GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Can someone please give me a valid reason to own a semi auto gun? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1099699)

EliteWebmaster 02-13-2013 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberHustler (Post 19478020)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

tony286 02-13-2013 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream (Post 19478019)
no I don't get the picture, your argument doesn't make sense to me and it falls back to the no guns idea. A pump shotgun is more than fine to defend any home. I never said no guns, I said no semi auto

Alot goes to the we are going to over throw the government fantasy especially with blackie blackenstein as President. But we have seen the reality of it. A gun guy goes on youtube , you try and take my guns,I'm going to be the first shot first in the new revolution. The state takes away his carry license. Does he grab arms no he backtracks on his statements.
Also, some gun lovers believe if you cant have one type of gun, then you are taking them all away but you aren't.
The sad truth is we have people shooting up schools, movie theaters with guns and ammo bought legally, so there is a problem somewhere in the works that has to be fixed. I think nothing should be banned but it should take a little more effort to be able to get something that should considered be a tremendous responsibility.

Dirty F 02-13-2013 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoMonster (Post 19478307)

You can't say because you have a RIGHT you HAVE to own it... STUPID.

Funny, because that's what all you imbeciles do when it comes to guns.

BlackCrayon 02-13-2013 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Far-L (Post 19478198)
I have two good reasons.

One, when the big earthquake hit California, I was in a place called Santa Cruz very close to the epicenter. It is a coastal town with really only one highway going in and out of it. That, plus many other roads around it were destroyed. That meant a run on grocery stores and basic necessities became scarce fast. That coupled with the fact that people were dying under rubble and people were upset more could not be done faster to save or find them meant agitation set in very quickly.

That meant the threat of violence set in very quickly. Society was upended and you would be amazed how fast even a town of mellow affluent old hippies and young surfers and university students becomes so feral. Ready to fight. Ready to rape. Ready to kill. Humanity can be more beastly than any beast. Think of what went down during Katrina, much of which is still not published.

Then I was living in downtown LA when the LA riots hit. At least 50 People were circling our building as a pack behind a slow moving van yelling, "we know you're in there! We're coming to get you!". Later we drove, heavily armed to the closest police station, forget using 911, and we asked the riot geared-up cop what to do. He said very matter of factly, "Don't just start shooting people, but if someone crosses your threshold... unload your clip." At that point I knew, once again, society had completely upended in a matter of hours.

Traffic signals may have been working, but no one was paying attention to them if you understand my drift, and that makes the road a very dangerous place. Guns are like cars, the faster they go, the more rounds they shoot, yes, the more dangerous they are, but not necessarily in the hands of someone safe and respectful of the laws of the road.

As Sun Tzu once said, "In times of peace, the gentleman will carry the sword at his side".

uh huh. and how many women and children will you be murdering in the process? either way, its fear based thinking which gets people nowhere.

Best-In-BC 02-13-2013 05:52 AM

Cops are allowed them. Period.

Grapesoda 02-13-2013 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream (Post 19477991)
Ok, I believe the general public is stupid and should not have semi automatic weapons. this includes handguns.

I have no problem with any single shot rifle or shotgun or pump, lever, or bolt action long barrel gun.

why does a private citizen NEED a semi-automatic weapon other than "I want it"?

the constitution thing is bullshit, semi auto didn't exist when it was written.

so gun nuts, lets have it.

why do you need semi auto?

because I want to?

12clicks 02-13-2013 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream (Post 19477991)
Ok, I believe the general public is stupid and should not have semi automatic weapons. this includes handguns.

I have no problem with any single shot rifle or shotgun or pump, lever, or bolt action long barrel gun.

why does a private citizen NEED a semi-automatic weapon other than "I want it"?

the constitution thing is bullshit, semi auto didn't exist when it was written.

so gun nuts, lets have it.

why do you need semi auto?

Thank god you're not American.
I think your lack of intelligence has been on display for years. Toss this post on that pile

TheSquealer 02-13-2013 06:46 AM

Always a good time on GFY when an angry, mental midget challenges the crowd.

brassmonkey 02-13-2013 06:53 AM

why do you need a car that go's over 85 mph?? i think 85 is the highest in the usa :)

TurboAngel 02-13-2013 06:57 AM

I find most of the people who want them are a little crazy.

Dirty F 02-13-2013 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurboAngel (Post 19478520)
I find most of the people who want them are a little crazy.

Noticed how a lot of them also turn out to be conspiracy idiots?

I said this before. I'm willing to bet that in general gun nutters have a lower iq than non gun nutters.

slapass 02-13-2013 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Far-L (Post 19478198)
I have two good reasons.

One, when the big earthquake hit California, I was in a place called Santa Cruz very close to the epicenter. It is a coastal town with really only one highway going in and out of it. That, plus many other roads around it were destroyed. That meant a run on grocery stores and basic necessities became scarce fast. That coupled with the fact that people were dying under rubble and people were upset more could not be done faster to save or find them meant agitation set in very quickly.

That meant the threat of violence set in very quickly. Society was upended and you would be amazed how fast even a town of mellow affluent old hippies and young surfers and university students becomes so feral. Ready to fight. Ready to rape. Ready to kill. Humanity can be more beastly than any beast. Think of what went down during Katrina, much of which is still not published.

Then I was living in downtown LA when the LA riots hit. At least 50 People were circling our building as a pack behind a slow moving van yelling, "we know you're in there! We're coming to get you!". Later we drove, heavily armed to the closest police station, forget using 911, and we asked the riot geared-up cop what to do. He said very matter of factly, "Don't just start shooting people, but if someone crosses your threshold... unload your clip." At that point I knew, once again, society had completely upended in a matter of hours.

Traffic signals may have been working, but no one was paying attention to them if you understand my drift, and that makes the road a very dangerous place. Guns are like cars, the faster they go, the more rounds they shoot, yes, the more dangerous they are, but not necessarily in the hands of someone safe and respectful of the laws of the road.

As Sun Tzu once said, "In times of peace, the gentleman will carry the sword at his side".

Did you have to fire a round? Did you show the weapon at any point? If you had not had them would the story have changed? I get that you felt threatened so they helped with peace of mind but other then that?

TurboAngel 02-13-2013 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478530)
Noticed how a lot of them also turn out to be conspiracy idiots?

I said this before. I'm willing to bet that in general gun nutters have a lower iq than non gun nutters.

Yep, I live in NC and most people have a shot gun but there are a bunch of rednecks that have them all over the house.

Dirty F 02-13-2013 07:08 AM

Yup, one in every room.

They call it freedom, i call it living in fear and being a total fucking idiot.

PR_Glen 02-13-2013 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 19478313)
The main legit reason would be if you are a hobbyist/competitor in target shooting. A friend of mine does shooting tournaments where they have to use three guns on three different courses. One is a shotgun, one is a semi-auto pistol and one is a semi-auto rifle. For him it is a hobby, he keeps his guns locked up in a safe and is a responsible owner.

The other potential reason is to feel safe. Some people have it in their head that having an assault rifle for home defense will keep them safer than another kind of gun. The reality is there are very few actual cases of home invasion/burglary where you might be home and need to defend yourself. In the event that happens, there is no guarantee you will even be able to get to your gun to use it.

In reality, beyond shooting/collecting there is no real "need" to own one. That doesn't mean that I think they should be outlawed. To me gun violence is a social problem, not a gun problem and we are a long ways from even considering dealing with the social problems that bring about much of the gun violence in this country.

i can live with that answer..

the rest in this thread are emotionally fuelled garbage spewed by children though.. or use emotional scarring as an excuse, which is sad.

bl4h 02-13-2013 07:10 AM

dumb question. why wouldnt you want a semi automatic. i guess youd rather load a musket when someone is breaking into your home

BlackCrayon 02-13-2013 07:11 AM


Dirty F 02-13-2013 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 19478544)
dumb question. why wouldnt you want a semi automatic. i guess youd rather load a musket when someone is breaking into your home

Notice the iq thing i mentioned above?

Amazing how fast you nutters confirm it.

bl4h 02-13-2013 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478550)
Notice the iq thing i mentioned above?

Amazing how fast you nutters confirm it.

I dont live in fear at all. You seem to be the one whos confused

Dirty F 02-13-2013 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bl4h (Post 19478559)
I dont live in fear at all. You seem to be the one whos confused

Sure, you just need semi auto weapons in your home to defend yourself :1orglaugh

Have you ever tested your iq?

Vendzilla 02-13-2013 07:22 AM

Waco Texas, ATM agents attacking under the lies of illegal weapons that were never there

Mexican border violence spilling over in the US

Illegal weapons in the hands of criminals

I don't think we need automatic weapons, but semi automatic weapons? Yes

L-Pink 02-13-2013 07:22 AM

Can someone give me a valid reason why I should care what someone from another country thinks about my countries laws?

.

bl4h 02-13-2013 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478560)
Sure, you just need semi auto weapons in your home to defend yourself :1orglaugh

Have you ever tested your iq?

I have nothing to prove to your kind.

1) Idiots pull the old "u r idiot ur iq r low"
2) I told you I fear nothing. Its a tool thats around if needed. kind of like a screwdriver. Which i could put through your forehead just as easily as putting a bullet through it

12clicks 02-13-2013 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478560)
Sure, you just need semi auto weapons in your home to defend yourself :1orglaugh

Have you ever tested your iq?

gotta love unaccomplished nobodies discussing IQs. :1orglaugh

Dirty F 02-13-2013 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19478562)
Waco Texas, ATM agents attacking under the lies of illegal weapons that were never there

Mexican border violence spilling over in the US

Illegal weapons in the hands of criminals

I don't think we need automatic weapons, but semi automatic weapons? Yes

Ofcourse you do. You are one of the biggest fucking rednecks on this forum. Pure trailer trash. And surprise surprise you also turned out to be a conspiracy nutter. What are the odds :1orglaugh

sperbonzo 02-13-2013 07:46 AM

I would like to inject some facts into this debate, if I may...


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...-debunked-asap




.

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

AR-15 vs M4 rifles

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' – as in cosmetic appearance – is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.

2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Magazine

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity – the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.

3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Gun Show Loophole

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.

4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Mass shootings 1976-2011

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).

5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

Brady Campaign

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.

6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

Murder per 100,000 - 1900-2010

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.

7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Michael Bloomberg

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition – either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.

BONUS: We Need More Laws:

NICS

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

Vendzilla 02-13-2013 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478593)
Ofcourse you do. You are one of the biggest fucking rednecks on this forum. Pure trailer trash. And surprise surprise you also turned out to be a conspiracy nutter. What are the odds :1orglaugh

Racist talk again?

Still want to disarm women?

12clicks 02-13-2013 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19478602)
I would like to inject some facts into this debate, if I may...


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...-debunked-asap




.

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

AR-15 vs M4 rifles

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' ? as in cosmetic appearance ? is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.

2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Magazine

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity ? the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.

3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Gun Show Loophole

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.

4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Mass shootings 1976-2011

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).

5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

Brady Campaign

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.

6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

Murder per 100,000 - 1900-2010

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.

7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Michael Bloomberg

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition ? either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.

BONUS: We Need More Laws:

NICS

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

well done.

sarettah 02-13-2013 08:44 AM


Phoenix 02-13-2013 08:47 AM


AdultPornMasta 02-13-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19478602)
I would like to inject some facts into this debate, if I may...


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...-debunked-asap




.

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

AR-15 vs M4 rifles

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' ? as in cosmetic appearance ? is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.

2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Magazine

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity ? the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.

3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Gun Show Loophole

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.

4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Mass shootings 1976-2011

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).

5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

Brady Campaign

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.

6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

Murder per 100,000 - 1900-2010

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.

7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Michael Bloomberg

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition ? either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.

BONUS: We Need More Laws:

NICS

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

Worth reprinting as perhaps if the lunkheads read it a thrid time, they will get it!

:2 cents:

Dirty F 02-13-2013 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19478603)
Racist talk again?

Still want to disarm women?

Racist?

No you dumb trailer trash. Just calling a redneck a redneck.

brassmonkey 02-13-2013 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478593)
Ofcourse you do. You are one of the biggest fucking rednecks on this forum. Pure trailer trash. And surprise surprise you also turned out to be a conspiracy nutter. What are the odds :1orglaugh

yeah a military vet is white trash :error :disgust

Dirty F 02-13-2013 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey (Post 19478780)
yeah a military vet is white trash :error :disgust

Pure trailer trash yes.

Vendzilla 02-13-2013 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19478781)
Pure trailer trash yes.

Before you were calling me white trailer trash till I called you on it.

I guess you have zero imagination

Imagination is more important than knowledge

Rochard 02-13-2013 10:07 AM

We need assault rifles for the zombie apocalypse.

Vendzilla 02-13-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19478879)
We need assault rifles for the zombie apocalypse.

The police are here to protect you

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/gty_r..._120423_wb.jpg

Rochard 02-13-2013 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19478893)

Really Brett? How childish.

I don't know what ghetto or gutter you live in, but I don't live in fear of the police. In fact, nearly one third of my friends are police officers now.

BTW.... The ATF were serving a warrant on the compound in Waco, had four of their officers shot in the gun battle that followed when they served the warrant, and they did in fact find firearms in the compound when all was said and done.

J. Falcon 02-13-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lester Burnham (Post 19478037)
Ok, let me write this in crayons for you.

First, people enjoy shooting because it is fun. Like a lot of hobbies, it is dangerous. People like to drink to excess. Why? Because it is fun. The U.S. tried banning alcohol consumption before. Did it work? No. Is banning guns in the U.S. gonna work when there are already millions of guns in circulation. No. It ain't rocket science.

Seems like you're the one who needs it written in crayon.

Nobody is talking about banning guns, just stricter gun control and perhaps outlawying semi auto rifles.

Robbie 02-13-2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19478963)
I don't know what ghetto or gutter you live in, but I don't live in fear of the police. In fact, nearly one third of my friends are police officers now.

I have a lot of buddies who are cops...here in Vegas, over in South Carolina, and several members of my family back in Florida.

Rochard, you BETTER be in fear of the police! lol

Every cop I know LIVES for the possibility of confrontation. And they will beat your ass to the ground over nothing.

It's just human nature. The courts have given the cops unlimited power on the scene (yeah, you can "win" in court...but you still got your ass beaten and sometimes KILLED on the scene), and that kind of power just naturally goes to your head.

Hell, I'd like to say that I would be a "good" cop and never do that. But I'd probably put that uniform on, realize I could get away with damn near anything...and then be just like the rest of them.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc