• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240722]What would the body count have been if the Brit had semi automatic rifles? My point is that the law was written in a time when things like 'machine guns' and semi automatic rifles were inconceivable.[/QUOTE] They were perfectly conceivable and some semi automatics were already in prototype stage. One (repeater capable of rapid fire, not quite semi auto) had already entered military service. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle[/url]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240562]An emotional appeal on this topic is unfortunately not going to work on me or anyone else worth their salt. [B]Nobody is moving to ban hammers even though more murders are committed with hammers per year than guns, as mentioned earlier in this thread.[/B][/QUOTE] That is literally incorrect. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls[/url] 12,765 - Total homicides 8,855 - Homicides by firearm That's more than twice as much as all of the other weapons [I]combined.[/I] Blunt objects, which not only include hammers, but clubs, etc. only account for 518 homicides in that same year. So where the fuck are you finding your numbers? Unless you're just citing that one guy's unsourced bullshit that he got from David Keene (lmao).
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49240745]That is literally incorrect. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls[/url] 12,765 - Total homicides 8,855 - Homicides by firearm That's more than twice as much as all of the other weapons [I]combined.[/I] Blunt objects, which not only include hammers, but clubs, etc. only account for 518 homicides in that same year. So where the fuck are you finding your numbers? Unless you're just citing that one guy's unsourced bullshit that he got from David Keene (lmao).[/QUOTE] He meant to say rifles.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240610]Yeah you're right, a lone Brit was running into elementary schools with his musket making body counts rise to the ceiling.[/QUOTE]Nah, it was just a group of soldiers in red coats gunning down protesters with muskets, forcing people to house and feed those same soldiers and their commanding officers, and to top it all off the same government that put them there said, "deal with it," when people complained. Then it imprisoned them for complaining.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240740]They were perfectly conceivable and some semi automatics were already in prototype stage. One had already entered military service. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle[/url][/QUOTE] Well I concede there but I still stand my point that the current technology of small arms was inconceivable in 1776.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49240745]That is literally incorrect. [url]https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls[/url] 12,765 - Total homicides 8,855 - Homicides by firearm That's more than twice as much as all of the other weapons [I]combined.[/I] Blunt objects, which not only include hammers, but clubs, etc. only account for 518 homicides in that same year. So where the fuck are you finding your numbers? Unless you're just citing that one guy's unsourced bullshit that he got from David Keene (lmao).[/QUOTE] You're right, I'm sorry. That's how misinformation starts. I'd have more to say on this topic but I have to go for a bit.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240786]He meant to say rifles.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but he didnt. Regardless, I haven't made any distinctions between different types of firearm in my argument. What I've said applies to handguns as well. I think that the crusade against "assault weapons" is bullshit too, mostly because it disregards the fact that a more than 50% of homicides occur with a handgun.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240800]Well I concede there but I still stand my point that the current technology of small arms was inconceivable in 1776.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240626]This is the dumbest thing ever. It is akin to saying free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founding fathers had no idea that it would evolve this drastically.[/QUOTE] Please, for the love of logic, stop using technology advancement as an excuse. It doesn't work. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;49240837]Yeah, but he didnt. Regardless, I haven't made any distinctions between different types of firearm in my argument. What I've said applies to handguns as well. I think that the crusade against "assault weapons" is bullshit too, mostly because it disregards the fact that a more than 50% of homicides occur with a handgun.[/QUOTE] Handguns are the only weapons that exceed blunt object homicides. The rest are well under that threshold. 68.4% of all firearm homicide happen with a handgun. 23.1% happen with firearm types that are not reported (but statistically are likely to be handguns). The remaining 8.5% are split between shotguns, rifles, and "other".
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240851]Please, for the love of logic, stop using technology advancement as an excuse. It doesn't work. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] Handguns are the only weapons that exceed blunt object homicides. The rest are well under that threshold.[/QUOTE] Why doesn't it work? Honestly why? Free speech is a shit example because you don't use your free speech to facilitate the murder of elementary school children.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240901]Why doesn't it work? Honestly why? Free speech is a shit example because you don't use your free speech to facilitate the murder of elementary school children.[/QUOTE] I don't use my firearms for that either Peace I'll be back later
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49240916]I don't use my firearms for that either Peace I'll be back later[/QUOTE] Great, some people do and have had at an alarmingly increasing rate.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240901]Why doesn't it work? Honestly why? Free speech is a shit example because you don't use your free speech to facilitate the murder of elementary school children.[/QUOTE] I don't use my 2nd right for that either. [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49240938]Great, some people do and have had at an alarmingly increasing rate.[/QUOTE] Care to draw any numbers on those that do abuse the 2nd and those that don't?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49240851]Please, for the love of logic, stop using technology advancement as an excuse. It doesn't work.[/QUOTE] I really dont think the first and second amendments are comparable in this instance. Honestly I think that the second amendment is such an antiquated and ill-conceived part of the constitution in the first place, but for the sake of argument, freedom of speech is such a more universal and constant concept than your guns are. To say that the technological advancement of firearms in the past two and a half centuries hasnt had an impact on how relevant the second amendment is in our contemporary society then thats something we're just going to have to disagree on.
Nobody is saying you do. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;49240945]I don't use my 2nd right for that either. Care to draw any numbers on those that do abuse the 2nd and those that don't?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49240948]I really dont think the first and second amendments are comparable in this instance. Honestly I think that the second amendment is such an antiquated and ill-conceived part of the constitution in the first place, but for the sake of argument, freedom of speech is such a more universal and constant concept than your guns are. To say that the technological advancement of firearms in the past two and a half centuries hasnt had an impact on how relevant the second amendment is in our contemporary society then thats something we're just going to have to disagree on.[/QUOTE] That is perfectly acceptable to disagree on, but that's why those brand new people-killing technologies that violate the initial purpose of the 2nd amendment are heavily regulated. A semi-automatic weapon is hardly something out of conception to the founders, as Grenadiac already pointed out.
Hammers are used to kill more than AR-15's are. Hammers are used more than shotguns. I can go for days on this. The fact we've been able to own AR-15's for 50 years now, and just within the last 20 or so people are actually complained about a weapon that was never popular in crimes just shows how people are. They are afraid of a certain style and look, not function, speaking Semi Automatics are not new, and semi auto actions are used in MANY different hunting rifles, including AR-15 styled ones. Now, here are some facts. We have a waiting period on pistols, except those privately sold( no way of stopping that), or those illegally sold. A lot of criminals go through the waiting period, the background check picks up nothing, and the crime occurs. No amount of gun control would have stopped it. But we continue to argue over it, while the same politicians arguing for gun control are too lazy to do any real thing about it. They refuse to find ways to fix poverty, etc.
No shit that the majority of gun owners don't use their weapons for mass murder but something has to be done about it. Mitigating mass murders takes higher precedence then your hobby.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236339] Alright, I'll use a saw. No saw? I'll chain it to the back of my truck and pull it out of the ground.[/QUOTE] [media]https://youtu.be/ZuvXLtMBV6I[/media] ?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49241022]That is perfectly acceptable to disagree on, but that's why those brand new people-killing technologies that violate the initial purpose of the 2nd amendment are heavily regulated. A semi-automatic weapon is hardly something out of conception to the founders, as Grenadiac already pointed out.[/QUOTE] Would I be wrong in assuming that semi-automatic weapons have also been subject to this rapid technological advancement that makes them more accessible, efficient, inconspicuous, and distant from the original intentions of the second amendment?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241052]No shit that the majority of gun owners don't use their weapons for mass murder but something has to be done about it. Mitigating mass murders takes higher precedence then your hobby.[/QUOTE] Except, to mitigate it, you want to do something that is proven to not work.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49241067]Would I be wrong in assuming that semi-automatic weapons have also been subject to this rapid technological advancement that makes them more accessible, efficient, inconspicuous, and distant from the original intentions of the second amendment?[/QUOTE] Yes. A semi-automatic is only as effective as the holder. It can't shoot faster than you can pull it. Not sure how a semi-automatic weapon entails it being a more inconspicuous weapon. But this also falls back on my argument about how things have gotten more efficient since the bronze age a few posts back.
Like I said earlier though, if you want to play around with fancy guns that go boom one of the largest and most well funded gun clubs in the world are always taking recruits.
The one thing I always have to point out is that mass shootings are statistically irrelevant when it comes to gun violence. Most gun crime is committed in one on one scenarios, and no amount of legislation could stop that type of crime. I am honestly sick of everyone being in arms against guns, simply because I feel like it's such a kneejerk reaction. Why are we not researching why school shooters all seem to be from a similar demographic? Surely there's some sort of preventative measure we can take that would help stop that demographic from having violent outbursts. What about gang violence? Is there really nothing we can do to prevent that, as well as elevating those gang members out of such a shitty situation? It's that kind of hypocrisy that drives me mad. When people cry for gun control, they do it under the auspice of helping their fellow man. But I honestly think it is really missing the big picture in that we can not simply stop violence, we can help mitigate the negative factors that lead people to violence and crime in general.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241110]Like I said earlier though, if you want to play around with fancy guns that go boom one of the largest and most well funded gun clubs in the world are always taking recruits.[/QUOTE] I already enlisted... Got medically discharged too. Also, the military is a LOT more different then a gun club. If you join the military just to shoot fancy guns, I feel very sorry for you.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49241116]The one thing I always have to point out is that mass shootings are statistically irrelevant when it comes to gun violence. Most gun crime is committed in one on one scenarios, and no amount of legislation could stop that type of crime. I am honestly sick of everyone being in arms against guns, simply because I feel like it's such a kneejerk reaction. Why are we not researching why school shooters all seem to be from a similar demographic? Surely there's some sort of preventative measure we can take that would help stop that demographic from having violent outbursts. What about gang violence? Is there really nothing we can do to prevent that, as well as elevating those gang members out of such a shitty situation? It's that kind of hypocrisy that drives me mad. When people cry for gun control, they do it under the auspice of helping their fellow man. But I honestly think it is really missing the big picture in that we can not simply stop violence, we can help mitigate the negative factors that lead people to violence and crime in general.[/QUOTE] What if...we did both?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49241109]Yes. A semi-automatic is only as effective as the holder. It can't shoot faster than you can pull it. Not sure how a semi-automatic weapon entails it being a more inconspicuous weapon. But this also falls back on my argument about how things have gotten more efficient since the bronze age a few posts back.[/QUOTE] More inconspicuous as in relation to handguns primarily. I cant hide a colonial musket in my handbag or boxer shorts. I disagree in regards to your statement regarding how effective semi-autos are. It is far easier to maintain and operate a modern handgun than it is to the semi-automatic weaponry that was widely available at the time.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49241126]I already enlisted... Got medically discharged too. Also, the military is a LOT more different then a gun club. If you join the military just to shoot fancy guns, I feel very sorry for you.[/QUOTE] It baffles me that you were in the Military but never heard it referred too as 'the gun club'
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241145]It baffles me that you were in the Military but never heard it referred too as 'the gun club'[/QUOTE] I never got out of boot... Truthfully I know lot of people still in, and people who served and got out, and none of them refer to it as a gun club.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49241116]The one thing I always have to point out is that mass shootings are statistically irrelevant when it comes to gun violence. Most gun crime is committed in one on one scenarios, and no amount of legislation could stop that type of crime. I am honestly sick of everyone being in arms against guns, simply because I feel like it's such a kneejerk reaction. Why are we not researching why school shooters all seem to be from a similar demographic? Surely there's some sort of preventative measure we can take that would help stop that demographic from having violent outbursts. What about gang violence? Is there really nothing we can do to prevent that, as well as elevating those gang members out of such a shitty situation? It's that kind of hypocrisy that drives me mad. When people cry for gun control, they do it under the auspice of helping their fellow man. But I honestly think it is really missing the big picture in that we can not simply stop violence, we can help mitigate the negative factors that lead people to violence and crime in general.[/QUOTE] Heres the thing. You are right about nearly every point you made. However, your entire argument hinges on the fact that the United States is unique in having gang violence, mental illness, and "the negative factors that lead people to violence and crime in general". It isn't, and yet the US has a unique gun violence problem that far exceeds any other developed nation. This is a gun problem.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49241145]It baffles me that you were in the Military but never heard it referred too as 'the gun club'[/QUOTE] Because in the military we aren't a bunch of gun toting hicks? I've worked with engineers and doctors who all love the hobby of shooting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.