Printable View
[QUOTE=miller-time]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
Drunk driving kill more people every year than atomic bombs, so clearly that's a bigger threat. :rolleyes:
Atomic Bomb comparisons don't work guys smh
Obviously that is a unique situation
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]Atomic Bomb comparisons don't work guys smh
Obviously that is a unique situation[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]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?[/QUOTE]
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?
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...
[QUOTE=-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...[/QUOTE]
It's as awful a comparison as is guns to drinking/driving. Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]It's as awful a comparison as is guns to drinking/driving. Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.[/QUOTE]
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...
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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...[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Cancer and AIDS are big issues as well. Should we not worry about those because, and just focus on drunk driving?[/QUOTE]
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)
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]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)[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-][B]again, no one died from atomic bombs BECAUSE OF THE LAWS AGAINST THEM[/B]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Scoooter]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.[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-][B]obviously if nukes were "legal" we would all be fcked
[/B]
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[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Scoooter]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.[/QUOTE]
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
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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...
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.
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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
[I]"hey look at that, it is black and fancy looking like a machine gun, no one should have that!"[/I]
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]full auto is completely illegal...
[B]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.[/B]
The US public just thinks they look mean and scary and thus should be eliminated...not knowing there is no difference
[I]"hey look at that, it is black and fancy looking like a machine gun, no one should have that!"[/I][/QUOTE]
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.
[url]http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-buyback-program-weapons-031/[/url]
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.
[IMG]http://www.bullfax.com/imgs/077d4ca29adadb272cd305738324d4222b9c331f.jpg[/IMG]
^^^ 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.
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.
[IMG]http://oi50.tinypic.com/2r5akgj.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
you mean after being shot?
obviously most rifles would cause much more damage than most handguns...
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]you mean after being shot?
obviously most rifles would cause much more damage than most handguns...[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.
[COLOR="Red"]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?[/COLOR] You're talking about a 90% mortality rate for rifles and a 10% rate for handguns.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
As long as everyone plays the 'I have no common sense' game you will keep sounding like jackasses and making circular arguments.
[QUOTE=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? [COLOR="Red"]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.[/COLOR] 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.[/QUOTE]
exactly...yet all of our focus remains on assault rifles for some reason...handguns get no attention
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
[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
sorry, it is illogical to first focus on the thing that does the least amount of damage...
that goes against logic
[I]"hmm...handguns killed 6,000 people last year and assault rifles 18, but never mind those useless stats...ASSAULT RIFLES LOOK SCARY!!!"[/I]
[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]sorry, it is illogical to first focus on the thing that does the least amount of damage...
that goes against logic[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]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.[/QUOTE]
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...
it is the concealability of handguns that makes them so much more of a threat in this country than ANY semi-auto rifle
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.
dude stop bullshitting can 1 assault rifle do more damage than 1 handgun, yes or no?
[QUOTE=OhNoTimNoSho]dude stop bullshitting can 1 assault rifle do more damage than 1 handgun, yes or no?[/QUOTE]
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