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

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

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



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...

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

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130129095523-c1-gun-homicides-chart-c1-main.jpg[/IMG]

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



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...[/QUOTE]


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..

[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
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.

[IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

pls, give us ratios to that, mr informative.

Barbara Boxer pretending to legislate. What else is new.

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.

[img]http://www.superiorweaponssystems.com/images/AR15E1Rifle1.gif[/img]


Looked kinda like that one^

(I don't know much about guns)

[QUOTE=Riddler]

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

Against who Dooms?

Serious question.

[QUOTE=Riddler]
It's the only weapon that could potentially serve as the people's last line of defense once they declare Martial Law.
[/QUOTE]
: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.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Against who Dooms?

Serious question.[/QUOTE]
Martial Law would be the US Army vs. the US Citizens

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]Martial Law would be the US Army vs. the US Citizens[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=LJJ]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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

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

(4:20 - 4:45)

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

[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

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...).

[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]the image is showing other things to put things into perspective, obviously...[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

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!

[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]
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"

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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"[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE=miller-time]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).[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=RaininThrees]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.[/QUOTE]

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

no blasters & light sabers?

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

[QUOTE=MJ23forever][IMG]http://oi47.tinypic.com/9bf47o.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=nathanjizzle]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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"[/QUOTE]

What are you proposing?

[QUOTE=Jackass18]What are you proposing?[/QUOTE]
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 ...

[QUOTE=miller-time]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).[/QUOTE]
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

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 fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]ked. 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.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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 ...[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Jackass18]I mean to what extent? Across the board banning or what?[/QUOTE]
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

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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[/QUOTE]

The harder you make them to obtain... the "harder" the criminal or insane son of a bit[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]h will attempt to obtain the weapon illegally, and they will eventually obtain the object. It'll be a wash essentially.

[QUOTE=Legend of Josh]The harder you make them to obtain... the "harder" the criminal or insane son of a bit[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]h will attempt to obtain the weapon illegally, and they will eventually obtain the object. It'll be a wash essentially.[/QUOTE]

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 [I]some[/I] 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.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130129095523-c1-gun-homicides-chart-c1-main.jpg[/IMG]

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



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...[/QUOTE]

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.

[URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html"]This site[/URL] cites [URL="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf"]this November 2012 Congressional Research Service report[/URL], 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:

[COLOR="Green"]+41.3% handguns[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]-30.4% rifles[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]-22.7% shotguns[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]+2.3% assault weapons[/COLOR]

while in terms of ratios, we get:

[COLOR="Green"]2.4x handguns[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]0.1x rifles
0.2x shotguns[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"][B]24x assault weapons[/B][/COLOR].

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.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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 [I]some[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Legend of Josh]No, I'm, just saying ... you know what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

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.