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.
I've got to take a break from the computer. I'm about to fix a cup of coffee and do some things around the house. But I look forward to responding to your most recent (and most interesting) posts.
Haha, so you are telling me there is no crime because bad guys fear people might be carrying guns? I highly doubt someone planning on robbing someone cares, especially if they too are armed.
Well if you are going to rob someone, person A has a gun, and person B does not, which would you rob?
No one has ever accused a criminal of being smart, but even they have natural instincts, and they are going to go with the path of least resistance, if only as a matter of self-preservation.
Speculation that they are armed, so how does one speculate if someone has a gun hidden on them or near them? What signs do they look for if someone is armed? You keep thinking your gun somehow magically prevents crime from happening.
No, you're the only one who thinks that, as you continue to assert in thread after thread after thread....
Well if you are going to rob someone, person A has a gun, and person B does not, which would you rob?
No one has ever accused a criminal of being smart, but even they have natural instincts, and they are going to go with the path of least resistance, if only as a matter of self-preservation.
If said weapon is concealed, how do you know if person A or person B has a gun? Concealed does mean "hidden."
No, you're the only one who thinks that, as you continue to assert in thread after thread after thread....
You did read the title to this thread right? The correlation between concealed carry and the murder rate....so by carrying a gun, the murder rate has gone down....so somehow guns are the reason for less murders....or guns are somehow preventing murders from happening because one is carrying a gun on them....so I am pretty sure I am not the only one asserting this, but hey, if it floats your boat to think that isn't what the OP was saying, then have fun with that.
Its the same with ThinkProgress or MotherJones. Post a link and republicans say "ha ha ha that's liberally biased, that source is no good." But republicans never explain how a source is no good.
How is the source not telling the truth?
How is the source lying?
How is the source saying false information?
Just because Fox news/Rush radio (says) something that does not make it true.
Can you explain how the source is wrong in any way?
If I posted a claim that linked to an NRA webpage, would you believe it?
Of course criticizing a source instead of it's content is wrong, but there are some "sources" that have proven themselves not worthy of ever being given the benefit of the doubt. Just as there are Conservative cheerleaders, Mother Jones, Thinkprogress, and the Brady Campaign have proven themselves to be nothing more than shills for the Liberal cause. All they are is spin-doctors, constantly looking for a way to twist the facts to favor the ideology they support.
Those sites you named are some of the most dishonest offenders I have ever encountered on the internet, surpassed only perhaps by Media Matters for America, of which I am sure you are a regular reader....
You did read the title to this thread right? The correlation between concealed carry and the murder rate....so by carrying a gun, the murder rate has gone down....so somehow guns are the reason for less murders....or guns are somehow preventing murders from happening because one is carrying a gun on them....so I am pretty sure I am not the only one asserting this, but hey, if it floats your boat to think that isn't what the OP was saying, then have fun with that.
The physical presence of the gun does not prevent anything. The possibility that a chosen victim may have a gun just might.
Of course, I can't prove that, because as I'm sure an intellectual like yourself understands, a negative can't be proven.
The physical presence of the gun does not prevent anything. The possibility that a chosen victim may have a gun just might.
Of course, I can't prove that, because as I'm sure an intellectual like yourself understands, a negative can't be proven.
So basically having a gun hidden on you does not decrease your chances of being attacked because the item that would prevent such a crime is hidden, which we both know I am right.
Originally Posted by chad3
and most importantly they are the guns that mass murderers use when they kill large numbers of people in schools and movie theaters (most mass murders in America are done with assault weapons.)
In all honesty I have no idea if your assertion here is accurate, but even if it is, frankly it doesn't matter, and there's legal precedent to back that up.
If you want to talk about weapons that are disproportionately used by criminals and madmen, than look no farther than handguns. In the Heller ruling that struck down Washington DC's ban on handgun ownership, the fact that handguns are disproportionately used by criminals was one of the arguments the city used to justify it's ban. The court rejected that argument and ruled that handguns were still protected because they are overwhelmingly and commonly used by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, and the fact that the criminal element also overwhelmingly chooses those weapons was irrelevant. The AR15 and weapons like it are the most common rifles in America, so there goes that argument.
Quote:
If you want to kill a bird you use a shotgun,
That's correct, but "killing birds" is not why we have the 2A
Quote:
if you want to kill a small animal you use a small caliber rifle
Correct again, but killing small animals is not why we have the 2A
Quote:
, if you want to kill a deer you use a high powered rifle
3-3, but the 2A has nothing to do with hunting....
Quote:
and if you want to kill large numbers of human beings at both close and far
ranges you use a assault weapon.
And THAT IS why we have a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, as uncomfortable as it might be to discuss. We have gun rights to protect against tyranny as a last resort. Now you might go on to say that the government has nukes and drones, and that the 2A has outlived it's purpose, and on and on with all the usual stuff, but it doesn't matter. You might be right, it might be unrealistic to think an armed citizenry could stop an over reaching government, but it doesn't matter, because that is what the 2A is about. Repeal it if you want, but respect it and honor it until you do.
Quote:
And for home defense assault weapons large caliber bullets will travel through
walls and go great distances (they are not safe for home defense.) Instead a
shotgun or pistol is better for home defense.
I didn't know Joe Biden participated on City-Data. I guess we have a celebrity in our midst.
Quote:
Over 50% of the American population are gun grabbers. And any rational political
group in a voting country who only has 24% of the vote would try to negotiate
with a 76% majority instead of saying "F. you we call all the shots."
Your argument is based on the false premise that anyone who is a non-gun owner wants stricter gun control. And frankly, it doesn't matter how many citizens support stricter control all that matters is how many are going to vote on that issue. Pro-gun people tend to vote specifically on that issue. People who want more gun control, don't. Also, your assertions fly in the face of recent polls that indicate Americans are in fact NOT interested in more gun control.....
"""They were divided on whether the issue of gun control should be a significant subject of debate among the 2016 presidential candidates, with 43 percent saying it should be a key topic, while 52 percent said it should not."""
Quote:
The republican gun owning minority has no knowledge of firearms,
statistics, voting, and cultural events that decrease gun ownership year after
year. But the sad thing is today we can all walk into a store and buy a shotgun
and a box of shells, but with republican stupidity we may one day end up like
Europe (and unable to purchase guns and ammo.)
I'd rather lose my gun rights in their entirety by standing up and defending them, than by giving them away one piece at a time waiting for some middle ground, balance that will never come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
Its a weapon that looks like a military weapon. But other regular guns are more accurate, more powerful, and more dangerous. Basically its a gun only an idiot or madman would want because he saw a similar looking gun in a movie killing a bunch of people.
So in other words what you're saying is that you CAN'T name one substantive distinction of function or power between "assault weapons" and those not classified as such, that should reasonably exclude them from legality?
They just "look scary" is what your argument boils down to essentially.
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.
