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 3123>>

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

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: The Facts, About AWB< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 5:23 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013....nt-work

Now why don't I think I will see this in the liberal media outlets?


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 5:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 16 2013, 5:23 pm)
QUOTE
Now why don't I think I will see this in the liberal media outlets?

Maybe because his opinion is about as newsworthy as one of your opinions?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 6:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It's been pointed out countless times that such a ban will not have a statistical effect on violent crime but the anti-gun whackjobs don't want to hear it because for them the AWB is strictly an emotional issue, not a logical one.

--------------
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.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7524
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 6:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

MLW

The problem, imo, is the misinterpretation of statistics; I think many, many people would simply like to see something that helps lower the rate of incidents such as Newtown, where AWs are used. It's more than disingenuous and distracting to rant on (as the article does) about other crime rates and gun choices in the fact of this specific kind of atrocity.

i don't doubt that people will shoot one another, accidentally and intentionally, for millennia to come. But that doesn't discount the argument that it simply isn't a good idea to help foster that reality.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6326
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 7:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"The facts"... :D
"It's been pointed out countless times..." :D Yeah, about twice in the article cited - does anybody actually read anything? :D

"Whackjobs", indeed!!!

QUOTE
Police forensic scientist at Newtown hearing: ‘Assault weapons’ ban won’t work
Posted on 6 February, 2013 by Amy

By Patrick Howley
The forensic scientist for the Bridgeport, Conn. Police Department sharply criticized proposed assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans and pointed out the small number of crimes committed by high-capacity weapons in public hearing testimony last week.
Marshall K. Robinson, who said his area of expertise is “firearm and tool mark identification,” testified at the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group, which was convened at the Connecticut State Capitol in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There he opposed statements from many of the other 1,300 speakers in attendance advocating for banning high-capacity AR-15 and AK-47 firearms.
Robinson pointed out that less than two percent of the firearms he has examined since 1996 that have been linked to violent crime in Bridgeport have been the caliber of AR-15 or AK-47 weapons.
“Since November 1996, I have examined approximately 2,370 firearms. Of that number 36 of them were either .223/5.56 mm or 7.62×39 mm,” Robinson said. “The percentage of those guns was about [1.5 percent].”
“I did further research on homicides and assaults in the years 2006 to 2012 inclusive. Of the 217 such cases, there were 912 bullets and 466 cartridge cases recovered. One assault involved .223 caliber and none involved 7.63×39 mm caliber. The largest number cartridge cases recovered in one case was 37 and that involved two guns. The investigations that involved the recovery of eleven or more cartridge cases was 22. Of the 22 cases, 21 involved 2 or more guns,” Robinson added.
Robinson went on to criticize past gun control measures and argued that new proposals will not work to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way.
“These are real numbers from real cases in a real city police department. This is not something made up or fabricated. High capacity magazines have been ‘banned’ before. It proved nothing and the ban was lifted a few years ago,” he said. “There are many guns in existence, since the 1860s, which hold more than 10 cartridges, the early Winchester lever action rifles, for example, and many tubefeed 22 caliber rifles. There are some modern firearms for which no other magazine exist. What do you propose we do with them?”
“In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed bayonet lugs, &#64258;ash hiders, and collapsible stocks,” he testified. “In over forty years of being a firearm and tool mark examiner, I have never seen these components in&#64258;ict any injury whatsoever on any person. In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed fully automatic firearms that have the capability of firing a single shot. Ladies and gentlemen, I really need help with that one.”
“Since November 1996, I have examined approximately 2,370 firearms. Of that number 36 of them were either .223/5.56 mm or 7.62×39 mm,” Robinson said. “The percentage of those guns was about [1.5 percent].”
“I did further research on homicides and assaults in the years 2006 to 2012 inclusive. Of the 217 such cases, there were 912 bullets and 466 cartridge cases recovered. One assault involved .223 caliber and none involved 7.63×39 mm caliber. The largest number cartridge cases recovered in one case was 37 and that involved two guns. The investigations that involved the recovery of eleven or more cartridge cases was 22. Of the 22 cases, 21 involved 2 or more guns,” Robinson added.
Robinson went on to criticize past gun control measures and argued that new proposals will not work to reduce violent crime in any meaningful way.
“These are real numbers from real cases in a real city police department. This is not something made up or fabricated. High capacity magazines have been ‘banned’ before. It proved nothing and the ban was lifted a few years ago,” he said. “There are many guns in existence, since the 1860s, which hold more than 10 cartridges, the early Winchester lever action rifles, for example, and many tubefeed 22 caliber rifles. There are some modern firearms for which no other magazine exist. What do you propose we do with them?”
“In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed bayonet lugs, &#64258;ash hiders, and collapsible stocks,” he testified. “In over forty years of being a firearm and tool mark examiner, I have never seen these components in&#64258;ict any injury whatsoever on any person. In your infinite wisdom, you outlawed fully automatic firearms that have the capability of firing a single shot. Ladies and gentlemen, I really need help with that one.”

“We all agree that the Newtown case is a tragedy. I submit to you that you cannot legislate away insanity, which I think is the root cause of this case,” Robinson said. “Laws must be passed based on research and logical thinking, not on emotions.”
Robinson also works at the state police forensic lab in Meriden, Conn.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 16 2013, 10:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
It's been pointed out countless times..." :D Yeah, about twice in the article cited - does anybody actually read anything?

Apparently you don't read because it's been posted a few dozen times on these boards.


--------------
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.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6326
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 12:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 16 2013, 9:15 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's been pointed out countless times..." :D Yeah, about twice in the article cited - does anybody actually read anything?

Apparently you don't read because it's been posted a few dozen times on these boards.

Yeah, I've seen it around - a simple search on the title shows that it is repeated, in whole or in part, all over the *&%$#@ right wing blogosphere, where you types obviously find it, whether at "Angry Mike's" blog, the Daily Caller, Joe Miller, Fox News - or any other of hundreds of ringing echo chambers.

The point was that the section in red simply repeats what went before on that particular blog, and no one noticed (or noted) the discrepancy! I guess the previous dozens of readers either didn't care that that section was repeated, or they didn't notice.

So who cares, right?

"The facts" is about as ridiculous a title as I could imagine for such an obvious piece of blatant propaganda.

To the substance of any of thousands of these "THE FACTS" articles that the gun nuts are pushing around the news media and the web - well, where is the damned substance? It's certainly not in this one, and probably not in any of the others either.

The argument here is that AWs aren't used for crime. Who gives a flying f***. Was an AW used at Newtown? At Aurora? What use, other than killing people effectively, does an AW have?

The subtext is that we should do something about the "crazies" instead of the weapons, of course, and then there's the argument that there are other "killers" more significant than guns - that always seems to avoid the eminently relevant "fact" that there are actually active programs aimed at ameliorating all those other sources of human death - but not guns. Not seriously, anyway. You, your buddies and the NRA are trying to make sure nothing is ever done, aren't you? Next time you make that "driving kills more people" argument, why don't you also detail the steps taken to cut down on deaths due to driving, and compare and contrast that to the steps taken to cut down on deaths due to firearms! Huh?

Your overweening argument, as I understand it, is that there is less crime when there are more guns!!! Anyone with a brain should be able to easily see through this, but those of your ilk continue to push it like the bloody, frickin' Gospel of Jesus himself!

The consequence of an argument that suggests that the only way to defend yourself in public is with a gun is that you really believe that it is the duty and obligation of every man, woman and child in the US of A to tote a gun in order to defend themselves against all the other yahoos who also tote a gun - and commit and dedicate their lives to the pursuit of the perfect gun-oriented personal defense system, with all the training, practice and other accouterments that that would entail? Something like yourselves, right? (Assuming, of course, that you all actually do that.)

This is nothing less than unmitigated insanity. More guns in the hands of more people, not all of whom (or even a majority of whom) will take the minimal time and effort to educate themselves in their use will only lead to further chaos and, ultimately, a continuous public bloodbath. To think otherwise is simply not to think at all.

Read? Hell, you can't even propagandize effectively.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Three Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1074
Joined: Dec. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 12:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 16 2013, 5:23 pm)
QUOTE
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013....nt-work

Now why don't I think I will see this in the liberal media outlets?

Because he isn't a syncophant police chief who owes his position to anti Second Amendment politicians and that thinks he should have a gun but everyone else ought to be able to defend themselves with whistle and hairspray?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 6:59 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Your overweening argument, as I understand it, is that there is less crime when there are more guns!!! Anyone with a brain should be able to easily see through this, but those of your ilk continue to push it like the bloody, frickin' Gospel of Jesus himself!

I've never said or implied that. I've also said more than once that I don't look at blogs of any kind. However, one source is Mother Jones, that hotbed of right wing extremism.

QUOTE
The consequence of an argument that suggests that the only way to defend yourself in public is with a gun is that you really believe that it is the duty and obligation of every man, woman and child in the US of A to tote a gun in order to defend themselves against all the other yahoos who also tote a gun - and commit and dedicate their lives to the pursuit of the perfect gun-oriented personal defense system, with all the training, practice and other accouterments that that would entail? Something like yourselves, right? (Assuming, of course, that you all actually do that.)

I've also posted several times what I be;ieve the requirements should be for public carry. But you've ignored that in your irrational and unreasoning hatred for guns and their owners.


--------------
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.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 8:10 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"What People Think", despite the old saying, does in fact count.

And the NRA's position on AWB is damaging their reputation, according to my personal totally non-scientific poll of friends and acquaintances.

I doubt that significant AWB legislation will pass....in the short run, at least.

But the battle over gun-control will continue;  there will be increasing pressure to make it difficult to own a gun of any kind in this country.

The NRA, ideally, should be a rallying point against that pressure.

But, more and more folk...I believe....will begin to roll their eyes when the word NRA is mentioned.  The NRA will increasingly be viewed by the non-NRA as an anti-government militia, to be guarded against instead of listened to.

Many who want  guns for recreation/hunting/personal-protection will at some point consider the NRA to be  the crazy aunt who'd best be kept locked in the basement.


--------------
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: 11
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 8:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 17 2013, 6:59 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Your overweening argument, as I understand it, is that there is less crime when there are more guns!!! Anyone with a brain should be able to easily see through this, but those of your ilk continue to push it like the bloody, frickin' Gospel of Jesus himself!

I've never said or implied that. I've also said more than once that I don't look at blogs of any kind. However, one source is Mother Jones, that hotbed of right wing extremism.

How can that be? Bab was so insistent it wouldn't show up in liberal media outlets. Could the Bab have been wrong?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 9:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Feb. 17 2013, 12:25 am)
QUOTE

(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 16 2013, 9:15 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's been pointed out countless times..." :D Yeah, about twice in the article cited - does anybody actually read anything?

Apparently you don't read because it's been posted a few dozen times on these boards.

Yeah, I've seen it around - a simple search on the title shows that it is repeated, in whole or in part, all over the *&%$#@ right wing blogosphere, where you types obviously find it, whether at "Angry Mike's" blog, the Daily Caller, Joe Miller, Fox News - or any other of hundreds of ringing echo chambers.

The point was that the section in red simply repeats what went before on that particular blog, and no one noticed (or noted) the discrepancy! I guess the previous dozens of readers either didn't care that that section was repeated, or they didn't notice.

So who cares, right?

"The facts" is about as ridiculous a title as I could imagine for such an obvious piece of blatant propaganda.

To the substance of any of thousands of these "THE FACTS" articles that the gun nuts are pushing around the news media and the web - well, where is the damned substance? It's certainly not in this one, and probably not in any of the others either.

The argument here is that AWs aren't used for crime. Who gives a flying f***. Was an AW used at Newtown? At Aurora? What use, other than killing people effectively, does an AW have?

The subtext is that we should do something about the "crazies" instead of the weapons, of course, and then there's the argument that there are other "killers" more significant than guns - that always seems to avoid the eminently relevant "fact" that there are actually active programs aimed at ameliorating all those other sources of human death - but not guns. Not seriously, anyway. You, your buddies and the NRA are trying to make sure nothing is ever done, aren't you? Next time you make that "driving kills more people" argument, why don't you also detail the steps taken to cut down on deaths due to driving, and compare and contrast that to the steps taken to cut down on deaths due to firearms! Huh?

Your overweening argument, as I understand it, is that there is less crime when there are more guns!!! Anyone with a brain should be able to easily see through this, but those of your ilk continue to push it like the bloody, frickin' Gospel of Jesus himself!

The consequence of an argument that suggests that the only way to defend yourself in public is with a gun is that you really believe that it is the duty and obligation of every man, woman and child in the US of A to tote a gun in order to defend themselves against all the other yahoos who also tote a gun - and commit and dedicate their lives to the pursuit of the perfect gun-oriented personal defense system, with all the training, practice and other accouterments that that would entail? Something like yourselves, right? (Assuming, of course, that you all actually do that.)

This is nothing less than unmitigated insanity. More guns in the hands of more people, not all of whom (or even a majority of whom) will take the minimal time and effort to educate themselves in their use will only lead to further chaos and, ultimately, a continuous public bloodbath. To think otherwise is simply not to think at all.

Read? Hell, you can't even propagandize effectively.

Maybe the facts are repeated so often because of the anti-freedom movement’s inability to recognize the basic facts about the possible effects of a gun ban.

That is, the facts are repeated because they overwhelming show that an “assault weapons” ban cannot possibly have any significant impact on gun violence.

Fact:
Rifles in general are used so infrequently in violent crime that it is mathematically impossible for a ban on modern sporting rifles to have a significant impact on crime.

Now, in light of this fact, there cannot be any rational argument for banning modern sporting rifles as a method to reduce violence.

It is simply impossible.

There is no possible logical interpretation of the evidence that could support a ban on modern sporting rifles as a measure to significantly reduce violent crime.

Once again, an “assault weapons” ban cannot possibly have any significant impact on gun violence.

At this point, if you still have not recognized the facts, I doubt that you ever will. You either despise individual freedom, or have been so blinded by the emotionally charged anti-gun propaganda that you are incapable of logical thought on the matter.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 9:29 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Maybe the facts are repeated so often because of the anti-freedom movement’s inability to recognize the basic facts about the possible effects of a gun ban.

That is, the facts are repeated because they overwhelming show that an “assault weapons” ban cannot possibly have any significant impact on gun violence.

Fact:
Rifles in general are used so infrequently in violent crime that it is mathematically impossible for a ban on modern sporting rifles to have a significant impact on crime.

Now, in light of this fact, there cannot be any rational argument for banning modern sporting rifles as a method to reduce violence.

It is simply impossible.

There is no possible logical interpretation of the evidence that could support a ban on modern sporting rifles as a measure to significantly reduce violent crime.

Once again, an “assault weapons” ban cannot possibly have any significant impact on gun violence.

At this point, if you still have not recognized the facts, I doubt that you ever will. You either despise individual freedom, or have been so blinded by the emotionally charged anti-gun propaganda that you are incapable of logical thought on the matter.

It's difficult to communicate with people this illogical but I'm going to try once more. Assault rifles serve no legitimate purpose other than assaulting people. That's the justification for their ban. Handguns at least have multiple purposes one of which is defense. That's why there is no push to ban them. For handguns there are other reasonable measures, such as registration and a national database.

The problem in dealing with conservatives is that they are by and large very simple people who see everything as all or nothing.  If you people could recognize that the world is not black and white, you might actually begin to engage in a reasonable and meaningful dialogue on some of these issues.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 9:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

“Assault rifles serve no legitimate purpose other than assaulting people.”

#1: Not accurate
#2: Irrelevant

Once again, there can be no logical justification of a ban on weapons that are ubiquitous, yet are so infrequently used in acts of violence. It is mathematically impossible for any such ban to have a significant impact on crime.

It would be far more honorable just to admit that you despise individual freedom, and stop attempting to obscure the facts. If you simply state that you do not believe that individuals should be able to own firearms, no FACTS can be used to dispute your opinion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 9:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I knew it was useless, but hell I gave it a shot. Those who despise reality will always cling to their guns.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
gunslinger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6408
Joined: Mar. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 10:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

We all know this isn't about public safety.

It's about eroding the second amendment over time with a goal of a British type all out ban and confiscation.

Start with the evil "black" rifles and end with the 1873 colt peacemakers.

You might be allowed to keep that muzzle loading flint lock as, after all, that's what the founding fathers were talking about right?

Lets kill the first amendment to as the internet was never envisioned by the founders....and the fourth amendment  as drones and satellites as well as camera's and gps weren't thought of either.

The tenth is already gone.


--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 11:01 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Regarding the 10th, the fact that you live in the state with the second highest crime violent crime rate in the nation yet still believe more guns is the answer, is the very reason the Feds need to be in charge.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5894
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 12:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think both sides should stop using the term Assault Weapons, since it is misleading.  From what I have read current legal semi-automatic weapons require a trigger pull for each round fired, and if I remember right, fire no quicker than a revolver?

Along those lines we need to think of what will work and not result in just criminals having guns.  Part of that is gun control advocates accepting what is politically achievable. (Though smoking bans show that can change  quickly, for instance performance theaters here have balconies to the outside primarily for smokers, but they can no longer be used because one can not smoke here within so many feet of a door way).  

I think Mark Twain stated (though I think he altered a similar statement another comic made) There are lairs , damn lairs and statisticians!  As some has pointed out the facts above mix three types of gun violence:

1) domestic violence and things like road rage.
2) crimes using guns (primarily robbery, gangs and drugs etc.)
3) crazy folks going on mass killing sprees.

It also fails to recognize that some gun bans have only been partial (limited to cities or states), so folks can just go outside the city to get the weapons they want.  Machine gun bans which are national have been successful for instance?

I don't know if it is possible, but a general reduction in gun violence and violence in general should reduce people feeling like they need to have arms or an arms race, and that should reduce the first item.

Increased penalties for gun crime, and gun possession by criminals should help. If nothing else law enforcement could arrest criminals for having guns if they can't prove much else.  Banning certain ammunition and guns not needed by anyone should reduce the availability to criminals.  Background checks being enforced might not reduce the guns criminals have, but the guns they do have will be illegal.  Crime related to drugs (esp. to pay for them) is probably one reason we see more of this type of crime though.

Background checks should reduce the guns in hands in crazies, esp. if there is penalties for those not keeping their guns in a safe place away from them (under lock and key).

While revolvers might fire at the same rate, I think doing so might require more effort and thus throw the aim off or at least tire ones hands out?  But I haven't ever used one.  Perhaps the number of bullets a magazine can hold isn't the issue so much as the fact that it can be replaced and quickly.  Making it harder to fire quickly and to replace magazines should reduce mass killings?  Or making the magazines heavier or bulkier should make it harder to carry them around etc.

Anyway I think that is something for "experts" to work out, without such charged terms as AWs etc.


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 1:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Three @ Feb. 16 2013, 9:50 pm)
QUOTE

(BillBab @ Feb. 16 2013, 5:23 pm)
QUOTE
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013....nt-work

Now why don't I think I will see this in the liberal media outlets?

Because he isn't a syncophant police chief who owes his position to anti Second Amendment politicians and that thinks he should have a gun but everyone else ought to be able to defend themselves with whistle and hairspray?

Ah, the hairspray flamethrower.

Good times.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43756
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 1:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

dayhiker9

Good points, on a related note do the proposal ban revolver speed loaders? Of course the other irony is its quite usual for revolver rounds to be more powerful than the usual semi-automatic handgun 9mm round.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 17 2013, 10:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
Increased penalties for gun crime, and gun possession by criminals should help. If nothing else law enforcement could arrest criminals for having guns if they can't prove much else.  Banning certain ammunition and guns not needed by anyone should reduce the availability to criminals.  Background checks being enforced might not reduce the guns criminals have, but the guns they do have will be illegal.  

There are already strict laws with associated mandatory penalties addressing those but those laws are rarely enforced. Wanna guess why? The left argues AGAINST mandatory prison sentences.


--------------
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.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
dayhiker9 Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5894
Joined: Apr. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 1:38 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How can they be MANDATORY penalties then?

But your point is well taken. I am aware that there are increased penalties for say armed robbery.  Still I think it works in say Britain.  I guess increasing the penalties even more, but not making them mandatory might work.

Mandatory penalties is really another topic, I think those on the federal level for drugs have been a disaster, esp. paired with the exception for those who turn state evidence, resulting in girlfriends ending up being the only one serving time etc.

Mandatory penalties would mean more uniform sentencing , but obviously not allow any discretion when it might be needed.  Harsher penalties even if not applied in all cases, might have a deterrent effect if one does no how they  might be sentenced?  Though drunk driving was not taken seriously until  some people started actually paying the consequences etc.

I am unaware of the left's (absolute)  opposition to increased penalties for gun violence.?


--------------
" before you make assertions about numbers, look at the numbers."   Krugman
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 6:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
How can they be MANDATORY penalties then?

Charges get dropped in plea deals.

QUOTE
I am unaware of the left's (absolute)  opposition to increased penalties for gun violence.?

It's not. BUT.... it wants harsher laws and stricter penalties on the books and opposes mandatory sentencing laws. Hypocrisy.


--------------
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.
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 7:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Feb. 17 2013, 8:10 am)
QUOTE
And the NRA's position on AWB is damaging their reputation, according to my personal totally non-scientific poll of friends and acquaintances.

Only with the crowd that is actually deluded enough to think that an AWB will do anything to make the country safer

I quit supporting the NRA some years back, mostly because I was tired of their telemarketers calling me at home...so I started supporting GOA

But I recently sent the NRA a  check

Because there really are ignorant people out there that want to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens purely out of fear of what somebody might do.

And the media is a willing accomplice to this effort...they feed that ignorance every time they talk about firearms.

If you are going to report on something it would be great if you had at least some rudimentary knowledge of the subject :laugh:

And the media tells those same ignorant folks what to think about the NRA....The indoctrination is strong

So in short,  gunowners need all the help they can get


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 11:20 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 18 2013, 4:20 am)
QUOTE
And the media tells those same ignorant folks what to think about the NRA....The indoctrination is strong

Like you, I was once an NRA member as well, though I gave up on them for different reasons than you.

That aside, could you please cite examples of "the media" telling "ignorant folks" what to think about the NRA?  

The "indoctrination" that I see is coming from the NRA themselves.  And they managed to get some more of your cash so it's obviously working.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4480
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 4:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

QUOTE
So many gun accidents occur because guns almost never indicate whether a bullet is present in the chamber. A gun owner might remove the gun's magazine and believe the gun unloaded, when in fact it still contains one potentially deadly shot. Why not require guns to be equipped with indicator lights? Why not require that guns be designed so that they will not fire if dropped? We have safety standards for every consumer product, from children's cribs to lawnmowers, except for the most dangerous consumer product of them all. Not only that, Congress has actually immunized makers of that product against harms inflicted by unsafe design.
Gun makers often design their weapons in ways that present no benefit for lawful users but that greatly assist criminals. They don't coordinate the issuance of serial numbers so that each gun can be identified with certainty. They stamp serial numbers in places where they can be effaced.
They reject police requests to etch barrels to uniquely mark each cartridge fired by a particular gun.
They sell bullets that can pierce police armor.
They will not include trigger locks and other child-proofing devices as standard equipment.
They ignore new technology that would render guns inoperable by anyone except their approved purchaser.
Why? Why? And why?


http://www.cnn.com/2013....t=hp_c1
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 7:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(markinOhio @ Feb. 17 2013, 9:45 am)
QUOTE
“Assault rifles serve no legitimate purpose other than assaulting people.”

#1: Not accurate
#2: Irrelevant

Once again, there can be no logical justification of a ban on weapons that are ubiquitous, yet are so infrequently used in acts of violence. It is mathematically impossible for any such ban to have a significant impact on crime.

It would be far more honorable just to admit that you despise individual freedom, and stop attempting to obscure the facts. If you simply state that you do not believe that individuals should be able to own firearms, no FACTS can be used to dispute your opinion.

Ah yes....notice the use of the talking points

Use phrases like "legitimate" and "common-sense" but stress that those phrases mean whatever you think and not what people that actually graduated high school think

When in doubt, look to the liberal media establishment to help you with the big words


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 7:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Feb. 18 2013, 11:20 am)
QUOTE

(BillBab @ Feb. 18 2013, 4:20 am)
QUOTE
And the media tells those same ignorant folks what to think about the NRA....The indoctrination is strong

Like you, I was once an NRA member as well, though I gave up on them for different reasons than you.

That aside, could you please cite examples of "the media" telling "ignorant folks" what to think about the NRA?  

The "indoctrination" that I see is coming from the NRA themselves.  And they managed to get some more of your cash so it's obviously working.

If you haven't seen it then you probably thought the major media outlets were impartial in the last election :laugh:

What got them more of my cash was the rash of legislation that uses words like confiscate and destroy

even if most all these bills die along the way, it shows very clearly what the agenda is, and how quickly it gets trotted out when some big shooting occurs

Notice how President Obama ignored the death toll in Chicago until it fit that agenda

and yet he admits that most of the killings in Chicago are with "cheap handguns" but he doesn't want to abn them...not yet


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 7:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Feb. 18 2013, 4:24 pm)
QUOTE
even if most all these bills die along the way, it shows very clearly what the agenda is, and how quickly it gets trotted out when some big shooting occurs

What is clear is the NRA's agenda of soaking people out of their hard-earned cash by using fear tactics and absurdities.  And this is EXACTLY why I'm no longer a member - (nothing to do with telemarketers)

I'm sure they appreciated your check though.  :laugh:
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 18 2013, 9:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thanks for being a past member! If you still own a firearm, I’m sure that you appreciate that the NRA is the only reason that you can still do so legally. For all of their faults, they are the only organization with the resources to fight for our right to bear arms against the anti-freedom crowd.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
69 replies since Feb. 16 2013, 5:23 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

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


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply The Facts
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