1-50 of 112
Louisboy18 · 26-30, M
I agree that there should be limits on the types of guns that civilians are allowed to own, but ar15s are not assault rifles they are the civilian version of the military assault rifle, which does provide some justification thinking they should be allowed. Defending yourself is important, but honestly if your self defense requires more than a handgun or shotgun, youre doimg something you shouldnt be doimg anyhow
BizSuitStacy · M
@UnparalleledMonster: Getting testy and demanding? And here I thought it was an opportunity to educate...
No...it's not a gun availability issue. Just because you say otherwise simply doesn't make it so. And you have no data to really back it up. Forget the circumstantial data...for example, the US homicide rate v. the UK and try to explain the difference is due solely to gun ownership. Because I will simply point to the before and after examples of how violent crime increased after draconian firearm laws were implemented.
What happened in DC and Chicago when handguns were banned? Homicide rates increased. How about after the ban in the UK after the Dublane massacre...the homicide rate increased.
Lots of firearms owned in Switzerland and Isreal...firearm homicide rates are low.
If your premise of availability were true...Washington DC would be the safest place in the US. Toughest gun laws in the country, lowest gun ownership per capita in the country, and the highest firearm homicide rate in the country...4 times higher than the national average. And twice as high as California...another gun control haven with a firearm homicide rate ranking 49th in the nation...and the most firearm homicides of any state. As much as every gun control advocate wants to beliebe it, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. There is a ton of data to back it up.
The reality is that stringent gun control measures frequently have adverse consequences i.e. direct increases in violent crime.
Let's chat about DGU for a moment...Defensive Gun Use. Not a stat I ever hear uttered from the gun control crowd...it doesn't fit the narrative.
There are far more instances where a firearm is used to prevent a violent crime than there are to hurt people. Now a DGU does not mean the good guy shot the bad guy. Usually the good guy merely brandishes the firearm, and the perp retreats.
The CDC estimates between 100,000 to 250,000 instances each year in which someone uses a firearm to prevent a violent crime in which the potential victim was certain that the perpetrator intended to injure or kill. That data on DGU from the CDC is the most conservative out there. Other estimates put DGU instances far higher.
Regardless of how many legally owned firearms there are in the US (estimates approach 400 million) there are millions of illegally owned firearms. Take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, crime will sky rocket.
So back to your question I answered previously. My right to own a firearm, be it a handgun, shotgun or rifle...even if that rifle is an AR-15 has nothing to do with the rights of others.
It's a collectivist's argument to imply that owning an AR-15 is sinful and somehow puts the lives of innocent people at risk. Particularly in light of the data where people have been disarmed resulting in an increase in violence.
Rationalizing that it is somehow better for a lunatic to go on a killing spree with a knife vs. a gun is just disgusting. Nevermind that some of the most egregious acts of violence did not involve gun fire. Let's not forget the lives lost in buildings due to aircraft or the right mixture of fertlizer, ammonia and diesel fuel.
I've studied and debated gun rights v gun control for years. Nothing you've stated is anything I haven't heard before.
No...it's not a gun availability issue. Just because you say otherwise simply doesn't make it so. And you have no data to really back it up. Forget the circumstantial data...for example, the US homicide rate v. the UK and try to explain the difference is due solely to gun ownership. Because I will simply point to the before and after examples of how violent crime increased after draconian firearm laws were implemented.
What happened in DC and Chicago when handguns were banned? Homicide rates increased. How about after the ban in the UK after the Dublane massacre...the homicide rate increased.
Lots of firearms owned in Switzerland and Isreal...firearm homicide rates are low.
If your premise of availability were true...Washington DC would be the safest place in the US. Toughest gun laws in the country, lowest gun ownership per capita in the country, and the highest firearm homicide rate in the country...4 times higher than the national average. And twice as high as California...another gun control haven with a firearm homicide rate ranking 49th in the nation...and the most firearm homicides of any state. As much as every gun control advocate wants to beliebe it, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. There is a ton of data to back it up.
The reality is that stringent gun control measures frequently have adverse consequences i.e. direct increases in violent crime.
Let's chat about DGU for a moment...Defensive Gun Use. Not a stat I ever hear uttered from the gun control crowd...it doesn't fit the narrative.
There are far more instances where a firearm is used to prevent a violent crime than there are to hurt people. Now a DGU does not mean the good guy shot the bad guy. Usually the good guy merely brandishes the firearm, and the perp retreats.
The CDC estimates between 100,000 to 250,000 instances each year in which someone uses a firearm to prevent a violent crime in which the potential victim was certain that the perpetrator intended to injure or kill. That data on DGU from the CDC is the most conservative out there. Other estimates put DGU instances far higher.
Regardless of how many legally owned firearms there are in the US (estimates approach 400 million) there are millions of illegally owned firearms. Take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, crime will sky rocket.
So back to your question I answered previously. My right to own a firearm, be it a handgun, shotgun or rifle...even if that rifle is an AR-15 has nothing to do with the rights of others.
It's a collectivist's argument to imply that owning an AR-15 is sinful and somehow puts the lives of innocent people at risk. Particularly in light of the data where people have been disarmed resulting in an increase in violence.
Rationalizing that it is somehow better for a lunatic to go on a killing spree with a knife vs. a gun is just disgusting. Nevermind that some of the most egregious acts of violence did not involve gun fire. Let's not forget the lives lost in buildings due to aircraft or the right mixture of fertlizer, ammonia and diesel fuel.
I've studied and debated gun rights v gun control for years. Nothing you've stated is anything I haven't heard before.
View 3 more replies »
BizSuitStacy · M
Cute little baseball analogies won't help you.
If the 2A doesn't guarantee the right, how do you explain nearly 4 million AR-15s legally owned by American citizens?
If the 2A doesn't guarantee the right, how do you explain nearly 4 million AR-15s legally owned by American citizens?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@BizSuitStacy:
We already covered this. It's an amendment. A change. The law and the constitution are subject to change.
The fact that it's legal now is not an argument that it SHOULD be legal.
But you knew that already.
SteeeeeeRIKE Three!
You're out!
We already covered this. It's an amendment. A change. The law and the constitution are subject to change.
The fact that it's legal now is not an argument that it SHOULD be legal.
But you knew that already.
SteeeeeeRIKE Three!
You're out!
BizSuitStacy · M
@UnparalleledMonster: spoken like a true progressive. You're indoctrination into Alinsky tactics fools no one. It's what progressives do when getting smoked in a debate...attempt to discredit your opponent through ridicule, spin doctoring the subject and simply making up stuff.
As a foreigner to the US, I wouldn't expect you to understand the constitution. And you clearly don't.
The best defense you came up with for restricting ownership of AR-15s in America is...you say so. Brilliant.
As a foreigner to the US, I wouldn't expect you to understand the constitution. And you clearly don't.
The best defense you came up with for restricting ownership of AR-15s in America is...you say so. Brilliant.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
Do you disagree that there are many people who would exercise poor judgement and get impaired while armed?
Do you not follow the comparison to drunk driving? Everyone knows that you shouldn't get drunk and drive a car and yet it happens with a very frequency.
Similarly there is no reason to believe that simply because it is ill-advised, that there would not be a a significant number of people who would carry firearms while drunk
Do you disagree that there are many people who would exercise poor judgement and get impaired while armed?
Do you not follow the comparison to drunk driving? Everyone knows that you shouldn't get drunk and drive a car and yet it happens with a very frequency.
Similarly there is no reason to believe that simply because it is ill-advised, that there would not be a a significant number of people who would carry firearms while drunk
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
I'm not trying to insult you or patronize you. I'm legitimately baffled as to why you're having so much trouble with this.
Ok, let's retrace our steps here.
In response to your comment about guns being a good means of self defense another poster pointed out that many (and probably most) people at the club would be drunk or impaired in someway.
To which you replied that
So in my understanding this is not a question about whether responsible gun owners should get drunk while carrying but one that recognizes the reality that people will get drunk and carry and that impaired people returning fire from all directions would not necessarily result in a better outcome
I'm not trying to insult you or patronize you. I'm legitimately baffled as to why you're having so much trouble with this.
Ok, let's retrace our steps here.
In response to your comment about guns being a good means of self defense another poster pointed out that many (and probably most) people at the club would be drunk or impaired in someway.
To which you replied that
A responsible and intelligent person would not get drunk while carrying a gun. Not everyone that goes to clubs get drunk.
This is true. But the fact is that many people are not responsible or intelligent and would get impaired while carrying a weapon.So in my understanding this is not a question about whether responsible gun owners should get drunk while carrying but one that recognizes the reality that people will get drunk and carry and that impaired people returning fire from all directions would not necessarily result in a better outcome
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
There are limits. The right and privilege to own guns was given to us so we can protect ourselves from mental defectives and tyranny. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns are simply a tool that can be used for good or evil. More gun control laws will only affect those who are smart enough to use a gun properly. Law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals do NOT follow the law, therefore, gun laws will NOT stop criminals, rather, it will only stop intelligent people from defending themselves and others.
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
Sure criminals won't obey the law. But why makes it easy for them?
Why make it convenient and comparatively cheap to get a weapon like that?
Even with the rational that you want to defend yourself, how many people go to the movie theater or to the club carrying an assault rifle. Who is realistically going to use that besides people with the intent to kill?
Sure criminals won't obey the law. But why makes it easy for them?
Why make it convenient and comparatively cheap to get a weapon like that?
Even with the rational that you want to defend yourself, how many people go to the movie theater or to the club carrying an assault rifle. Who is realistically going to use that besides people with the intent to kill?
walabby · M
Just imagine if everyone in that nightclub had a weapon. When that idiot started shooting, people would have shot back, missing him and hitting other people. No one would know who the bad guy was. Everyone would have ended up shooting at everyone else. The situation would have been three times worse!
BizSuitStacy · M
If EVERYONE at the night club was armed, the mass shooter never would have attempted such a heinous act to begin with. Mass shooters count on the fact that people will not fight back.
But let's play this out...assume you are at the club, and someone starts shooting...and some of the people really were armed. I would hope that someone neutralize the shooter.
I believe it increases my chance of survival.
But let's play this out...assume you are at the club, and someone starts shooting...and some of the people really were armed. I would hope that someone neutralize the shooter.
I believe it increases my chance of survival.
BizSuitStacy · M
A number of people ask why Americans should have the right to own an AR-15.
Americans don't need to justify this. It's a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But let's forget that for now.
Within the question you pose above is the underlying assumption that the AR-15 is somehow more dangerous than other types of firearms, and therefore be banned or heavily restricted. Is that correct?
If so, what is it about the AR-15 that makes it too dangerous to own?
Americans don't need to justify this. It's a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But let's forget that for now.
Within the question you pose above is the underlying assumption that the AR-15 is somehow more dangerous than other types of firearms, and therefore be banned or heavily restricted. Is that correct?
If so, what is it about the AR-15 that makes it too dangerous to own?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@BizSuitStacy:
All i take away from that is that there are other guns that the average citizen shouldn't be allowed to own and that it's fucked up that guns are so prevalent in the US. Are there any other developed nations that even approach the number of mass shootings that occur in the US?
The a-15 series of gun is a popular choice for people who want to kill innocent people.
So why should your "right" to have an assault rifle be more important than innocent human lives?
After all, it's the second AMENDMENT. That is to say, an alteration from the original constitution.
The constitution and the law change. The fact that it is currently on the books is not really an argument that it SHOULD be...
All i take away from that is that there are other guns that the average citizen shouldn't be allowed to own and that it's fucked up that guns are so prevalent in the US. Are there any other developed nations that even approach the number of mass shootings that occur in the US?
The a-15 series of gun is a popular choice for people who want to kill innocent people.
So why should your "right" to have an assault rifle be more important than innocent human lives?
After all, it's the second AMENDMENT. That is to say, an alteration from the original constitution.
The constitution and the law change. The fact that it is currently on the books is not really an argument that it SHOULD be...
BizSuitStacy · M
@UnparalleledMonster:
Actually, there are other developed countries in the world with more firearm homicides and mass shootings.
Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico admit it in their firearm homicide stats to the UN. They rank #1, 2 and 3 resoectively worldwide.
Countries like China, won't even provide the data to the UN...as the gov't massacres their citizens via firearm regularly. It is estimated that there are more homicides in Russia than the US...but apparently most of those murders are committed with something other than a firearm.
There are at least 50 other countries that probably don't fit into the convenient classfication of "developed" with higher homicide rates than the US. And guns are banned in those countries.
Illogical cause and effect...the belief that guns mean lead to more killings. The motivation to kill is not simply due the availability of guns.
Your statement that the AR-15 is a "popular choice" for those who want to kill innocent people is flat out wrong.
Per Dianne Feinstein, the queen of the Assault Weapons ban, has actually calculated that, on average, less than 50 people are murdered with an assault weapon each year. An AR-15 is a subset of that total. That's about 0.5% of all firearm homicides each year.
For additional perspective, you are 30 times more likely to be murdered with a knife. You are more likely to be bludgeoned with a bat. You are more likely to be murdered by someone using their fists or feet. Hell, you are more likely to be killed by bees (assuming you're allergic).
But when a shooter uses an AR-15 or AK-47...the media goes on a frenzy.
Why should my right to own an AR-15 usurp the rights of innocent people? It doesn't. Everyone in the US has the same right to bear arms, unless there are specific laws at the state or local level.
How does a law abiding citizen's ownership of an AR-15 put innocent people at risk? My firearms are secured. The only people at risk are those who break into my home. I fail to see the rationale in your position.
If you take the time to review state by state homicide statistics from the FBI...and then look at the state by state guns laws, you'll find no correlation between the strength of the law vs. the amount of crime. Gun crime is highly concentrated within America's inner cities where gangs and drugs are prevalent. Gun ownership is irrelevant.
Violence is a socio-economic issue...not a gun availability issue.
If you don't like the 2A...cool. What I find interesting is the most outspoken against the 2A seem to be non-Americans. Not really your decision, is it?
Actually, there are other developed countries in the world with more firearm homicides and mass shootings.
Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico admit it in their firearm homicide stats to the UN. They rank #1, 2 and 3 resoectively worldwide.
Countries like China, won't even provide the data to the UN...as the gov't massacres their citizens via firearm regularly. It is estimated that there are more homicides in Russia than the US...but apparently most of those murders are committed with something other than a firearm.
There are at least 50 other countries that probably don't fit into the convenient classfication of "developed" with higher homicide rates than the US. And guns are banned in those countries.
Illogical cause and effect...the belief that guns mean lead to more killings. The motivation to kill is not simply due the availability of guns.
Your statement that the AR-15 is a "popular choice" for those who want to kill innocent people is flat out wrong.
Per Dianne Feinstein, the queen of the Assault Weapons ban, has actually calculated that, on average, less than 50 people are murdered with an assault weapon each year. An AR-15 is a subset of that total. That's about 0.5% of all firearm homicides each year.
For additional perspective, you are 30 times more likely to be murdered with a knife. You are more likely to be bludgeoned with a bat. You are more likely to be murdered by someone using their fists or feet. Hell, you are more likely to be killed by bees (assuming you're allergic).
But when a shooter uses an AR-15 or AK-47...the media goes on a frenzy.
Why should my right to own an AR-15 usurp the rights of innocent people? It doesn't. Everyone in the US has the same right to bear arms, unless there are specific laws at the state or local level.
How does a law abiding citizen's ownership of an AR-15 put innocent people at risk? My firearms are secured. The only people at risk are those who break into my home. I fail to see the rationale in your position.
If you take the time to review state by state homicide statistics from the FBI...and then look at the state by state guns laws, you'll find no correlation between the strength of the law vs. the amount of crime. Gun crime is highly concentrated within America's inner cities where gangs and drugs are prevalent. Gun ownership is irrelevant.
Violence is a socio-economic issue...not a gun availability issue.
If you don't like the 2A...cool. What I find interesting is the most outspoken against the 2A seem to be non-Americans. Not really your decision, is it?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@BizSuitStacy:
Yeah, yeah. How often does someone kill 14 people with a knife or a bat?
That's what i thought.
Gun violence is a gun availability issue. And gun violence allows people to kill lots of people quickly.
The issue is not that law abiding citizens can get assault weapons. The issue is that ANYONE can get assault weapons easily.
So answer the question: why is your "right" to own an assault weapon more important than innocent lives?
Yeah, yeah. How often does someone kill 14 people with a knife or a bat?
That's what i thought.
Violence is a socio-economic issue...not a gun availability issue.
Gun violence is a gun availability issue. And gun violence allows people to kill lots of people quickly.
The issue is not that law abiding citizens can get assault weapons. The issue is that ANYONE can get assault weapons easily.
So answer the question: why is your "right" to own an assault weapon more important than innocent lives?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
To make a modern rifle fully automatic, one would be breaking the law, who breaks laws? -Criminals. More laws and control will NOT stop criminals from getting guns. And that is a great point. If people in that club had concealed carry permits, they could have taken out the defective, saving many lives.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Areas with the highest number of guns are some of the safest cities in the country. Chicago has the strictest gun laws, and also has the highest gun related crimes. Not allowing gun crimes to happen by putting fear in he criminals' minds by allowing citizen to own guns is a form of the guns protecting others. So, yes.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
No. You've made an assertion that you claim is factual and have subsequently failed to support it.
Not a compelling argument, my friend. Until you do find yourself able or willing to support your point this facet of discussion cannot advance.
Your choice
No. You've made an assertion that you claim is factual and have subsequently failed to support it.
Not a compelling argument, my friend. Until you do find yourself able or willing to support your point this facet of discussion cannot advance.
Your choice
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
You're pretty intent on proving me wrong. If these were well known facts it would have taken you seconds to find and relay them. If you could have supplied this information then you would have.
Your credibility is zero, your excuses transparent.
We'll pick this conversation up again if and when you decide to substantiate your so far baseless claims.
Later
You're pretty intent on proving me wrong. If these were well known facts it would have taken you seconds to find and relay them. If you could have supplied this information then you would have.
Your credibility is zero, your excuses transparent.
We'll pick this conversation up again if and when you decide to substantiate your so far baseless claims.
Later
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
I did not have to find them. I brought them up the moment I deemed them relevant to the argument. I have known these facts since the moment they were released and discerned them to be true. Still, condescending and patronizing, I see.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
What kind of weapon? Most guns can be modified to hold upwards of 20 rounds. Since criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on guns, the real question is why inhibit those who can protect themselves and others, that will not break laws?
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Doomsdaysmores
About the other gun? I mean 22's aren't as bad but if it can't deal that much damage i don't see much reason to have it allowed either. Not sure what the look of it has to do with anything.
Now i've answered yours so you may answer mine
About the other gun? I mean 22's aren't as bad but if it can't deal that much damage i don't see much reason to have it allowed either. Not sure what the look of it has to do with anything.
Now i've answered yours so you may answer mine
JustKeepScrolling · 36-40, M
Some people fear that it won't end with the AR-15. They're worried that the gun control crowd will take "baby steps," eventually banning all guns. I'm not saying that I believe this, but it does concern some people.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Exactly. You don't know about the guns. Modern guns are only legal as semi-auto. To have a modern rifle automatic is a crime. Criminals do not follow laws, gun laws only stop those responsible and intelligent enough to use them properly.
TJ0695 · 41-45, M
@monster, that is a valid point. I believe before you are able to own a gun you should have to be trained on how to use it properly and possibly even have to go for annual certifications.
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
I see nothing gained in banning a gun simply based on the capacity of its magazine, especially when larger magazines are available for less scary looking guns that operate the same.
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
How about the Ruger SR-22? That one has magazines available in up to 250 Rds commercially available. Doesn't look scary until you change the stock. But it only fires .22lr rounds
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
Sorry man, not to sure what point you think you're arguing.
No, people should not get drunk and carry
Yes, people will get drunk and carry.
I feel as if this discussion has gone as far as it can
Sorry man, not to sure what point you think you're arguing.
No, people should not get drunk and carry
Yes, people will get drunk and carry.
I feel as if this discussion has gone as far as it can
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
You can look these statistics up yourself. I'm not here to baby-feed everything to you. Educate yourself. You can find the same statistics Doom stated, along with mine. And again, you are glorifying the AR-15 as some super weapon, far superior to any other gun.
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
The Assault rifles you are wanting to ban (those that have a much faster rate of fire) have been banned since 1938.
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
Look up a Remington 770. It has the exact same capabilities as the AR-15, just doesn't look scary. Would you ban this one too?
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
How about my AR308? It's on the same platform, literally the same technology and looks the same, just fires a bigger round further
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Resulting to insults and patronizing? I never said people who own guns shouldn't get drunk. I said people who have a gun on their person should not get drunk.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@Doomsdaysmores
Didn't we already cover your remmington? No we can't ban every gun because it can be modified to be more deadly.
Now answer my question
Didn't we already cover your remmington? No we can't ban every gun because it can be modified to be more deadly.
Now answer my question
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
That is a good point, Doom. Most want to ban guns 'cuz they "look scary" without knowing much about the gun itself.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@TJ0695
Unless you are a skilled gunman, the mere fact that the rifle can hold so many more bullets will make a huge difference. And apparently does since the worst mass shootings seem almost exclusively to involve these kinds of weapons
Unless you are a skilled gunman, the mere fact that the rifle can hold so many more bullets will make a huge difference. And apparently does since the worst mass shootings seem almost exclusively to involve these kinds of weapons
walabby · M
Just assume that everyone in Florida has a carry permit and everyone that decides to go to a nightclub says to themselves, "I am a responsible person. I might get a little tore up tonight so I better not carry". Result? The only gun there is the bad guys...
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Oh, you know, nothing much different from the last thing I remember you helping out with.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Taking away one gun will cause a domino effect. Just like taking away one right will cause the riddance of all. The left never want to stop and settle. They want complete socialistic control.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
You can look it up yourself. Quicker, easier, and can even be cheaper through illegal means.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
Doom said earlier, "Yup. 312 people killed in 2012 by any rifle. How many people died in Chicago over memorial day weekend this year? (Hint: more than in Orlando and 0 with an AR15)" Since you like to glorify the AR-15 so much, take this in.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
That is why you bring in properly composed and conducted background checks.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
@SouthernBoxer
See, you keep returning to the benefits of guns in general. You don't seem to have anything of substance to say regarding weapons like the AR15
See, you keep returning to the benefits of guns in general. You don't seem to have anything of substance to say regarding weapons like the AR15
Doomsdaysmores · 41-45, M
[image/video deleted]
. This is a Remington 750 semi automatic rifle. Functionally it is not different from the ar15. Ban it?
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
I said intelligent and responsible people would not get drunk with a gun, and you reply with, responsible and intelligent people would not drink and drive. Because they are not responsible and intelligent. lmao That has no content to it.
SouthernBoxer · 31-35, M
I've provided nothing but factual information. It's up to you to understand it.
1-50 of 112