SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Nobody Needs an Assault Rifle?, Except the DHS< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:00 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The Department of Homeland Security has requested 7000 select-fire (fully automatic) 5.56X45mm rifles “suitable for personal defense”.

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=oppo....cview=0

AR-15’s are widespread among Law Enforcement agencies, and the vast majority of officers carry handguns that have a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds.

If these killing machines are not necessary for personal defense, and too deadly for private ownership, why would Law Enforcement agencies require them for personal defense to use domestically?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4470
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Maybe they need them to force white American to hand over their jobs to South Americans.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Border security. Out lax gun laws put a lot of weapons in the hands of drug cartels and human traffickers. Then there's the terrorist threat.

Not sure what point you are making in you mind, but its would appear to be a long way from the one you actually make.

BTW - be great if they come and take it from you.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:26 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

My argument is that given the false premise that these weapons are not suitable for personal defense, and should only be used on the battlefield, it would follow that Law Enforcement should not be using them domestically.

Due to the nature of their service, they obviously have a greater likelihood of encountering violence, and need to protect themselves and others with a greater frequency (have you hugged a cop today?). However, while the frequency is far greater, they do not face any threat that is somehow unique to Law Enforcement. They are policing in Anaheim not Afghanistan.

BTW – I do not own a gun
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:38 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And the borders. Those living on the Mexican border have perhaps the only legitimate case for needing them for self-defense. Our current joke gun laws and enforcement have created mid-sized armies of well armed criminals operating along the border.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:48 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not sure why you think there's no difference between putting them in the hands of trained professionals and letting pretty well anyone who can muster the brain cells and physical ability to get themselves down to Cabelas buy as many as they like and then sell them to literally anyone else as well?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:55 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Out lax gun laws put a lot of weapons in the hands of drug cartels and human traffickers.


You mean these "lax gun laws"? Guns that Obama wants banned here given to drug cartels? The scandal that Obama attempted to hide from an investigation by issuing an EO restricting access to relevant documents?
QUOTE
How Mexican killers got US guns from 'Fast and Furious' operation

US officials thought they would catch Mexican criminals in a bold gun-running sting called 'Fast and Furious.' Instead, they inadvertently armed drug cartels as the operation spiraled out of control, a congressional report finds.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 8:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

AR-15’s and high capacity magazines are not unique to Law Enforcement along the border.

Training is a valid point, but again, it is not unique to AR-15’s or high capacity magazines.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Feb. 01 2013, 8:26 am)
QUOTE
My argument is that given the false premise that these weapons are not suitable for personal defense, and should only be used on the battlefield, it would follow that Law Enforcement should not be using them domestically.

Due to the nature of their service, they obviously have a greater likelihood of encountering violence, and need to protect themselves and others with a greater frequency (have you hugged a cop today?). However, while the frequency is far greater, they do not face any threat that is somehow unique to Law Enforcement. They are policing in Anaheim not Afghanistan.

BTW – I do not own a gun

Good points again Mark.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:16 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 01 2013, 8:55 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Out lax gun laws put a lot of weapons in the hands of drug cartels and human traffickers.


You mean these "lax gun laws"? Guns that Obama wants banned here given to drug cartels? The scandal that Obama attempted to hide from an investigation by issuing an EO restricting access to relevant documents?
QUOTE
How Mexican killers got US guns from 'Fast and Furious' operation

US officials thought they would catch Mexican criminals in a bold gun-running sting called 'Fast and Furious.' Instead, they inadvertently armed drug cartels as the operation spiraled out of control, a congressional report finds.

Yes, those. Good point.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Bass Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2266
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:39 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

AR-15's shoot a small 22 caliber bullet that is very low recoil and powerful enough to stop or slow down and aggressor. Also, it has enough stopping power to be popular with deer hunters in the south, where deer are generally smaller. But is not usually considered a "one shot kill" bullet like larger bullets, ie 30-06. So people who own AR-15's usually like to have magazines that hold 10 or more bullets.

The AR-15 is very user friendly and adapts to fit smaller size people as well as bigger people. The recoil is much less than a shotgun and shot doesn't scatter and hit innocent bystanders. The small bullet has much less penetration than larger calibers like the .308 so is more suitable in urban areas.

The AR-15 is much more accurate than a handgun too. Where handgunners shoot at 25 yards, police shoot AR-15's at 100 yard targets. Some even shoot at 300 yards. Some hunters like to use the AR-15 for prairie dogs because it is so accurate and the small bullet does not destroy the meat.

So like the gun nuts, law enforcement officers love the AR-15.

It makes sense that law enforcement would want them. I don't feel that police should be armed at all. But until the US bans all guns as London has, I don't see anything wrong with arming police with AR-15's.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6592
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:54 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:26 am)
QUOTE
My argument is that given the false premise that these weapons are not suitable for personal defense, and should only be used on the battlefield, it would follow that Law Enforcement should not be using them domestically.

Due to the nature of their service, they obviously have a greater likelihood of encountering violence, and need to protect themselves and others with a greater frequency (have you hugged a cop today?). However, while the frequency is far greater, they do not face any threat that is somehow unique to Law Enforcement. They are policing in Anaheim not Afghanistan.

BTW – I do not own a gun

Your premise is based on equating the needs of trained law enforecement professionals with the needs of private citizens. On that basis, your argument falls apart.

To the extent that law enforcement needs these weapons in Anaheim and elsewhere, it illustrates how the proliferation of high-powered weapons in our society has made America a much less safer place to live.

There seems to be two different approaches to this problem. One is to put no brakes whatsoever on the proliferation of guns in our society, the assumption being that citizens will be safer when heavily armed. However, that assumptions ignores the fact that guns in the home are much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, and that the vast majority of citizens will never possess an assault weapon. On the other hand, criminals and psychopaths seek those weapons.

The other approach is to recognize that the sheer proliferation of weapons in our society makes everyone less safe. Universal background checks (including closing the gun show loophole) is a common sense measure the NRA -- and LaPierre -- used to support. Additionally, a ban on of high-powered military weapons will slowly, by attrition, reduce the number.

Until then, it's quite obvious our law enforcement officers need to be heavily armed. But that in no way is a valid argument against stemming the proliferation of those weapons in our society.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 10:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You're being logical, Woody, and that gets very annoying.

--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 10:11 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The other approach is to recognize that the sheer proliferation of weapons in our society makes everyone less safe. Universal background checks (including closing the gun show loophole) is a common sense measure the NRA -- and LaPierre -- used to support. Additionally, a ban on of high-powered military weapons will slowly, by attrition, reduce the number.

+1
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 10:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Additionally, a ban on of high-powered military weapons


High powered "military weapons" are not available to the general public. Unless you mean the .30-06 Garand or something like my 4 round .308 bolt action, which is virtually identical to many military sniper rifles. But that can't be it since anti-gun fanatics say such firearms wouldn't be banned.

Regardless of ignorant rhetoric, an AR15 is not a military weapon.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 10:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thanks Woody for #12.

I often find myself agreeing with your posts.  I just don't have the patience nor the skill to spell it out quite as clearly as you do.

In response to the OP, law enforcement should be armed to match the threats they are likely to encounter.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 11:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Feb. 01 2013, 9:54 am)
QUOTE

(markinOhio @ Feb. 01 2013, 7:26 am)
QUOTE
My argument is that given the false premise that these weapons are not suitable for personal defense, and should only be used on the battlefield, it would follow that Law Enforcement should not be using them domestically.

Due to the nature of their service, they obviously have a greater likelihood of encountering violence, and need to protect themselves and others with a greater frequency (have you hugged a cop today?). However, while the frequency is far greater, they do not face any threat that is somehow unique to Law Enforcement. They are policing in Anaheim not Afghanistan.

BTW – I do not own a gun

Your premise is based on equating the needs of trained law enforecement professionals with the needs of private citizens. On that basis, your argument falls apart.

To the extent that law enforcement needs these weapons in Anaheim and elsewhere, it illustrates how the proliferation of high-powered weapons in our society has made America a much less safer place to live.

There seems to be two different approaches to this problem. One is to put no brakes whatsoever on the proliferation of guns in our society, the assumption being that citizens will be safer when heavily armed. However, that assumptions ignores the fact that guns in the home are much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, and that the vast majority of citizens will never possess an assault weapon. On the other hand, criminals and psychopaths seek those weapons.

The other approach is to recognize that the sheer proliferation of weapons in our society makes everyone less safe. Universal background checks (including closing the gun show loophole) is a common sense measure the NRA -- and LaPierre -- used to support. Additionally, a ban on of high-powered military weapons will slowly, by attrition, reduce the number.

Until then, it's quite obvious our law enforcement officers need to be heavily armed. But that in no way is a valid argument against stemming the proliferation of those weapons in our society.

Again, what threat exists to US Law Enforcement, that justifies a need for AR-15’s, but does not exist to private citizens?

There are many approaches to this problem. I would agree that steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (background checks) is a common sense measure. But, just because a particular approach is labeled as “common sense” by those advocating the approach, doesn’t mean that it is the best approach, or even rational. Banning weapons based on cosmetic features, can only be considered “common sense” by those ignoring facts. Starting with the fact that “high-powered military weapons” currently require a license that very few private citizens can ever possess. Followed by the fact that rifles in general, and certainly AR-15’s in particular, which are the most popular rifle in the US, are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crimes. How exactly does banning a class of weapons to reduce the threat of violent crime, when based on cosmetic features, and on a class of weapons that are so rarely used in crime, constitute either logic or common sense?

Further, it seems that your main argument for further restrictions to private gun ownership is to stem the proliferation of weapons in our society. What exactly is the difference between stemming the proliferation of guns by attrition, and taking away the right of private gun ownership? The ultimate result is certainly the same (no guns).
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 12:21 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Again, what threat exists to US Law Enforcement, that justifies a need for AR-15’s, but does not exist to private citizens?

Terrorists - drug cartels. They are going directly to confront these things. The threat to them is not incidental. Is it really so difficult to comprehend.  

It's not that it doesn't exist for normal citizens, the risk of an asteroid hitting the earth still exist, it's just that for 99.999% of Americans the risk of exposure is minimal. Perhaps a few ranchers on the boarder.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 12:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Feb. 01 2013, 8:01 am)
QUOTE
Again, what threat exists to US Law Enforcement, that justifies a need for AR-15’s, but does not exist to private citizens?

Law enforcement is responsible for pursuing and apprehending well armed criminals in an offensive manner, citizens are not.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 12:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How frequently does the typical police officer confront a criminal using a rifle or what percentage of violent crime involves rifles?

What percentage of violent crime involving rifles involve the subset of AR-15's or AK styled rifles?


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 12:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What class of well armed criminals are only perpetrating crimes against Law Enforcement? If AR-15’s are justified to protect Law Enforcement because criminals are well armed, why shouldn’t citizens be able to provide themselves with the same degree of protection against the same well armed criminals?

Agencies that deal directly with terrorism (DHS) or drug cartels (DEA) have firepower far beyond AR-15’s (see DHS request for select-fire weapons). I suppose that would be a valid point, if I were making an argument that private citizens should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons.

Risk of exposure? What if we expand that same logic to the justification of banning a class of weapons that pose such a low risk of exposure?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 1:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The DHS responds to my concerns about personal protection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EoWBRYmo&feature=player_embedded

But of course the DHS is right, since they are buying up all the guns, and stockpiling ammo, the only option left to non-government officials would be scissors. Hopefully, the administration will come to their senses, place some common sense measures, and ban scissors that are spring-loaded, black handles, and of course serrated edges.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Chuck D Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7924
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 2:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

DHS is not buying AR-15's, DHS is buying M4 rifles

--------------
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 2:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yeah, why is that? And telling the rest of us to grab some scissors and rush an active shooter!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 2:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Feb. 01 2013, 12:33 pm)
QUOTE
How frequently does the typical police officer confront a criminal using a rifle or what percentage of violent crime involves rifles?

What percentage of violent crime involving rifles involve the subset of AR-15's or AK styled rifles?

Which is probably why they don't typically go about their business with one slung over their shoulder.

Tell you what, when you boys have to go down south and patrol the border and intercept drug shipments and human traffickers then you can have all the AR-15s you like.

Sound fair?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 3:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

They can have them anyway, but I'm sure they appreciate your permission.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 11:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Feb. 01 2013, 1:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Feb. 01 2013, 12:33 pm)
QUOTE
How frequently does the typical police officer confront a criminal using a rifle or what percentage of violent crime involves rifles?

What percentage of violent crime involving rifles involve the subset of AR-15's or AK styled rifles?

Which is probably why they don't typically go about their business with one slung over their shoulder.

Tell you what, when you boys have to go down south and patrol the border and intercept drug shipments and human traffickers then you can have all the AR-15s you like.

Sound fair?

I'm not the one with an irrational fear of AR-15's and the many other semi auto sporting rifles.

My point was that the overall percentage of violent gun crimes committed with these guns is in the single digits. Maybe a fraction of a percent if you just look at just AR-15's.

The attention paid to this style of gun is actually really disproportionate to the amount of crimes they are used in. Especially considering how many millions own the AR-15 rifle.

Even here in my town and most others in DuPage County, Il. our police all have AR-15's in the trunk at the ready.

I have no problem with that at all just as I have no problem with my neighbors owning them.

Statistically in the USA violent crime happens mostly in our urban crime islands.

Disarming the law abiding does nothing to curb urban violence.


--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6592
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 8:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Feb. 01 2013, 10:34 pm)
QUOTE
My point was that the overall percentage of violent gun crimes committed with these guns is in the single digits. Maybe a fraction of a percent if you just look at just AR-15's.

In other words, let's dismiss the massacre of children & adults at Sandy Hook because, after all, statistically 26 is a just a small drop in the sea of killings in a country awash with all types of firearms.


(Ron. @ Feb. 01 2013, 10:34 pm)
QUOTE
Disarming the law abiding does nothing to curb urban violence.

A more valid argument would be that if AR 15's were unavailable the killer's mother would have possessed whatever lethal weapons were at the top of the legal list and her mentally disturbed kid would have done the same thing anyway.

If that was the case, would you have considered his mother (and by extension the killer himself) to have been "disarmed" as you suggest would be the case if AR15's were illegal?


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 8:18 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Everybody believes something needs to be done about violence and its tragic results, and nobody is dismissive of Sandy Hook or any other such horror. There is much disagreement over the root causes and the remedy.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 02 2013, 8:19 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Feb. 02 2013, 6:06 am)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Feb. 01 2013, 10:34 pm)
QUOTE
My point was that the overall percentage of violent gun crimes committed with these guns is in the single digits. Maybe a fraction of a percent if you just look at just AR-15's.

In other words, let's dismiss the massacre of children & adults at Sandy Hook because, after all, statistically 26 is a very small number.

No one is denying that was a tragedy but it wasn't statistically significant because it was the only mass killing involving a falsely termed "assault" rifle in all of last year.

Out of 63 mass killings over the 30 years ('82-'12), "only" 10 were with assault weapons, 5 of those stolen and a 6th was committed by a deputy* using his county issued AR15.

Hysterically banning "assault weapons" in an emotional frenzy won't solve the problem.

* Using the numbers found in various places, I found that someone is almost 4x as likely to be involved in a mass shooting committed by a cop than in one committed by anyone else.


--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
48 replies since Feb. 01 2013, 8:00 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Nobody Needs an Assault Rifle?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions