Rifles make up 4% of gun homicides...Handguns make up 72%

[-p.tiddy-]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130129095523-c1-gun-homicides-chart-c1-main.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html?hpt=hp_c4



I saw this on CNN today...we are focusing our attention to the wrong guns, assault rifles, which are barely used at all in homicides, just the once a year school shooting that makes people think assault rifles are the problem.

Handguns are the real problem...and they aren't being addressed at all

anyway, homicide and violent crime is on the decline overall anyway, but I just thought this was interesting...our natural reaction is to ban assault rifles, but assault rifles aren't really an issue in the grand scheme of things...

[macmac]

They have to start somewhere. It's easier to ban a weapon that was built for total war capable of decimating multiple lifeforms in the matter of seconds, so I guess they will start with that. Atomic bombs probably killed less people than swords, but if we're gonna start reversing the arms race, it would be smarter to start with nuclear weapons

[Rasheed1]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130129095523-c1-gun-homicides-chart-c1-main.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html?hpt=hp_c4



I saw this on CNN today...we are focusing our attention to the wrong guns, assault rifles, which are barely used at all in homicides, just the once a year school shooting that makes people think assault rifles are the problem.

Handguns are the real problem...and they aren't being addressed at all

anyway, homicide and violent crime is on the decline overall anyway, but I just thought this was interesting...our natural reaction is to ban assault rifles, but assault rifles aren't really an issue in the grand scheme of things...


duh... yeah


its a political argument.... not a logical one.

You see people flipping out now over assault rifles and weapons that most people dont even own?

try bringing up handguns... Americans cant live without guns.. Country is built on violence..

[-p.tiddy-]

They have to start somewhere. It's easier to ban a weapon that was built for total war capable of decimating multiple lifeforms in the matter of seconds, so I guess they will start with that. Atomic bombs probably killed less people than swords, but if we're gonna start reversing the arms race, it would be smarter to start with nuclear weapons
I'd rather us address the guns that are actually killing people...

not really feelin the atomic bomb comparison, that is just a different beast altogether...assault rifles and handguns are about equal in terms of how easy they are to acquire, actually I think it is easier to get the rifle, handgun is a 2 week wait...if atom bombs were as easy to acquire as swords then it would those doing the most killing.

[MJ23forever]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg

[macmac]

I'd rather us address the guns that are actually killing people...

not really feelin the atomic bomb comparison, that is just a different beast altogether...assault rifles and handguns are about equal in terms of how easy they are to acquire, actually I think it is easier to get the rifle, handgun is a 2 week wait...if atom bombs were as easy to acquire as swords then it would those doing the most killing.

The thing is, they have to start somewhere. They won't be able to ban all guns altogether. So it's easier to get rid of the less used, but much more dangerous killing machine and explain that to a bunch of crazed gun fanatics, then to take handguns away from so many people who live by it like archaic cowboys stuck in a time capsule

[nathanjizzle]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg

pls, give us ratios to that, mr informative.

[Derka]

Barbara Boxer pretending to legislate. What else is new.

[Riddler]

Maybe the theory that the Government wants to take our guns (assault rifles) away is really true... (This is good news BTW)

It's the only weapon that could potentially serve as the people's last line of defense once they declare Martial Law.

I had the pleasure of looking at an AR-15 last night... It was beautiful.

http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif


Looked kinda like that one^

(I don't know much about guns)

[LJJ]

It's the only weapon that could potentially serve as the people's last line of defense once they declare Martial Law.


Against who Dooms?

Serious question.

[-p.tiddy-]

It's the only weapon that could potentially serve as the people's last line of defense once they declare Martial Law.

:no:

the only difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle from what I understand is the clip...and all the Gov did was make the clips smaller...they didn't even take the assault rifles away...



If "Martial Law" really did happen there is no type of gun that could stand up to our military....they have fckin tanks and jets, wtf is any "gun" going to do against that?...nothing, they win.

[-p.tiddy-]

Against who Dooms?

Serious question.
Martial Law would be the US Army vs. the US Citizens

[LJJ]

Martial Law would be the US Army vs. the US Citizens

Yeah, but in that case it's exactly like you said.

It's not like a bunch of vigilantes armed with hunting rifles are no match for the US military, but give them AR-15's and they stand a chance.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, but in that case it's exactly like you said.

It's not like a bunch of vigilantes armed with hunting rifles are no match for the US military, but give them AR-15's and they stand a chance.
exactly

and IF the Gov was really trying to take away our self defense against them they should go for HANDGUNS due to the fact that there are 1,000x more handgun owners than "assault rifle" owners...

which brings me back to the thread topic...assault rifles are not an issue in the US...HANDGUNS are.

[Riddler]

2pac has the right idea in this interview...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdBwS1fDNs
2pac - Gun Range Shots Interview [Pt III].mp4

(4:20 - 4:45)

"If they come for me... I'm puttin' a 90 rounder in."

[miller-time]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg

So vehicles and alcohol are weapons now? Cool. Should also include deaths by falling down stairs and deaths by electrical fires, you know just to be even more irrelevant.

Also those rifles aren't the same in that one is obviously holding more rounds. But also the graphic doesn't include bolt action rifles which are not the same (and more relevant than vehicles and alcohol...).

[RaininThrees]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg

Why do we keep comparing assault rifles to cars and fists?

There's so much logic fail here, I don't know if there's a good place to start.

[-p.tiddy-]

the image is showing other things to put things into perspective, obviously...

more people die by hands and feet and blunt objects (which can't be banned) than assault rifles...SO, maybe we shouldn't focus so heavily on assault rifles but instead handguns which kill significantly more people than hands and fists

OR...maybe we should focus on drunk driving which kills more than handguns...




it's basically showing the stupidity of putting all the focus on something that does such little damage overall

it also shows that there is basically little to no difference between an assault rifle and a regular rifle or pistol which can be shot at the same rate of fire...the public is so stupid they assume that just because it resembles a machine gun that it is one...NO these are not full auto rifles

[miller-time]

the image is showing other things to put things into perspective, obviously...

It isn't perspective. It is loaded. Why not include any other thing that causes death?

The argument they are implying is that if something else causes death and can be technically banned, then either everything should be banned or nothing should be banned.

[RaininThrees]

It isn't perspective. It is loaded. Why not include any other thing that causes death?

The argument they are implying is that if something else causes death and can be technically banned, then either everything should be banned or nothing should be banned.

Exactly.

[johndeeregreen]

The lengths some Americans will go to rationalize their gun situation is hilarious. The entire world is laughing at you.

Not that you'll care, because f*ck the rest of the world, this is America!

[-p.tiddy-]

It isn't perspective. It is loaded. Why not include any other thing that causes death?

The argument they are implying is that if something else causes death and can be technically banned, then either everything should be banned or nothing should be banned.
I don't think that is what they are arguing at all...all the focus of that image is on assault rifles...

"THIS RIFLE is the same as...THIS RIFLE...and fires only one round per trigger like THIS"

the lowest death count on there is the assault rifle...

it isn't saying "ban everything that kills"...it is saying "hey look at how dumb we are for thinking assault rifles are our biggest problem, maybe we should focus on the bigger issues"

[miller-time]

I don't think that is what they are arguing at all...all the focus of that image is on assault rifles...

"THIS RIFLE is the same as...THIS RIFLE...and fires only one round per trigger like THIS"

the lowest death count on there is the assault rifle...

it isn't saying "ban everything that kills"...it is saying "hey look at how dumb we are for thinking assault rifles are our biggest problem, maybe we should focus on the bigger issues"

You are missing the larger argument. Think back to the debate in general and not this specific image. How many times have you heard automobile and alcohol related deaths being brought up? Both of these have nothing to do with gun violence, yet they are being used to indirectly justify current gun laws (or to promote even more lax gun laws).

The rifle comparison is only part of the image, but the subtext is the comparison between death caused by other things that have nothing to do with guns. Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't matter how many people cars and alcohol kill per year. That is a different debate - which means it shouldn't be brought up in this one (especially covertly because that is a manipulation tactic rather than a justifiable comparison).

[RaininThrees]

You are missing the larger argument. Think back to the debate in general and not this specific image. How many times have you heard automobile and alcohol related deaths being brought up? Both of these have nothing to do with gun violence, yet they are being used to indirectly justify current gun laws (or even more lax gun laws).

The rifle comparison is only part of the image, but the subtext is the comparison between death caused by other things that have nothing to do with guns. Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't matter how many people cars and alcohol kill per year. That is a different debate - which means it shouldn't be brought up in this one (especially covertly because that is a manipulation tactic rather than a justifiable comparison).

I have no problem with people using automobiles as a comparable so long as those same people are also willing to place the same restrictions on firearms as are placed on cars.

[miller-time]

I have no problem with people using automobiles as a comparable so long as those same people are also willing to place the same restrictions on firearms as are placed on cars.

Good point. But they are obviously not doing it for that reason. Which is what annoys me.

[magic chiongson]

no blasters & light sabers?

[Myth]

Handguns are the thing I have been saying needs to be more limited.

[nathanjizzle]

http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg

i just want to give everyone an example of how poor of an argument this is.
theres over 10 billion knives in use in america, and only 1800 homicides by it. compare that to guns. not even close. same thing with getting drunk, hammers, people with fists.

[Cangri]

i just want to give everyone an example of how poor of an argument this is.
theres over 10 billion knives in use in america, and only 1800 homicides by it. compare that to guns. not even close. same thing with getting drunk, hammers, people with fists.
You also have to take account the cost, assault rifles are very expensive and too big to keep a low profile, so the criminal will use hand guns to commit his crimes.

And I don't see how can anyone take that picture seriously. Drunk driving, auto accidents, hand, feet fists and blunt objects shouldn't even be there, those aren't created to be used as lethal weapons to kill.

[Jackass18]

it is saying "hey look at how dumb we are for thinking assault rifles are our biggest problem, maybe we should focus on the bigger issues"

What are you proposing?

[-p.tiddy-]

What are you proposing?
I propose we focus on the handguns everyone in the country has not and the assault rifles that on a tiny handful of people own ...

[-p.tiddy-]

You are missing the larger argument. Think back to the debate in general and not this specific image. How many times have you heard automobile and alcohol related deaths being brought up? Both of these have nothing to do with gun violence, yet they are being used to indirectly justify current gun laws (or to promote even more lax gun laws).

The rifle comparison is only part of the image, but the subtext is the comparison between death caused by other things that have nothing to do with guns. Two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't matter how many people cars and alcohol kill per year. That is a different debate - which means it shouldn't be brought up in this one (especially covertly because that is a manipulation tactic rather than a justifiable comparison).
Okay, yes I agree

It's like when people constantly feel the need to point at alcohol when the debate is about pot....very annoying

[Legend of Josh]

The real problem is boomerangs and slingshots. Oh, and let's not mention the silent killer that everyone keeps extremely quiet so as not to draw attention. The nunchaku'z. These are the real killer machines. They can land you in the hospital in a single three or four hits.

Oh, but we want to talk about AK-47s and handguns. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles never needed high powered gunpowder tools. They simply just used weapons that could be made from home with common everyday materials. Why are we not going after those instruments of war?

If you get hit in the face with a nunchaku... you my friend are ****ed. Especially if the user of that weapon is coming down the road on a street bike and just so happens to swing it and smack you upside the head.

FLAWLESS VICTORY.

[Jackass18]

I propose we focus on the handguns everyone in the country has not and the assault rifles that on a tiny handful of people own ...

I mean to what extent? Across the board banning or what?

[-p.tiddy-]

I mean to what extent? Across the board banning or what?
I don't know really...I haven't given that much thought

Making them much harder to obtain somehow...not sure of the best way to go about that though

[Legend of Josh]

I don't know really...I haven't given that much thought

Making them much harder to obtain somehow...not sure of the best way to go about that though

The harder you make them to obtain... the "harder" the criminal or insane son of a bitch will attempt to obtain the weapon illegally, and they will eventually obtain the object. It'll be a wash essentially.

[miller-time]

The harder you make them to obtain... the "harder" the criminal or insane son of a bitch will attempt to obtain the weapon illegally, and they will eventually obtain the object. It'll be a wash essentially.

So your solution is do nothing? Just make it easy for them to obtain simply because making them work harder is futile?

While there is no data to back my claim (at least that I know of), I think it is fair to say that in at least some cases the availability of the gun in the first place might be instrumental in the person actualizing a crime. What I mean is that they might not necessarily seriously consider a committing crime, but then access or acquisition of a gun will then lead them to actually consider and commit the crime. However if they weren't able to get the gun easily they may just let the thought pass them by.

[fpliii]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130129095523-c1-gun-homicides-chart-c1-main.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html?hpt=hp_c4



I saw this on CNN today...we are focusing our attention to the wrong guns, assault rifles, which are barely used at all in homicides, just the once a year school shooting that makes people think assault rifles are the problem.

Handguns are the real problem...and they aren't being addressed at all

anyway, homicide and violent crime is on the decline overall anyway, but I just thought this was interesting...our natural reaction is to ban assault rifles, but assault rifles aren't really an issue in the grand scheme of things...

I don't really have a stance on the issue, just a note. This graphic is fairly useless and terribly misleading...without knowing what percentage of guns rifles comprise, it's difficult to make that call.

This site (http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_th ere_in_america.html) cites this November 2012 Congressional Research Service report (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf), noting that of the approximately 310 million firearms in the US as of 09, there were:

114 million handguns
110 million rifles
86 million shotguns

in addition to some number of assault weapons in private possession, approximately to 1.5 million in 94. There were around 275 million people in the country in that year as opposed a little over 307 million in 09, so let's assume the ownership of assault weapons scales proportionately with the population growth, to 1.67 million (not a huge difference); this gives us a total of 311.67 million weapons, with the following percentages:

36.5% handguns
35.3% rifles
27.6% shotguns
0.1% assault weapons.

We can't directly compare this with the pie chart due to the presence of the 'Unknown' category, but let's (perhaps haphazardly) assume that that 18% follows the same breakdown as the rest of the chart (also, let's identify 'Other' with assault weapons, which seems to be a assumption). The percentages then scale to:

87.8% handguns
4.9% rifles
4.9% shotguns
2.4% assault weapons.

Comparatively speaking, the percentage differences are:

+41.3% handguns
-30.4% rifles
-22.7% shotguns
+2.3% assault weapons

while in terms of ratios, we get:

2.4x handguns
0.1x rifles
0.2x shotguns
24x assault weapons.

So based on the above data and suppositions, a few simple calculations tell us that in homicides by-and-large, the most problematic of all (on a case-by-case basis) are assault weapons (assuming they comprise the 'Other' category in the pie chart), with a huge gap, followed by handguns. In terms of overall prevalence, handguns are the biggest culprit.

[Legend of Josh]

So your solution is do nothing? Just make it easy for them to obtain simply because making them work harder is futile?

While there is no data to back my claim (at least that I know of), I think it is fair to say that in at least some cases the availability of the gun in the first place might be instrumental in the person actualizing a crime. What I mean is that they might not necessarily seriously consider a committing crime, but then access or acquisition of a gun will then lead them to actually consider and commit the crime. However if they weren't able to get the gun easily they may just let the thought pass them by.

No, I'm, just saying ... you know what I'm saying.

[miller-time]

No, I'm, just saying ... you know what I'm saying.

I do. I'm just saying there is a grey area. Not all crimes are premeditated or organized. Some are just opportunism and crimes of passion.

[Legend of Josh]

I do. I'm just saying there is a grey area. Not all crimes are premeditated or organized. Some are just opportunism and crimes of passion.

Alright, that's a point that must be taken and can't be ignored. I'm just saying, those who try hard enough to get those gun/weapons will.; especially if they have the money/resources to obtain them.

[Sarcastic]

Drunk driving kill more people every year than atomic bombs, so clearly that's a bigger threat. :rolleyes:

[-p.tiddy-]

Atomic Bomb comparisons don't work guys smh

Obviously that is a unique situation

[Sarcastic]

Atomic Bomb comparisons don't work guys smh

Obviously that is a unique situation


It's actually not. It's just taking it to the extreme. The more deadly something is, the more rules and regulations we need on it. No ones died from an atomic bomb in about 70 years. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against them?

[-p.tiddy-]

It's actually not. It's just taking it to the extreme. The more deadly something is, the more rules and regulations we need on it. No ones died from an atomic bomb in about 70 years. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against them?
But we DO have laws against nukes, which is why no one dies from them :confusedshrug:

You have to go through some serious shit to be allowed to create nukes, ask North Korea



bombs in general have laws against them...you can't buy plastic explosives at the gun store...IF THEY WERE LEGAL THEY WOULD BE KILLING

how is this even remotely like "assault rifles vs. handguns" ? which are both legal and equally easy to obtain?

[-p.tiddy-]

there are only 9 countries in the world that have nukes...lol

they are very heavily regulated...to the point that war could start if you are even suspected of having them...



yet somehow nukes are comparable to assault rifles which an 18 year old can buy at Walmart?

no, that is an awful awful comparison

if nukes were as easy to obtain as assault rifles you can bet your ass they would be killing millions...

[Sarcastic]

there are only 9 countries in the world that have nukes...lol

they are very heavily regulated...to the point that war could start if you are even suspected of having them...



yet somehow nukes are comparable to assault rifles which an 18 year old can buy at Walmart?

no, that is an awful awful comparison

if nukes were as easy to obtain as assault rifles you can bet your ass they would be killing millions...



It's as awful a comparison as is guns to drinking/driving. Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.

[-p.tiddy-]

It's as awful a comparison as is guns to drinking/driving. Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.
I don't like comparing those either...

however I think they were showing drunk driving stats in that image just to let people know it is much bigger issue than assault rifles...

[Sarcastic]

I don't like comparing those either...

however I think they were showing drunk driving stats in that image just to let people know it is much bigger issue than assault rifles...


Cancer and AIDS are big issues as well. Should we not worry about those because, and just focus on drunk driving?


My original post wasn't really directed towards you btw.

[-p.tiddy-]

Cancer and AIDS are big issues as well. Should we not worry about those because, and just focus on drunk driving?
huh? you mean not worry about assault rifles because they are a small issue compared to the things you just listed?

drunk driving, AIDS, cancer = kill lots of people

assault rifles = kill very few (18 deaths last year? who gives a shit)

[Sarcastic]

huh? you mean not worry about assault rifles because they are a small issue compared to the things you just listed?

drunk driving, AIDS, cancer = kill lots of people

assault rifles = kill very few (18 deaths last year? who gives a shit)


Just because there are few deaths from assault rifles doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws against them. I go back to the atomic bomb comparison. No one died from atomic bombs last year, but we still need laws for them. Dangerous weapons need strict laws.

That goes for handguns as well.

[-p.tiddy-]

Just because there are few deaths from assault rifles doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws against them. I go back to the atomic bomb comparison. No one died from atomic bombs last year, but we still need laws for them. Dangerous weapons need strict laws.

That goes for handguns as well.
again, no one died from atomic bombs BECAUSE OF THE LAWS AGAINST THEM

there are no laws against assault rifles, they are legal, and still not doing any real damage...if A-Bombs were legal like assault rifles we would be fcked

way are we talking about atomic bombs again?

and yes just because they don't kill many doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws, but the point is we are putting too much focus on assault rifles, Obama had to make a speech declaring his new assault rifle laws smh...if only America knew assault rifles are nothing compared to handguns in terms of the damage they are doing.

[Scoooter]

again, no one died from atomic bombs BECAUSE OF THE LAWS AGAINST THEM

there are no laws against assault rifles, they are legal, and still not doing any real damage...if A-Bombs were legal like assault rifles we would be fcked

way are we talking about atomic bombs again?

and yes just because they don't kill many doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws, but the point is we are putting too much focus on assault rifles, Obama had to make a speech declaring his new assault rifle laws smh...if only America knew assault rifles are nothing compared to handguns in terms of the damage they are doing.
I highly doubt this. More likely it's because the people who have nukes don't want to start a nuclear war, and the people who do want to start a nuclear war don't have any nukes. The idea that China and the US haven't blasted each other into cinders only because it would be "illegal" to do so is almost too stupid to type out.

[-p.tiddy-]

I highly doubt this. More likely it's because the people who have nukes don't want to start a nuclear war, and the people who do want to start a nuclear war don't have any nukes. The idea that China and the US haven't blasted each other into cinders only because it would be "illegal" to do so is almost too stupid to type out.
obviously if nukes were "legal" we would all be fcked

only 9 countries have nukes, they are highly regulated by the UN, the US will consider going to war with a country just suspected of making nukes, see N. Korea or Iraq who we just thought had WMDs

all countries that have nukes has the UN's eye balls on them...we know exactly how many nukes each country has



why is this a nuke conversation?

assault rifles being compared to fcking nukes is a big part of America's problem here...lol...assault rifles ARE LEGAL and only kill 18 people a year in the US

[Scoooter]

obviously if nukes were "legal" we would all be fcked

only 9 countries have nukes, they are highly regulated by the UN, the US will consider going to war with a country just suspected of making nukes, see N. Korea or Iraq who we just thought had WMDs

all countries that have nukes has the UN's eye balls on them...we know exactly how many nukes each country has



why is this a nuke conversation?

assault rifles being compared to fcking nukes is a big part of America's problem here...lol...assault rifles ARE LEGAL and only kill 18 people a year in the US
Are you talking about nuclear weapons being allowed in civilian homes? Because there are many more nukes on this planet than are necessary to completely ruin it for thousands of years.

[-p.tiddy-]

Are you talking about nuclear weapons being allowed in civilian homes? Because they're are many more nukes on this planet than are necessary to completely ruin it for thousands of years.
yes, if nukes were legal like assault rifles then we would be fcked...but they aren't, they are highly regulated, unlike assault rifles

the nuke comparison is just so silly :facepalm

sigh

[Scoooter]

Assault rifles are fairly well regulated, at least in the US. You can't even buy select-fire models without jumping through some major hoops. At least I think that's the case, I've never tried to buy any myself.

No real argument against tightening up the process though.

[-p.tiddy-]

Assault rifles are fairly well regulated, at least in the US. You can't even buy select-fire models without jumping through some major hoops. At least I think that's the case, I've never tried to buy any myself.

No real argument against tightening up the process though.
no, rifles of all types are the least regulated gun...you only have to be 18 and you can buy over the counter, unlike handguns which require you to be 21 and a two week wait.

an 18 year old can go into a Walmart and buy an AK47 (semi auto obviously) and take it home THAT DAY.


and still, handguns make up the overwhelming majority of deaths...

[Scoooter]

If it's only semi-auto, is it really an "assault rifle"? The problem is the politics behind these movements muddle the definitions to suit their own end.

Generally speaking, the rifles the military uses have the ability to fire in different modes, including fully-automatic. But they're not often used that way, because of how inaccurate it is, and because one soldier can only carry so much ammo.

The whole thing is a waste of time, if you ask me.

[-p.tiddy-]

If it's only semi-auto, is it really an "assault rifle"? The problem is the politics behind these movements muddle the definitions to suit their own end.

Generally speaking, the rifles the military uses have the ability to fire in different modes, including fully-automatic. But they're not often used that way, because of how inaccurate it is, and because one soldier can only carry so much ammo.

The whole thing is a waste of time, if you ask me.
full auto is completely illegal...

and yeah, another problem the US public has is not understanding that assault rifles aren't really any different than hunting rifles, they just have a clip.

The US public just thinks they look mean and scary and thus should be eliminated...not knowing there is no difference

"hey look at that, it is black and fancy looking like a machine gun, no one should have that!"

[miller-time]

full auto is completely illegal...

and yeah, another problem the US public has is not understanding that assault rifles aren't really any different than hunting rifles, they just have a clip.

The US public just thinks they look mean and scary and thus should be eliminated...not knowing there is no difference

"hey look at that, it is black and fancy looking like a machine gun, no one should have that!"

I keep seeing people say that, but I'm not sure how true it is? I think the only confusion is over the terms assault rifle and assault weapon. But part of the criticism of assault weapons is that they have that extended clip. Is that really necessary? How many hunters need to unload 20 or 30 rounds into a deer?

I just read this too about a gun buy back program in NJ.

http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-buyback-program-weapons-031/

They actually had so many guns brought to them that they ran out of money. Even though it is expensive, this could be the best way to get guns off the street (700 turned in were not legally purchased guns). Especially in the current economic climate.

[miller-time]

http://www.bullfax.com/imgs/077d4ca29adadb272cd305738324d4222b9c331f.jpg

[-p.tiddy-]

^^^ and the vast majority of those handgun deaths, not assault rifles

should also be noted that gun deaths have been on the decline for over 20 years now and continue to drop.

school shootings combined with the media makes everything look crazy and out of control, but the US is doing much better in terms of gun violence than it was just 20 years ago.

[97 bulls]

Im curious to see what the mortality rate is on a handgun vs rifle. Meaning which one would a person have a better chance of surviving.

[MJ23forever]

http://oi50.tinypic.com/2r5akgj.jpg

[-p.tiddy-]

Im curious to see what the mortality rate is on a handgun vs rifle. Meaning which one would a person have a better chance of surviving.
you mean after being shot?

obviously most rifles would cause much more damage than most handguns...

[97 bulls]

you mean after being shot?

obviously most rifles would cause much more damage than most handguns...
Right. But statisticly, how many people have survived being shot by a rifle as opposed to a handgun. I know alot of people that have survived being shot by a handgun. Even in the head. I know one person that was shot with a rifle, and he died.

So my point is if 10 people were shot by rifles and 9 of them died, and 1000 people are shot by handguns with 100 of them dying, which is more dangerous? You're talking about a 90% mortality rate for rifles and a 10% rate for handguns.

[-p.tiddy-]

Right. But statisticly, how many people have survived being shot by a rifle as opposed to a handgun. I know alot of people that have survived being shot by a handgun. Even in the chect and head. I know one person that was shot with a rifle, and he died.

So my point is if 10 people were shot by rifles and 9 of them died, and 1000 people are shot by handguns with 100 of them dying, which is more dangerous? You're talking about a 90% mortality rate for rifles and a 10% rate for handguns.
the handguns are more dangerous...they are doing much more damage

You bring up a good point in that these stats only account for deaths and not the thousands of injured and handicapped people that are that way because of surviving a handgun bullet.

[dunksby]

I didn't go through the whole thread so I don't know if anyone brought this up, but what did you expect when you looked for this stat? I mean you don't live in a war zone so obviously the civilians' weapon of choice to do their crime/killing/protecting would be a handgun. Unless your purpose is the more peaceful practice of hunting game, or the more violent intention of going on a killing rampage, you use a handgun.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

As long as everyone plays the 'I have no common sense' game you will keep sounding like jackasses and making circular arguments.

[-p.tiddy-]

I didn't go through the whole thread so I don't know if anyone brought this up, but what did you expect when you looked for this stat? I mean you don't live in a war zone so obviously the civilians' weapon of choice to do their crime/killing/protecting would be a handgun. Unless your purpose is the more peaceful practice of hunting game, or the more violent intention of going on a killing rampage, you use a handgun.
exactly...yet all of our focus remains on assault rifles for some reason...handguns get no attention

[OhNoTimNoSho]

IE. if you brought up aids or knives or cars or fists or some other dumb shit in your argument about guns you are a jackass. I dont need to explain why, use your common sense. Assault rifles should be banned first if anything gets banned because IT IS LOGICAL. Nothing more nothing lesss.. what happenes next happens after the FIRST LOGICAL STEP. So please keep bringing up arbitrary associations with bull shit and you will continue being an asshole

[-p.tiddy-]

IE. if you brought up aids or knives or cars or fists or some other dumb shit in your argument about guns you are a jackass. I dont need to explain why, use your common sense. Assault rifles should be banned first if anything gets banned because IT IS LOGICAL. Nothing more nothing lesss.. what happenes next happens after the FIRST LOGICAL STEP. So please keep bringing up arbitrary associations with bull shit and you will continue being an asshole
sorry, it is illogical to first focus on the thing that does the least amount of damage...

that goes against logic

[-p.tiddy-]

"hmm...handguns killed 6,000 people last year and assault rifles 18, but never mind those useless stats...ASSAULT RIFLES LOOK SCARY!!!"

[OhNoTimNoSho]

sorry, it is illogical to first focus on the thing that does the least amount of damage...

that goes against logic
So 1 assualt rifle can do less damage than 1 handgun?

thats logic? thats what you claim to base your argument on? some bullshit strawman argument?

As long as you ignore shit like that you cant be taken seriously.


You ban the most powerful thing and then go downwards.

[-p.tiddy-]

So 1 assualt rifle can do less damage than 1 handgun?

thats logic? thats what you claim to base your argument on? some bullshit strawman argument?


You ban the most powerful thing and then go downwards.
handguns killed 6,000 people last year...assault rifles 18

and logic tells you to focus on the rifles? :facepalm



you are an example of the problem...

[-p.tiddy-]

it is the concealability of handguns that makes them so much more of a threat in this country than ANY semi-auto rifle

[-p.tiddy-]

furthermore, why should we have to work upward or downward in any of this?...as though it is impossible to address both at the same time or something?

why do you think it is impossible to address handguns without addressing "the more powerful" rifles first?



high powered hunting rifles are "the most powerful"...so your "logic" says we start there and then work our way to BB guns?"...there is no logic in that at all, just address them all at once.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

dude stop bullshitting can 1 assault rifle do more damage than 1 handgun, yes or no?

[-p.tiddy-]

dude stop bullshitting can 1 assault rifle do more damage than 1 handgun, yes or no?
IDK what kind of handgun a .22 or a Desert Eagle?...why does it even matter when it is clear which one is ACTUALLY doing the most damage?


ANSWER: the one I can hide in my pocket

[OhNoTimNoSho]

furthermore, why should we have to work upward or downward in any of this?...as though it is impossible to address both at the same time or something?

why do you think it is impossible to address handguns without addressing "the more powerful" rifles first?



high powered hunting rifles are "the most powerful"...so your "logic" says we start there and then work our way to BB guns?"...there is no logic in that at all, just address them all at once.
Logically no we should be able to address both at the same time, but people wont accept it that way. Because just as the way your dumbass is arguing 1 side there are similiar dumbasses arguing the other side.


I apoligize for my rudeness. but yes we should adress all at once, but we cant. so we need to do the next logical thing and address one at a time. starting from the top

[OhNoTimNoSho]

IDK what kind of handgun a .22 or a Desert Eagle?...why does it even matter when it is clear which one is ACTUALLY doing the most damage?
SO a D Eagle is just as potentially dangerous as any assault rifle?

a d eagle is a magnum also and doesnt fall under the regular handgun category anyway

[Bucket_Nakedz]

what a stupid thread.

[-p.tiddy-]

SO a D Eagle is just as potentially dangerous as any assault rifle?
handguns have more potential damage than any rifle because you can conceal them...

and what a coincidence, they cause more actual damage as well...

[OhNoTimNoSho]

handguns have more potential damage than any rifle because you can conceal them...

and what a coincidence, they cause more actual damage as well...
you can conceal anything, cmon man you know what i mean, i know you are intelligent enough to interpert what im saying stop dancing around it and answer me straight

[-p.tiddy-]

you can conceal anything, cmon man you know what i mean, i know you are intelligent enough to interpert what im saying stop dancing around it and answer me straight
a rifle is more powerful (on average)...that doesn't mean it is the most dangerous

and IMO you are the one dancing around facts and ignoring the fact that handguns are 10x the problem of assault rifles

[Sarcastic]

So 1 assualt rifle can do less damage than 1 handgun?

thats logic? thats what you claim to base your argument on? some bullshit strawman argument?

As long as you ignore shit like that you cant be taken seriously.


You ban the most powerful thing and then go downwards.


This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.

[97 bulls]

a rifle is more powerful (on average)...that doesn't mean it is the most dangerous

and IMO you are the one dancing around facts and ignoring the fact that handguns are 10x the problem of assault rifles
There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have?


Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.

[-p.tiddy-]

This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.
:facepalm

[bmulls]

Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.


The bold is just simply not true. It is well established on these boards that you do not have the knowledge necessary to participate in this debate. Go away.

[-p.tiddy-]

There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have?
who cares though? maybe they just like to look at rifles?...your opinion is that they don't need those rifles and they disagree...the fact remains is that the rifles aren't doing much harm in this country so why are we focusing so much on them?


Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.

exactly!...let's focus on the guns we actually have...no one even owns assault rifles

assault rifles are designed for long range gun fights...

handguns are designed for close range/indoors...and because of that all the murders in this country are done with handguns

[Scoooter]

There in lies the argument. The pro gun side feels rifles with high capacity magazines are needed for protection and hunting. Heres the flaw in this argument. It shouldnt take 60-90 rounds to kill a dear or pig. And only a fool would really feel theres a need for that kind of firepower to defend a home. And saying you need it to fend off the government is just beyond retarded. So what legitimate purpose could having a high capacity rifle have?


Handguns do more damage because THERES MORE OF THEM. They dont need to be banned, but sure as hell need to be more regulated as to help lower the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. Your chances of surviving a shot from a handgun are much better than a rifle. Rifles with big clips arent needed in civilized society.
That's where the pro-gun side is failing rhetorically. Don't argue for why they're necessary, argue simply that a) you want them and b) your right to have them is protected.

If they're so hung up on "necessary", they need to make more compelling arguments.

[bmulls]

This is exactly why I brought up the atomic bomb comparison a few pages back.

Hey, A-bombs kill 0 people every year. Let's unban them.

You can't use an atomic bomb for self defense without injuring many innocent people in the process.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Yes atom bombs are totally relevant to this argument.

[-p.tiddy-]

nukes are just like assault rifles...they should be treated the same way :facepalm

[97 bulls]

The bold is just simply not true. It is well established on these boards that you do not have the knowledge necessary to participate in this debate. Go away.
Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?


And who established this? You? Theres no way you can honestly tell me the accessories that can be added to Rifles are added just for looks.

[97 bulls]

That's where the pro-gun side is failing rhetorically. Don't argue for why they're necessary, argue simply that a) you want them and b) your right to have them is protected.

If they're so hung up on "necessary", they need to make more compelling arguments.
And I coukd see that. But then my stance is just to regulate them. Have more responsibly for gun owners who allow their guns to fall into the wrong hands. Thats the root of the problem.

[KingBeasley08]

Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus

[-p.tiddy-]

Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus
stop it, you're making too much sense...

[bmulls]

Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?


And who established this? You? Theres no way you can honestly tell me the accessories that can be added to Rifles are added just for looks.

:facepalm

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

http://i.imgur.com/ko08v1d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4yQX1c8.jpg

These are the SAME gun, a Ruger Mini 14. They shoot the same bullet, hold the same magazines, have the same action, have the same barrel, etc etc.

There is NOTHING the second gun does that the first does not. The black stock, pistol grip and all the rest of the tactical bullshit is for looks and ergonomics. It looks cool and it's more comfortable to hold a pistol grip.

That's it. Period.

There is no +5 damage to little children bonus for a pistol grip. A black stock does not grant +10% to murder.

This is not Call of Duty.

Get this through your head.

[bmulls]

Are you implying Rifles arent more deadly than Handguns?


How are you quantifying "deadliness"? A .223 AR15 is no where near as devastating as a .50 Desert Eagle. A .45 Colt like John Wayne used to use would leave a much larger wound than an AR15.

Here is a chart for ammo size comparison:

Link (http://herohog.com/images/guns/ammo/all_ammo_comparison.jpg)

.223, the round used by most AR15s, is #13 on top. It is what is called an "intermediate" cartridge. Look at the size of the bullet, then compare it to the handgun rounds on the bottom. The projectile from a .223 is smaller than the vast majority of them.

There were a whole bunch of people who shit their pants when the military switched over to .223. They thought it was too small.

There is nothing magical about a rifle that makes it more dangerous than a handgun. It does not have bigger bullets, more power or any magical killing ability.

Seriously man it's getting ridiculous having to explain this to you. It's like if we were debating politics and you came in with no knowledge of the issues but a very strong opinion one way. Your opinion is based on misinformation, and if you aren't even willing to educate yourself on the subject you shouldn't be opening your mouth. All you are doing is muddling the debate with your bullshit.

[-p.tiddy-]

yeah like I said earlier, most people don't understand that the only difference between an "assault rifle" and a "hunting rifle" is the clip...that's it

oh, and the way it looks...

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Trying to ban assault rifles is useless. I mean its a good effort but if our goal is to actually to slow crime, I agree with PT's theory that handguns should be the focus
Yes, but you cant just skip the first step. You have to ban assualt rifles first and move from there. Stop trying to avoid the common sense involved. There are too many factors at play when comparing handgun deaths vs rifle deaths.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

http://i.imgur.com/ko08v1d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4yQX1c8.jpg

These are the SAME gun, a Ruger Mini 14. They shoot the same bullet, hold the same magazines, have the same action, have the same barrel, etc etc.

There is NOTHING the second gun does that the first does not. The black stock, pistol grip and all the rest of the tactical bullshit is for looks and ergonomics. It looks cool and it's more comfortable to hold a pistol grip.

That's it. Period.

There is no +5 damage to little children bonus for a pistol grip. A black stock does not grant +10% to murder.

This is not Call of Duty.

Get this through your head.
We had this conversation before. Initially, you stated that there was no difference between the two other than the case and color. I said the grips make the second more accurate. You have obvioisly come off your original stance and use the term "comfortable". So there is a difference. The second allows more "comfort" in your words, and thus makes it easier operate. The bottom line is there is a difference. Slight but it is.

Its the same a saying a Shelby GT500 and Mustang GT are the same. Theyre both Mustangs, but more is involved in the Shelby.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yes, but you cant just skip the first step. You have to ban assualt rifles first and move from there. Stop trying to avoid the common sense involved. There are too many factors at play when comparing handgun deaths vs rifle deaths.
wtf? why?...why do you think we have to do these 'steps"?

have you heard of the "Brady Bill"?...it is the reason we have to wait 2 weeks for a HANDGUN...when we did that how come we skipped these steps you speak of and hoped over rifles?

[-p.tiddy-]

OhNoTimNoSho are you aware that currently there are much more laws in place for HANDGUNS than there are rifles...???

[bmulls]

We had this conversation before. Initially, you stated that there was no difference between the two other than the case and color. I said the grips make the second more accurate. You have obvioisly come off your original stance and use the term "comfortable". So there is a difference. The second allows more "comfort" in your words, and thus makes it easier operate. The bottom line is there is a difference. Slight but it is.

Its the same a saying a Shelby GT500 and Mustang GT are the same. Theyre both Mustangs, but more is involved in the Shelby.

NO. A Shelby GT has a larger engine and sooped up parts for greater horsepower. A "tactical" gun has NOTHING that changes it's functionality. It will shoot the same bullets, the amount of bullets at the same rate with the same reload speed as the ranch rifle version. Horrible analogy.

I have not come off of anything, I've been beating you morons over the head with logic since day 1. The idea that a pistol grip improves accuracy is simply absurd and laughable. You are doing nothing but proving my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[-p.tiddy-]

it's like all some of you fools see is bullet size...it's such a stupid and simple minded way to look at things...


"handguns killed 6,000 people last year and assault rifles only 18?...who cares everyone look at how powerful those rifles are!!!....never mind the fact that no one is using them, they need to be dealt with FIRST!!!" :facepalm

[bmulls]

Yes, but you cant just skip the first step. You have to ban assualt rifles first and move from there. Stop trying to avoid the common sense involved. There are too many factors at play when comparing handgun deaths vs rifle deaths.

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.

[-p.tiddy-]

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.
but come on...rifles are more powerful!...except for magnums, those don't count as pistols of course...

[OhNoTimNoSho]

wtf? why?...why do you think we have to do these 'steps"?

have you heard of the "Brady Bill"?...it is the reason we have to wait 2 weeks for a HANDGUN...when we did that how come we skipped these steps you speak of and hoped over rifles?
I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

This guy sees 4% of murders are committed with rifles compared to 72% with handguns, then tries to tell us it's common sense to ban rifles.

:yaohappy:

Only on fcking ISH.
how many handguns are guns are in circulation vs rifles. Whats the ratio? Stop being a jackass. Its common sense to ban them FIRST

[bmulls]

I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.

"I want to eventually strip people of their constitutional rights, but I don't want to do it too suddenly because that will make them angry. We have to do it gradually."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?

[-p.tiddy-]

I am just saying if you wish to eventually ban handguns you have to ban assault rifles first. Otherwise there will be too much resistance, the people will not accept the change otherwise.


Stop preaching the other side to me.. I am not a gun owner.. id be happy if all guns were banned, but i dont care either way. Im just merely looking at it from a logical point of view.
1. thinking we have to ban rifles before handguns is NOT logical

2. we have already put stricter laws in place on handguns than rifles with no public resistance...again, see the Brady Bill which focused exclusively on handguns

[OhNoTimNoSho]

So what exactly are you guys saying.. ban handguns but not rifles? What is your point.. do you even have a point?


Is there any sort of progressive though in your thinking?

[bmulls]

So what exactly are you guys saying.. ban handguns but not rifles? What is your point.. do you even have a point?

The point is fck off and stop trying to mess with my constitutional rights, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[-p.tiddy-]

an overall "BAN" will never happen btw...that isn't an option at all...handguns or rifles

I am saying that we should focus the laws around owning guns to handguns, not rifles...why? because the handguns are the ones killing people, not the rifles

[OhNoTimNoSho]

"I want to eventually strip people of their constitutional rights, but I don't want to do it too suddenly because that will make them angry. We have to do it gradually."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?
Yes lets blindly follow a piece of paper from ~200 years ago

[OhNoTimNoSho]

The point is fck off and stop trying to mess with my constitutional rights, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes `Murica.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwveOlTe-2fOfZURqOSr0A7oNyXuVYJroUmvWDG63sGrVP4yfU

are you 12? Do you even own guns?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

an overall "BAN" will never happen btw...that isn't an option at all...handguns or rifles

I am saying that we should focus the laws around owning guns to handguns, not rifles...why? because the handguns are the ones killing people, not the rifles
We can do both.

[bmulls]

Yes `Murica.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwveOlTe-2fOfZURqOSr0A7oNyXuVYJroUmvWDG63sGrVP4yfU

are you 12? Do you even own guns?

:roll:

How's that GED working out for you?

[-p.tiddy-]

We can do both.
that's fine too...but right now Obama is busy putting laws in place for something that only killed 18 people last year...and ignoring the handguns

[OhNoTimNoSho]

:roll:

How's that GED working out for you?
what?

[bmulls]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html?hp=t2_3

Here's what Bill Clinton has to say on the matter. He blames the 1994 AWB for the Republicans gaining control of the House. You extreme liberals are shooting yourselves in the foot here.

[bmulls]

what?

You have the intellectual depth of a 3rd grader.

[Scoooter]

You can't use an atomic bomb for self defense without injuring many innocent people in the process.
Unless it was really, really tiny and you somehow got the other person to swallow it.

I almost want to see that.

[G-train]

Ban pornography and horrific violence in movies and you wouldn't have any sick massacres.
Go on, ask the ones that didn't shoot themselves what they did in their spare time. Ask the ones in pysch homes that admit themselves before they commit the acts.

"Oh but I watch porn all the time!". Shut up and go take your anxiety meds, its the same principle as 'my grandma smoked and lived til 98'.
Free advice: If you suffer anxiety/depression stop filling your mind with garbage and see if it improves. From my experience this cures anxiety/depression - won't always but worth trying if you are sick of taking meds every day.

The ban would sgnificantly reduce rape/pedophilia as well.

Gang violence is a seperate issue born out of poverty and drugs.

[Scoooter]

How is porn related to shootings? Unless you mean shooting jizz into a wad of tissues and feeling like a loser.

[Jailblazers7]

Ban pornography and horrific violence in movies and you wouldn't have any sick massacres.
Go on, ask the ones that didn't shoot themselves what they did in their spare time. Ask the ones in pysch homes that admit themselves before they commit the acts.

"Oh but I watch porn all the time!". Shut up and go take your anxiety meds, its the same principle as 'my grandma smoked and lived til 98'.
Free advice: If you suffer anxiety/depression stop filling your mind with garbage and see if it improves. From my experience this cures anxiety/depression - won't always but worth trying if you are sick of taking meds every day.

The ban would sgnificantly reduce rape/pedophilia as well.

Gang violence is a seperate issue born out of poverty and drugs.

lol it must be true if you say so

And you are prob getting the causation backwards. Psychos are attracted to fetish porn and horrific violence in media, its not that otherwise good people are turned into murders and rapists because of it.

[G-train]

How is porn related to shootings? Unless you mean shooting jizz into a wad of tissues and feeling like a loser.

Ask a mass murderer.

See there is reality, and then there is 13 year olds sitting at desks gaining opinions from wikipedia.

[G-train]

lol it must be true if you say so

And you are prob getting the causation backwards. Psychos are attracted to fetish porn and horrific violence in media, its not that otherwise good people are turned into murders and rapists because of it.

False. Psychos are people who have let their mind go to dark places or have been treated/abused in terrible ways, or both.

People get a hint of porn/horror and many just get hooked.
Starts with just some anxiety/depression/mental issues, and if assistance isnt sought it grows worse.

Reality. Not BS twisted by scientists/doctors with agendas and needing funding.

[niko]

People with emotional problems seek out media which feeds whatever delusions they have. If there is no violent media, they'll find non violent things which feed their fantasy. Or they'll twist innocent things in different ways, or find violent parts of innocuous stories (the witch in Hansel and Gretel, etc.).

That's not the problem.

[-p.tiddy-]

I thought stats showed that pornography reduced rape :confusedshrug:

and the last school shooter was actually mentally ill...had nothing to do with any media...he was born with bad wiring.

[niko]

I thought stats showed that porn reduced rape :confusedshrug:

and the last school shooter was actually mentally ill...had nothing to do with any media...he was born with bad wiring.

Murderers find something to justify their beliefs. How many murderers have blamed religion? God told them. In Japan a few years ago, some guy tried to emulate a historical event that had nothing to do with him murdering people and was the most ridiculous stretch to blame it ever.

[-p.tiddy-]

Study finds online porn may reduce the incidence of rape (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/study-finds-online-porn-reduce-incidence-rape-article-1.390028)

[Jailblazers7]

False. Psychos are people who have let their mind go to dark places or have been treated/abused in terrible ways, or both.

People get a hint of porn/horror and many just get hooked.
Starts with just some anxiety/depression/mental issues, and if assistance isnt sought it grows worse.

Reality. Not BS twisted by scientists/doctors with agendas and needing funding.


Hmm...who is more convincing, a guy on the internet or scientist who use a method an submit their methodology and results for scrutiny?

Tough choice but I'll go with scientists.

[Legend of Josh]

How is porn related to shootings? Unless you mean shooting jizz into a wad of tissues and feeling like a loser.

Sounds like someone straight speaking from straight up experience.

[Legend of Josh]

Handguns are the real issue, but they're also the most accessible. Besides all that, you just have a lot of pissed off people like this Piers Morgan douchbag who is only making himself look like a moron time and time again here lately.

The bottom line of all bottom lines people. Yes, we're all heard it so many times. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Jackass18]

False. Psychos are people who have let their mind go to dark places or have been treated/abused in terrible ways, or both.

People get a hint of porn/horror and many just get hooked.
Starts with just some anxiety/depression/mental issues, and if assistance isnt sought it grows worse.

Reality. Not BS twisted by scientists/doctors with agendas and needing funding.

WTF are you blabbering about? You only want to take the side of people who twist BS to fit your agenda?

[Jackass18]

an overall "BAN" will never happen btw...that isn't an option at all...handguns or rifles

I am saying that we should focus the laws around owning guns to handguns, not rifles...why? because the handguns are the ones killing people, not the rifles

Well, if you go push for harsh measures on just on handguns, then that would push more people to assault rifles and such. Many would still prefer handguns because of how much easier they are to carry and conceal, though. I think they need to be stricter on all and not just handguns. Also, how about we look at necessity (and without doing it for every ****ing object in the world)? I don't like ARs because for one, that was what the Beltway Sniper used.

[miller-time]

"I want to eventually strip people of their constitutional rights, but I don't want to do it too suddenly because that will make them angry. We have to do it gradually."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Is this real life right now? Do people this dumb really exist?

You do know constitutional rights are man made and not God given? The constitution can be changed, that is also a right the people have.