Can someone explain rationally why we should not have an assault weapons ban?

[Tom]

Explain how you defend yourself or family with a nuclear weapon.

I didn't say I could.

 

[Howard]

The system will NEVER account for them all. NEVER EVER EVER NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

These crimes have two components, intent and ability. The insanity provides the intent, the guns provide the ability. There is no other as easily accessible method for mass murder. It is frankly bizarre to me that anyone is even trying to make that argument. Would he have been able to kill as many people with a baseball bat? Of course not.

Guns are part of the problem. Period.

A bomb is very easy to make.

 

[Tom]

A bomb is very easy to make.

then there's no problem banning guns is there ?

 

[Howard]

then there's no problem banning guns is there ?

I'm sorry but I do not see the connection.

 

[TallBill]

Tom.. no response in two threads? If you actually read what you posted and understood statistics whatsoever you'd know that its crap.

 

[Tom]

Tom.. no response in two threads? If you actually read what you posted and understood statistics whatsoever you'd know that its crap.

"Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home."

"After we adjusted for demographic and behavioral characteristics of the decedent, we found an increased risk of homicide for those with firearms in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4)."


That's from the study. Since you say its crap where's your research ?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

"Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home."

That's from the study. Since you say its crap where's your research ?

So if someone has a rope, razors, pills, etc in their house they'll be more likely to kill themselves using those items and be less safe then other people who do not have those items in their homes???

 

[spidey07]

"Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home."

"After we adjusted for demographic and behavioral characteristics of the decedent, we found an increased risk of homicide for those with firearms in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4)."


That's from the study. Since you say its crap where's your research ?

No shit Sherlock. Having a firearm in the house would have greater probability to kill the criminals.

That's why we own them, remember? Killing the bad guy and stopping the crime.

You must admit though, "assault weapons" are very, very, very rarely used to commit crime.

 

[BladeVenom]

Most crime victims are not murdered. Living with guns increases the chance of being murdered, it doesn't decrease it.

Washington DC has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in this country, but some of the worst crime.

Vermont has some of the most liberal gun laws, and they have some of the lowest crime rates.

Mexico has tougher gun laws than the US, but more murders.

 

[TallBill]

"Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home."

"After we adjusted for demographic and behavioral characteristics of the decedent, we found an increased risk of homicide for those with firearms in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4)."


That's from the study. Since you say its crap where's your research ?

Read my reponse in the other thread. Or maybe the notes at the bottom of the research that you linked. I actually read the whole thing. Your statement simply isnt true. And it doesnt weigh illegal or legal ownership or even establish ownership if it was statistically correct, which it isnt.

The entire statistical analysis is off anyways.

 

[TallBill]

Im willing to bet that criminals, which illegally own firearms, are way more likely to be murdered anyways. Which is also touched on in the article which you either didnt read or dont understand.

 

[OverVolt]

Like the man in China cutting 22 kids (none died btw)? I am not anti-gun but just like other areas of society we have to weigh the pros and cons. I know crazy people are still going to kill people but the idea is to limit the damage. There are alot of areas that need to be weighed to see how we can limit the damage including magazine capacities. Maybe you can provide some links to mass killings with explosives or derailing trains or something else that will make us think that limiting magazines capacities won't make any difference in the number of violent deaths in this country.

The risk/benefit to society pretty much excludes mass murder from the dialog because it is such a small portion of all gun murders & deaths. How could we prevent another Newtown? Well... luck actually. Hope someone else with a gun sees what is going on and stops the shooter.

From a risk/benefit standpoint we're talking CCW and home defense against burglaries, rape, assault, mugging and murder if said crime goes wrong. Alot of successsful uses of defensive CCW often go unreported. Someone was going to rob you. You motion for your gun, the guy decides to mind his own business instead. And nothing really happened.

 

[jackstar7]

So if someone has a rope, razors, pills, etc in their house they'll be more likely to kill themselves using those items and be less safe then other people who do not have those items in their homes???

What does this even mean? The guy posted a researched statistic. Rather than finding research that refutes it, you... what? Equate various means to suicide?

Guns provide the most used means of suicide.

The last data I can quickly find has this to say: "Note that firearms are, by far, the most common method for suicide (55% of all suicides are completed with a firearm). Thus it is imperative that a suicidal person not have access to a firearm."

It's not simply a mental health issue. It's also a gun access issue.

But I don't imagine you care much if someone takes their life, as it is theirs to do with as they, please. Is that a fair guess of your position?

 

[jackstar7]

The risk/benefit to society pretty much excludes mass murder from the dialog because it is such a small portion of all gun murders & deaths. How could we prevent another Newtown? Well... luck actually. Hope someone else with a gun sees what is going on and stops the shooter.

Maybe something better to hope for is that someone recognizes behavioral issues before they escalate and people who need it get the help they need before they get violent.

I'd rather not pin my hopes to some random other gun carrier being able to hit a mass murderer in the midst of such a tragedy.

 

[TallBill]

What does this even mean? The guy posted a researched statistic. Rather than finding research that refutes it, you... what? Equate various means to suicide?

Guns provide the most used means of suicide.

The last data I can quickly find has this to say: "Note that firearms are, by far, the most common method for suicide (55% of all suicides are completed with a firearm). Thus it is imperative that a suicidal person not have access to a firearm."

It's not simply a mental health issue. It's also a gun access issue.

But I don't imagine you care much if someone takes their life, as it is theirs to do with as they, please. Is that a fair guess of your position?

Suicide is absolutely terrible to handle, I've dealt with two now. But I certainly wouldn't even consider the method of completion as any sort of important factor. The worst was my friend who took a new anti-depressent with a small side effect of suicidal thoughts, which we almost chuckled at. Wasn't so amusing when the side effect turned out to be true three weeks later.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Washington DC has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in this country, but some of the worst crime.

Vermont has some of the most liberal gun laws, and they have some of the lowest crime rates.

Mexico has tougher gun laws than the US, but more murders.

And if I wanna rob someone on the street I would try to draw as much attention as possible by having a bigass AR.

 

[Tom]

So if someone has a rope, razors, pills, etc in their house they'll be more likely to kill themselves using those items and be less safe then other people who do not have those items in their homes???

I don't know.

The point is, people think guns make them safer, statistics point to that not being true.

For those of you who can't differentiate between discussing whether the study is right and if the point is true, and thinking that means I'm advocating a position by talking about it, I'm not advocating banning guns.

 

[TallBill]

I don't know.

The point is, people think guns make them safer, statistics point to that not being true.

For those of you who can't differentiate between discussing whether the study is right and if the point is true, and thinking that means I'm advocating a position by talking about it, I'm not advocating banning guns.

Advocating or not, that isn't what your little study proves. There isn't even a discussion.

 

[Darwin333]

then there's no problem banning guns is there ?

Most of us gun owners (you know, the ones someone just said had mental issues) aren't really comfortable protecting ourselves with pipebombs and IEDs. Batshit crazy assholes OTOH probably won't see an issue using them for their purposes.

 

[Darwin333]

No shit Sherlock. Having a firearm in the house would have greater probability to kill the criminals.

That's why we own them, remember? Killing the bad guy and stopping the crime.

You must admit though, "assault weapons" are very, very, very rarely used to commit crime.

Only batshit crazy assholes own firearms to "kill" anyone. If you would have said "stopping the bad guy" we would be in agreement and if his death was a biproduct of that stopping then it sucks to be the bad guy. Intent to actually kill is still a crime regardless if you are defending yourself or not and it is still morally wrong in just about every aspect. You shoot to stop NOT to kill. Yes, you shoot for the same area in both instances but when you post things like "shoot to kill" on a very public forum that is simply prosecution exhibit A.

 

[spidey07]

You knew what I meant, let's not play semantics. You shoot for a CNS stoppage. That will end the threat immediately.

 

[Darwin333]

You knew what I meant, let's not play semantics. You shoot for a CNS stoppage. That will end the threat immediately.

Doesn't matter what I know, you just posted something that could be used against you in a court of law to convict you of murder should you have to use your firearm in self defense. That just isn't smart.

Investigators are getting very internet savoy these days and you just admitted to having the intent to kill someone. You know what the difference is between a murderer and someone who is acting in self defense? Intent and nothing more.

 

[Muse]

Actually I can't, but I'll try. Ahem...

I have the right to protect myself against whatever criminals and looneys come my way. You betcha.

And as an American it's your constitutional right to be able to shoot as many people as you can if you have a mind to and the wherewithal to buy the weaponry. They call it "freedom." Be willing to die for your freedom.

We're better at killing than anybody. Step out of line in a serious way when cops are around you're likely to be shot dead.

Hell, we have the most and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal on the planet. We have drones. The best military on the planet, any arguments? I didn't think so.

 

[Agent11]

You can have every intention of killing the bad guy when you pull the trigger, as long as you don't 'finish them off' after they pose no threat.
There is no law saying what you have to aim for when firing in self defense, and such a law would be stupid.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's a 2nd amendment right, to keep and bear arms. It's part of the bill of rights, and part of what seperates us from other people under Government.

We retain the 2nd amendment right, to fight back.

-John