're scared shitless to do anything and would rather have someone else do it. Got it. All I heard was an excuse.

 

[see4]

Exactly. The gun debate has nothing to do with the real criminal world. Thugs are laughing their asses off as they spiff that 9 mm and Achmed sure isn't planning on taking Alia to any baseball practice this afternoon. He's plotting tomorrow's mass homicides.

"Realists"? Right wing action is the answer to left wing fantasy.

Your grasp of the English language is very poor.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Your grasp of the English language is very poor.

Right, and BE. is a complete sentence.

 

[pnwmystery]

That's what I pay the military to do shit-fer-brains. Just need to get O'Vomit out of the way and let the generals take command instead of firing them.

I've come to the conclusion that the innuendos are true - the Liar-in-Chief is out to destroy America. He's not on our side.

"Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it's time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight."

President Obama in his oval office address last night. So... you were saying? Or did you want him to break the law and just go ahead and do it? Which is it?

 

[see4]

Right, and BE. is a complete sentence.

Actually it can be. So can, "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo".

And in this case, it does not have to be, as it's an acronym.

 

[Fogdog]

No sir. I was robbed at gunpoint and once had a guy kick my door in at 2am. Its a last resort.

I have the control asses a threat. I also have been trained in conflict resolution.

The last thing I want is to draw my weapon.

I'm not itching to kill someone. Twice in my life I could have killed someone and legally gotten away with it. I didn't.

I have full understanding of the world and the people in it.

I love my family. That's all there is to it.

This about sums up the kind of person I'm comfortable with owning and carrying. That scary old guy in the dog park, not so much. Training, forethought, and situation awareness are exactly the factors in favor of you safely carrying. A guy was killed in a theater for throwing popcorn at an old man who turned out to be a retired cop. Maybe I'd be comfortable with him carrying too. My point being that mistakes happen sometimes in spite of the best training. Maybe that retired cop wouldn't have been so quick to pull the trigger if Florida did not have a law in place that allows people to kill others if they get scared. We'll never know but I'm glad I don't live in Florida.

Some people have posted in this thread making noises about how it would be better if everybody carried. That's simply not going to produce a safer society. Not without the kind of training you are talking about. Even then, when I look about me in a packed room or crowded bar, I see quite a few that I'd rather not be packing. Because, mistakes. So, are you thinking that if everybody carried we'd all be safer?

 

[guardiangk]

Like, you know what, I personally don't give a fuck about our standing in the fucking world as far as how many people get fucking murdered by firearms. I want to see us at the bottom of the fucking list, and with all these 2nd Amendment cavemen running around, and somehow getting their fucking stupid way, this Nation will never, ever, be close to the being close to the top of the list of a good place to live, (as long as you don't mind being shot). Oh, you want to see me FUCKING SCREAM, just keep saying we don't have a gun problem in this country, that gun's don't kill people, people kill people. Ya Da Ya Da Ya Da. Fuck that bull shit

We should ban all forks, and spoons cause you know they make people fat.

 

[NLXSK1]

This about sums up the kind of person I'm comfortable with owning and carrying. That scary old guy in the dog park, not so much. Training, forethought, and situation awareness are exactly the factors in favor of you safely carrying. A guy was killed in a theater for throwing popcorn at an old man who turned out to be a retired cop. Maybe I'd be comfortable with him carrying too. My point being that mistakes happen sometimes in spite of the best training. Maybe that retired cop wouldn't have been so quick to pull the trigger if Florida did not have a law in place that allows people to kill others if they get scared. We'll never know but I'm glad I don't live in Florida.

Some people have posted in this thread making noises about how it would be better if everybody carried. That's simply not going to produce a safer society. Not without the kind of training you are talking about. Even then, when I look about me in a packed room or crowded bar, I see quite a few that I'd rather not be packing. Because, mistakes. So, are you thinking that if everybody carried we'd all be safer?

I read the same thread and cant remember reading anyone who suggested everyone carried a weapon. No, that is not going to produce a safer society. However, reducing guns may reduce gun violence but it will not reduce violence. Assaults and burglaries are much more common in other countries where guns are banned as the thieves have less chance of dying for their crimes.

The 90 year old woman may not be packing but the 32 year old ex marine walking across the street might. And that stops crime. Because reducing the number of weapons and making it harder for legal citizens to own and carry weapons will not reduce it, it will increase it.