OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
c4039f50339f08c4979267058b3caa14.jpg


Here's your new constitution, right here!
 
jp_nyc said:
The advantage of an AR-15 is convenience, not accuracy. The design of the AR-15 makes it easy to point it into a crowd at torso level, keep pulling the trigger until out of ammo, and swap magazines while everyone is hiding or bleeding out. Folding stocks make this even easier—though I don’t know if mass killing shooters have used them. To make it any easier a shooter would have to upgrade to a spray-and-pray handgun. Of course there are plenty of other guns that are just as useful for a mass shooting. But the popularity of the AR-15 makes it easy to find and inexpensive.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

The numbers tell a different story. It's one of the reasons "assault weapon" bans are so misguided.

According to the FBI's 2014 data: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

Total murders: 11,961
Number of homicides with a firearm: 8,124
Number of people killed with rifles (including AR and AK rifles): 248
Number of people killed with handguns: 5562
Number of people killed with knives or cutting instruments: 1567
Number of people killed with other weapons: 1610
Number of people killed with Hands, fists, etc...: 660

Now, on that lists are 2052 "firearms (type unknown)" - some of those could be a rifle. Let's split it and say that the 248 is actually 1,274(1026+248 ) - it's still less than how many people are killed with knives and less than people killed with "other weapons" (I think that is referring to "blunt objects", hammers, pipes, rope, etc...).

Just to contrast these numbers with other causes of death:

Poisoning deaths: 48,545
Medical mistakes / Hospital errors: estimated at 440,000 per year - the third leading cause of death in the US.

So even if what you say is true (it's not, any gun can be held at waist level and fired indiscriminately - it's a stupid, inaccurate way to fire a weapon), the numbers don't show it in practice. Also, AR-15s are not inexpensive, neither are AKs.
 
Prages said:
I'd have to agree that any rifle is easier to shoot accurately at a large distance. I mean, rifles were designed for accuracy. Add high powered optics and you can pick off a beer can from 200 yards pretty easily.

Still, if I were a nut job walking into a crowded public place with the intention of shooting as many people as quickly as possible, I'd take a big semi-automatic handgun. They are much easier to wield than any rifle, and as I stated earlier, my Glock holds 13+1, and I can change the magazines out in a matter of a second or two.
Click to expand...
If he was contrasting AR/AK and handguns, yes, rifles are much more accurate.

I thought he was just making a general statement about ARs being "significantly easier to shoot accurately" - in contrast with other rifles. This has not been my experience. I'm as accurate with an AR as I am with pretty much any open sight rifle; no more, no less.

Pretty sure you can 26 round mags for your glock if it's a double stack 45.
 
wagdog said:
So even if what you say is true (it's not, any gun can be held at waist level and fired indiscriminately - it's a stupid, inaccurate way to fire a weapon), the numbers don't show it in practice. Also, AR-15s are not inexpensive, neither are AKs.
Click to expand...

I wasn’t referring to gun crime in general. Just to mass shootings.
 
jp_nyc said:
I wasn’t referring to gun crime in general. Just to mass shootings.
Click to expand...
OK.

Rifles are statistically used in far fewer murders than handguns and even knives - mass shootings included.

Why should we ban something that actually doesn't have the statistics to show that doing so will fix anything?
 
wagdog said:
Why should we ban something that actually doesn't have the statistics to show that doing so will fix anything?
Click to expand...

I never said AR15s should be banned. Just that they’re a convenient tool for mass shootings.

I think the real answer to gun violence is limiting magazine sizes and registering all gun sales so that bad dealers and straw purchasers who are supplying guns to criminals can be dealt with, and so guns can be confiscated from the mentally ill. Given that the NSAs metadata collection systems are a de facto gun registry, and one that isn’t going anywhere, there’s no reason to not have a gun registry that’s actually useful.
 
GomezAddams said:
Hitler's army conquered the professional armies of the better part of Europe and almost conquered the whole world. Do you think armed, but unorganized and untrained Jewish citizens (even millions of them) could have made a difference in their lot?
Click to expand...

The Russians did.

I once read an account of a German soldier stationed in Ukraine, where he described regularly finding isolated garrisons of German soldiers wiped out by Russian partisans (who were then able to help themselves to German weapons and equipment)- partisan activity seriously disrupted the wehrmacht in Russia. They were so effective that Stalin had them all killed after the war so they wouldn't turn on him. Hell, the first half of the American Revolution was essentially a guerrilla war. In any event, I personally would prefer the opportunity to fight, no matter how bad the odds, instead of being herded into a cattle car to my death.
 
Last edited:
wagdog said:
Now, on that lists are 2052 "firearms (type unknown)" - some of those could be a rifle. Let's split it and say that the 248 is actually 1,274(1026+248 ) - it's still less than how many people are killed with knives and less than people killed with "other weapons" (I think that is referring to "blunt objects", hammers, pipes, rope, etc.
Click to expand...

Was it Cornel Mustard in the conservatory?
 
jp_nyc said:
I never said AR15s should be banned. Just that they’re a convenient tool for mass shootings.

I think the real answer to gun violence is limiting magazine sizes and registering all gun sales so that bad dealers and straw purchasers who are supplying guns to criminals can be dealt with, and so guns can be confiscated from the mentally ill. Given that the NSAs metadata collection systems are a de facto gun registry, and one that isn’t going anywhere, there’s no reason to not have a gun registry that’s actually useful.
Click to expand...

Limiting law abiding citizens (aka ME) access to something isn't going to change criminal (or terrorist) behavior or methods. Limiting what criminals or terrorists can buy legally isn't going to change criminal or terrorist behavior: they're already criminals and terrorists. What it does do is restrict my ability to purchase the tools that I have a right to own.

Straw purchases are already illegal. Any gun sold buy a dealer without a background check is already illegal. I've never heard of a dealer who did this - ever. There is no "gun show or internet loophole" either: any dealer must perform a background check, whether at a gun show or online (online purchases are shipped to an FFL in your area and that FFL does the background check prior to transfer).
 
wagdog said:
Limiting law abiding citizens (aka ME) access to something isn't going to change criminal (or terrorist) behavior or methods. Limiting what criminals or terrorists can buy legally isn't going to change criminal or terrorist behavior: they're already criminals and terrorists. What it does do is restrict my ability to purchase the tools that I have a right to own.

Straw purchases are already illegal. Any gun sold buy a dealer without a background check is already illegal. I've never heard of a dealer who did this - ever. There is no "gun show or internet loophole" either: any dealer must perform a background check, whether at a gun show or online (online purchases are shipped to an FFL in your area and that FFL does the background check prior to transfer).
Click to expand...

Bluntly saying:

Your right shouldn't have been deemed a right in the first place, and you should be stripped of it.

Virtually nobody is a killer until they pull the trigger. And it's easy for me to say 'wagdog, I know him, he's a decent guy, he's never going to shoot his wife'. But that solves nothing. Fuck the trees; save the forest.

I know you don't like it, and that's unfortunate; I wish it were otherwise. But I can live with that.
 
Flamencology said:
Bluntly saying:

Your right shouldn't have been deemed a right in the first place, and you should be stripped of it.

Virtually nobody is a killer until they pull the trigger. And it's easy for me to say 'wagdog, I know him, he's a decent guy, he's never going to shoot his wife'. But that solves nothing. Fuck the trees; save the forest.

I know you don't like it, and that's unfortunate; I wish it were otherwise. But I can live with that.
Click to expand...
FWIW, bluntly saying, my natural right to self-defense and my right to own firearms isn't subject to your feelings on the subject.

I know you don't like that, but I can live with that as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top