Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One looks like something you would see advertised in a 1960's Boy's life magazine, while the other looks like something you would see in a modern action movie.
If some deranged lunatic unloaded either one into a crowd, the results would be the same, yet freedom-hating gun-grabbers would only call one of these rifles an "assault" rife" or an "assault weapon.
People that don't know crap about something should never be in charge of regulating it. I don't know crap about race cars, so I would never try to pretend I know what should be street-legal and what should not. Why are you trying to to pretend you know what type of guns I should be allowed to own if you don't know crap about guns
Exactly. My son has a 10/22 Boy Scout version. The stock is engraved with a picture of a scout, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. (The old version, though.) Yet it can fire as fast an AR and can hold just as many rounds, depending on mag size.
I think it's silly to argue that anti-gun people want anything other than confiscation. That's so obvious by now. Saying, "No one is coming to get your guns" is the old, pat phrase used to deflect. No, no one is currently coming around taking guns away. We all see that. If you're capable of viewing the issue without bias, you can also see that they want guns out of the hands of civilians. Period. We'll have to see what happens now that it's become apparent they're becoming impatient with the slow whittling down of rights.
Exactly. My son has a 10/22 Boy Scout version. The stock is engraved with a picture of a scout, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. (The old version, though.) Yet it can fire as fast an AR and can hold just as many rounds, depending on mag size.
I think it's silly to argue that anti-gun people want anything other than confiscation. That's so obvious by now. Saying, "No one is coming to get your guns" is the old, pat phrase used to deflect. No, no one is currently coming around taking guns away. We all see that. If you're capable of viewing the issue without bias, you can also see that they want guns out of the hands of civilians. Period. We'll have to see what happens now that it's become apparent they're becoming impatient with the slow whittling down of rights.
The only reason they are not coming to take our guns YET, is because they can't get the laws pushed through. Will it happen? I don't know, but they will keep trying.
Exactly. My son has a 10/22 Boy Scout version. The stock is engraved with a picture of a scout, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law. (The old version, though.) Yet it can fire as fast an AR and can hold just as many rounds, depending on mag size.
I think it's silly to argue that anti-gun people want anything other than confiscation. That's so obvious by now. Saying, "No one is coming to get your guns" is the old, pat phrase used to deflect. No, no one is currently coming around taking guns away. We all see that. If you're capable of viewing the issue without bias, you can also see that they want guns out of the hands of civilians. Period. We'll have to see what happens now that it's become apparent they're becoming impatient with the slow whittling down of rights.
That's what CA is trying to do. Banned semi-autos with features, banning buying ammo unless you pay out the rear for a special "ammo card". Ban firearms if you have a MJ card. It's pretty plain to see what the game plan is.
Until the last year or two under Obama who demonized police to the point they were afraid to react, violen crime has gone way down since legal CCW permits, and stand your ground laws have been more prevalent. Causation, or correlation? Not sure, but the fact is legal gun ownership, and carry is a good thing for potential victims of violent crime, as at it least gives them a chance at self defense. It also most likely IS a deterrent. Criminals are cowards, and like SOFT TARGETS. That is why they LOVE gun free zones, as they know they will be the only ones armed.
Except for the part suggesting that violent crime is down at a higher rate in "stand your ground" states than others (which is simply untrue), this is pure, unsupported conjecture. If you are going to argue that "stand your ground" laws are so powerful a deterrent that crime and gun violence will be significantly reduced when implemented, you are going to have to do better than that.
Except for the part suggesting that violent crime is down at a higher rate in "stand your ground" states than others (which is simply untrue), this is pure, unsupported conjecture. If you are going to argue that "stand your ground" laws are so powerful a deterrent that crime and gun violence will be significantly reduced when implemented, you are going to have to do better than that.
While it may only be a single interview, I'll bet if you keep asking different convicts, they will have similar answers.
See my response to Floorist in post 376. The numbers show that "stand your ground" is not an effective deterrent to crime. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not talking about tragic deaths or good riddance.
Yet you admitted that those last numbers are included in the statistic you cite. Which they can't be as these are the end result of criminals who go down to stand your ground laws. They are prevented crimes. How can they be lumped in with crime? Unless the data comes out of CA or NYC anyway.
Stand your ground does reduce crime. Just Ask our former DA who got it through here (at least in the North) in 1986. God Bless Mills Lane. Most popular elected official in NV ever on record. The law (labeled "make my day" by media saps) was enacted after he refused to prosecute an apartment manager for shooting two burglars who had been plaguing the complex for months when he caught them in the act.
Oh my! The flap from the California law lovers from all over the country. National news it was. 60 minutes came a lookin' for Brother Mills and he BBQd them. Criminals take note. You are hereby served.
You see, you were the one who claimed that a national "stand your ground" law would be such a deterrent that it would drastically reduce gun violence and crime. That was your argument, not mine. So I merely showed you that the raw data does not bear out that premise by comparing crime and gun violence between "stand your ground" and "no stand your ground" states. If you think there is a better methodology to show that "stand your ground" will drastically reduce crime and gun violence, lets see it. There are plenty of "stand your ground" states, so you have plenty of test-cases to draw on. Show us where the supporting data is.
No the data doesn't. As your CDC data is flawed. Just like your logic. Maybe your logic is derived from your data? Similar to how I can argue automobile fatalities. Im arguing on the basis of protecting life. There is no break down on car deaths related to intentional targeting, just like the CDC doesnt display intentional targeting. There is no break down on type of vehicle involved where a death resulted. Neither does the CDC display what type of weapon was used where a death has resulted. There is no break down of How many were car suicides. Just like the CDC doesnt display how many were gun homicides.
The argument at hand is GUN DEATH that you are pushing. Not stand your ground. Nor the results of stand your gound instances, or police action, or intentional suicide or negligent discharge.
Just like my car statistics from IIHS does not show vehilces in disrepair being gross negligence by the owner of the automobiles, the types of vehicles used, frequency of use, common use, nor the intent whether negligent, purposeful, or lack of ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
From where I sit, I don't see any data that even suggests that you are even close to being right. All the data appears to disprove your belief.
Then you had better get on it with contacting the CDC and asking for a break down of those deaths... State by State. Where they literally shoot themselves in the foot on their data is stating SUICIDE by firearm significantly outweighs homicide or negligence ("accidents") UCR data shows criminal enterprise for 2015 being 9,616 CDC shows 21k and change for suicides. How much do you want to bet on suicide makes up for more than justified homicide-stand your ground, negligent discharges ("accidents")
You see gun deaths and run with it. Thats what is amusing you feel justified because the end phrase is "Gun Deaths". The subject at hand is Criminal use of a firearm. Not suicide. Suicide is a separate issue want to open a thread pertaining to suicide go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
And if you want to parse out gun-related suicides, you are free to do so. I don't see why you think the rates in "stand your ground" states are so astronomically higher than in other states that it would not only span the statistical chasm between the two, but also show that "stand your ground" states have significantly less crime and gun violence than other states. But have at it.
Suicides are irrelevant. We are talking criminal misuse of a firearm.
The slaughtering of innocent people. This is what stand your ground deters.
If you want to discuss suicides open a thread pertaining to suicides.
The CDC data is flawed. Especially in terms of rates.
How about published figures? Rates are meaningless without supporting numbers that break down suicides from homicides from justified use of lethal force from negligence ("Accidents")
Legitimate numbers.
Say the UCR data on Florida shows for 1,111 murders for 2016, yet their table 12 doesn't even list Florida murders and weapons used in Florida murders.
California however, home of some of the toughest gun laws, takes the lead in firearm homicide rates. Your data your point moot. How about Illinois? Home of Chicago with the strictest gun laws in the country. Illinois has 799 murders according to 16 UCR data. 762 of those 799 were committed in Chicago. Shows your stricter and "empirical" data once again... SIGNIFICANTLY flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
And you see, my argument (that wide-spread restrictions on guns will reduce gun violence) actually has empirical support. I identified several countries that have proven that such methods work and provided you with the raw data. The most anyone has been able to muster in response is the laughable assertion that Americans are not like the Australians, British or French (all of whom have a fraction of the rates of gun violence and death that America does) because they were once ruled by monarchs and, somehow, the "compliant" gene has been passed down that allowed the gun-control laws in those countries to work.
Care to explain Flint, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore I can keep going, California the leader in murder comitted by a firearm if you want to speak in terms of empirical support?
Go on. 799 murders committed in 16 in Illinois. 762 of which occurred in Chicago. Strictest gun laws.
Same with California? The leader in fire arm homicide according to "empirical" FBI UCR Data for 2016?
Yet you admitted that those last numbers are included in the statistic you cite. Which they can't be as these are the end result of criminals who go down to stand your ground laws. They are prevented crimes. How can they be lumped in with crime? Unless the data comes out of CA or NYC anyway.
Stand your ground does reduce crime. Just Ask our former DA who got it through here (at least in the North) in 1986. God Bless Mills Lane. Most popular elected official in NV ever on record. The law (labeled "make my day" by media saps) was enacted after he refused to prosecute an apartment manager for shooting two burglars who had been plaguing the complex for months when he caught them in the act.
Oh my! The flap from the California law lovers from all over the country. National news it was. 60 minutes came a lookin' for Brother Mills and he BBQd them. Criminals take note. You are hereby served.
Stand your ground reduces crime because you speculate a former DA's subjective opinion would be that it does, if we were asked.
Why rely on statistics and studies when we could have asked Mills Lane about his opinion? Is there anything else I might ask him to settle some tough debates? What's his position on man's effect on climate change? When do fetuses become "human"? What color is God's beard?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Criminals take note. You are hereby served.
