Jump to content

No Second Amendment problems, BAN THEM NOW!


Tigermike

Recommended Posts

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.

And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Touche...

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will not get the guns because soccer moms will not allow it. They cannot piss of soccer moms and get away with it.

LOGANVILLE, Ga. —

A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Chapman said they found him on the ground saying, "Help me. I'm close to dying." Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment. His condition is unclear, but Chapman said he was shot in the face and neck.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If adam lanza had only used a bat or hammer..... The skinny bsstard wouldnt have killed more than one or two people if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Actually, you are misinformed (again.) Do you even know what specious means?

spe·cious

[spee-shuh s] Show IPA

adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

Origin:

1350–1400; Middle English < Latin speciōsus fair, good-looking, beautiful, equivalent to speci

Sen Feinstein's attempt at gun control for the legions of law-abiding citizens IS the very definition of specious. Face facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Actually, you are misinformed (again.) Do you even know what specious means?

spe·cious

[spee-shuh s] Show IPA

adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

Origin:

1350–1400; Middle English < Latin speciōsus fair, good-looking, beautiful, equivalent to speci

Sen Feinstein's attempt at gun control for the legions of law-abiding citizens IS the very definition of specious. Face facts.

No you are wrong. Using the proposition of banning hammers because they can be used to kill people as a metaphor for regulating guns is much better example of a specious argument.

Besides, I was responding to your post. The merit of Feinstein's bill has nothing to do with the specious nature of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Actually, you are misinformed (again.) Do you even know what specious means?

spe·cious

[spee-shuh s] Show IPA

adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

Origin:

1350–1400; Middle English < Latin speciōsus fair, good-looking, beautiful, equivalent to speci

Sen Feinstein's attempt at gun control for the legions of law-abiding citizens IS the very definition of specious. Face facts.

No you are wrong. Using the proposition of banning hammers because they can be used to kill people as a metaphor for regulating guns is much better example of a specious argument.

Besides, I was responding to your post. The merit of Feinstein's bill has nothing to do with the specious nature of your post. You are clearly trying to change the subject from what you posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If adam lanza had only used a bat or hammer..... The skinny bsstard wouldnt have killed more than one or two people if that.

Thing is he didn't use an assault weapon. It was found in his car outside after the shooting. The more I read into this the more it looks like a staged event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If adam lanza had only used a bat or hammer..... The skinny bsstard wouldnt have killed more than one or two people if that.

Thing is he didn't use an assault weapon. It was found in his car outside after the shooting. The more I read into this the more it looks like a staged event.

you are way, way behind on information. catch up and then rejoin the conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

You said: The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

Your post is nonsensical. How are the "statistics and the facts" not agreeing with me when I never made such an argument to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Actually, you are misinformed (again.) Do you even know what specious means?

spe·cious

[spee-shuh s] Show IPA

adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

Origin:

1350–1400; Middle English < Latin speciōsus fair, good-looking, beautiful, equivalent to speci

Sen Feinstein's attempt at gun control for the legions of law-abiding citizens IS the very definition of specious. Face facts.

No you are wrong. Using the proposition of banning hammers because they can be used to kill people as a metaphor for regulating guns is much better example of a specious argument.

Besides, I was responding to your post. The merit of Feinstein's bill has nothing to do with the specious nature of your post.

Feinstein's attempt at disregarding the Constitution has no merit at all. So how can her bill have any relationship to my post? You and your arguments make no sense. Therefore, you are without merit. I wonder if any of those FBI statistics count how many murders were committed with a rifle being used as a club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If adam lanza had only used a bat or hammer..... The skinny bsstard wouldnt have killed more than one or two people if that.

Thing is he didn't use an assault weapon. It was found in his car outside after the shooting. The more I read into this the more it looks like a staged event.

you are way, way behind on information. catch up and then rejoin the conversation.

gallery_756_15_25633.jpg

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/hammers-have-killed-more-people-than-rifles-w-videos/

Assault-Hammer.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If adam lanza had only used a bat or hammer..... The skinny bsstard wouldnt have killed more than one or two people if that.

Thing is he didn't use an assault weapon. It was found in his car outside after the shooting. The more I read into this the more it looks like a staged event.

The AR was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

You said: The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

Your post is nonsensical. How are the "statistics and the facts" not agreeing with me when I never made such an argument to begin with?

You haven't said much of anything. So, Focus.

What is the reason you want them regulated? Just put it on the record so you can't dance around the discussion any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

You said: The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

Your post is nonsensical. How are the "statistics and the facts" not agreeing with me when I never made such an argument to begin with?

You haven't said much of anything. So, Focus.

What is the reason you want them regulated? Just put it on the record so you can't dance around the discussion any longer.

Well apparently I have said very little that you understand. The "dancing" you perceive is undoubtedly my repeated efforts to get you to provide an actual direct answer to my questions. You are either don't understand the questions or are being evasive because you don't like where the questions are "taking" you.

But to answer your question:

I would support greater regulations on "combat-purposed weapons" (including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines) for the following reasons:

1. These weapons have no real utility except for efficiently killing large numbers of people. In other words, they are military weapons designed for military purposes. Granted, some people enjoy them as toys, but to my mind that is not sufficient reason to make the so widely and readily available.

They are not particularly suited for self-defense of one's self or one's home. They are designed for military situations. Many of the people who own them are feeding some sort of fantasy of fighting other militia groups or even our own government.

2. I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment clearly implies that citizens have the right to possess any sort of military arm without restriction.

One of the reasons I keep bringing up full auto weapons, is that most people seem to accept the logic of restrictions on those, as well as such things as hand grenades, mortars, RPG's etc. In my mind, restricting combat-purposed rifles, aka assault rifles, is the simple extension of the same reasoning that these other combat weapons are restricted.

3. While I do not think such restrictions would solve the problem of mass murders, it is irrational to claim we are better off with a flood of these sort of weapons on the market. Ironically, a perfect example is the fact the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut incident belong to the perp's mother (of all people) who really had no reason to have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

You said: The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

Your post is nonsensical. How are the "statistics and the facts" not agreeing with me when I never made such an argument to begin with?

You haven't said much of anything. So, Focus.

What is the reason you want them regulated? Just put it on the record so you can't dance around the discussion any longer.

Well apparently I have said very little that you understand. The "dancing" you perceive is undoubtedly my repeated efforts to get you to provide an actual direct answer to my questions. You are either don't understand the questions or are being evasive because you don't like where the questions are "taking" you.

But to answer your question:

I would support greater regulations on "combat-purposed weapons" (including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines) for the following reasons:

1. These weapons have no real utility except for efficiently killing large numbers of people. In other words, they are military weapons designed for military purposes. Granted, some people enjoy them as toys, but to my mind that is not sufficient reason to make the so widely and readily available.

They are not particularly suited for self-defense of one's self or one's home. They are designed for military situations. Many of the people who own them are feeding some sort of fantasy of fighting other militia groups or even our own government.

2. I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment clearly implies that citizens have the right to possess any sort of military arm without restriction.

One of the reasons I keep bringing up full auto weapons, is that most people seem to accept the logic of restrictions on those, as well as such things as hand grenades, mortars, RPG's etc. In my mind, restricting combat-purposed rifles, aka assault rifles, is the simple extension of the same reasoning that these other combat weapons are restricted.

3. While I do not think such restrictions would solve the problem of mass murders, it is irrational to claim we are better off with a flood of these sort of weapons on the market. Ironically, a perfect example is the fact the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut incident belong to the perp's mother (of all people) who really had no reason to have it.

Fact: The farther the monkey climbs up the flag pole the more his ass shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of a specious argument.

Agreed. Sen Feinstein's argument that "assault rifles" need to be banned reeks of speciosity when matched up with these actual FBI statistics. Kinda sad, really -- that someone in such a prominent position would willfully ignore the facts.

Actually, (as you hopefully realize) I was referring to the notion of banning hammers and clubs. So your response was evasive and diversionary, as you presumably also know. (I give people the benefit of doubt until they prove unworthy of it.)

Nobody is seriously considering banning hammers... The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

You guys are making up arguments (no one has made) in order to create a defensible position. It's transparent and not really all that clever. First you create a straw man argument, then you tear it to pieces. Classic Rush Limbaugh tactics.

I'm not making anything up. Just able to read. Comprehend. Use common sense. And not buy into artificial hysteria. You're afraid because you've been told to be. The facts and statistics do not agree with you and there is nothing you can say, no amount of dancing with words you can do to change that.

Anyway, assault rifles have been regulated.

If you mean semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines... What is the reason you want them regulated? I can play your game, so just let me know and i'll debunk your exact argument. Just put it on the record.

You said: The point of the article is to give you hard undeniable data proving that these items they want you to fear are not being used to kill as much as they say. You believe their words, but ignore the stats.

Where has anyone made the argument for regulating assault rifles because they statistically kill more people than.... (whatever)?

Your post is nonsensical. How are the "statistics and the facts" not agreeing with me when I never made such an argument to begin with?

You haven't said much of anything. So, Focus.

What is the reason you want them regulated? Just put it on the record so you can't dance around the discussion any longer.

Well apparently I have said very little that you understand. The "dancing" you perceive is undoubtedly my repeated efforts to get you to provide an actual direct answer to my questions. You are either don't understand the questions or are being evasive because you don't like where the questions are "taking" you.

But to answer your question:

I would support greater regulations on "combat-purposed weapons" (including semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines) for the following reasons:

1. These weapons have no real utility except for efficiently killing large numbers of people. In other words, they are military weapons designed for military purposes. Granted, some people enjoy them as toys, but to my mind that is not sufficient reason to make the so widely and readily available.

They are not particularly suited for self-defense of one's self or one's home. They are designed for military situations. Many of the people who own them are feeding some sort of fantasy of fighting other militia groups or even our own government.

2. I reject the idea that the 2nd amendment clearly implies that citizens have the right to possess any sort of military arm without restriction.

One of the reasons I keep bringing up full auto weapons, is that most people seem to accept the logic of restrictions on those, as well as such things as hand grenades, mortars, RPG's etc. In my mind, restricting combat-purposed rifles, aka assault rifles, is the simple extension of the same reasoning that these other combat weapons are restricted.

3. While I do not think such restrictions would solve the problem of mass murders, it is irrational to claim we are better off with a flood of these sort of weapons on the market. Ironically, a perfect example is the fact the Bushmaster used in the Connecticut incident belong to the perp's mother (of all people) who really had no reason to have it.

First off, what is a "combat purpose weapon?" I'll need to you provide the definition with link, please. If not, I'll have to assume you made that term up. Just want to know exactly what they are and what functions make them that before I talk about them. It would be silly for me to talk about something without knowing what it is.

1. Do you own a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine? I know people and have read posts from people here that say these rifles are excellent for shooting passels of hogs. Here in Texas, wild hogs are a huge problem for farmers. They absolutely destroy everything including cash crops. Also, people shoot them everyday without shooting other people. I know people who also hunt deer with them. So, I can't agree that they have no other utility than killing large numbers of people. If I'm wrong, please provide a link showing that statistically, these rifles are primarily used to kill lots of people. I know several people who own them and use them for other purposes, so my experience doesn't agree with you. If you cannot provide data to support this, just state this is your opinion so we can move on.

2. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It is your right to reject that if you like.

Assault rifles are regulated already.

3. I don't know the lady who had the rifle, so I don't know why she had it. I do think it is not my place to tell her she cannot have it. I don't have a problem with limiting the capacity of the magazines, though. Like I stated before, I think it will be difficult to put restictions on that sort of rifle because mechanically, it is a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...