Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[AUGradinTX 0]

"It looks like a machine gun"

So effing what. A Tippman paintball gun looks like a machine gun. An airsoft rifle looks like a machine gun. Your point is worthless.

Secondarily - liberals fear gun nuts. They demonize gun nuts. The media wants you scared of gun nuts. The picture painted is a "Tea Party" republican gathering up a bunch of weaponry and putting it in their weapons room.

The problem is - NONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVER GO ON SHOOTING RAMPAGES. None. Never. Never, never, never. Did I say never?

There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s in America. We live in Alabama - the land of the gun loving redneck. Yet when we have a mass killing - it's a democrat Yankee female with one pistol. The kid in Colorado was a mentally ill science nerd (also probably a liberal). Jared Lee Loughner wasn't a gun nut. His friends said he was crazy, with 'extreme liberal' views and he got 'angry at the sight of George Bush.'

I'm not saying that to say liberals are the ones likely to carry out a mass killing. I say it to suggest that the person you all are scared of, is the LEAST likely to actually carry such an action out. Preppers, gun collectors, munitions stockpilers, and guys who go to the range all the time - they aren't the ones carrying out these acts. So why is everyone using THEM as the type we have to protect ourselves from?

Every time something like this happens, they want to take guns away from the people who didn't commit the crime. And it seems that "they" have little knowledge of firearms.

The weapon used was not an assault rifle. It's similarities to the military rifle are mostly cosmetic. If you are against this weapon, you should focus your argument on the cartridge size. If you want to ban the weapon itself, you are wanting to ban semi-automatic weapons and that encompasses a whole lot of guns out there. Not just the ones with the appearance of a military weapon.

For the record, I do not own any guns. I do have a friend (active army) who owns several. One of which is .223 AR-15 that he chooses to hunt with because it has the feel of the weapon he has the most training with. I have fired it on several occasions and it isn't this killing machine some of you make it out to be. It fires one bullet per trigger pull. The same as 1000 other weapons out there. The appearance of this weapon coupled with the media screaming "assault rifle" irresponsibly is causing hysteria by the masses of massively ill informed.

He also has a semi-automatic shotgun that I have fired. Far more damage can be done with this weapon.

[leglessdan 1,934]

I'm really getting sick of people pulling the race card and calling people racists in here. Those that do it make this society stagnant. Pitiful.

I am getting really sick of people talking about the "race card". You can't tell me that many people who are fantasying about mowing down raging rioters in New Orleans are "seeing" black people in their vision.

But then, like I said, I could be mistaken. Maybe you are one of the few who see zombies.

Regardless it has nothing to do with my arguments so it is hardly playing a "card". Find something else to rescue your case.

Wow, your a danm fool. I personally don't envision gunning anyone down. And your the only one in here I've seen say anything racially motivated. Just because someone used Katrina as a reference to widespread looting doesn't specify anything to do with race.

[homersapien 11,388]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

The NRA is partying. They will make a fortune off this. I suggest anyone who doubts it check out "Ricochet - Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" by Richard Feldman

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0471679283

[3rdgen 2]

As to those who can't see the use of these weapons or high capacity magazines in civilian hands. I would point to things like Katrina, the LA riots, or any other various instances when the rule of law breaks down. When the police aren't coming and single person may be faced with a mob of people. In which case these weapons are extremely useful for one to have around.

Nice apocalyptic fantasy you have there. Except in the real world, a pump shotgun would be no less (extremely) useful than an assault rifle. (Unless your fantasy includes zombies)

:homer:/>

So you are admitting a shotgun is as dangerous as an assault rifle?

Certainly not.

I am saying that a shotgun is just as effective in repelling a bunch of looters (who are undoubtedly black in your fantasy)

Yep can't win the argument pull the race card. If as you said it is just as effective in repelling looters. Then it would be just as effective in a classroom of kids doing what this guy did.

Oh I am sorry. It must be zombies in your particular fantasy.

I haven't posted anything about zombies that was ouchyfish. But you seemed to have fixated on it. Instead of the fact that you just admitted that a shotgun would have been just as capable of causing this type of incident.

[homersapien 11,388]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

So are you OK with making hand grenades as readily available as assault rifles?

[Ouchyfish 67]

It boils down to the people that want the government running their lives as if they were 5 years old and those of us that do not need nor want a conservator.

I am more afraid of my children being killed by a drunk driver than I am of some survivalist getting at them with his stockpile of doomsday guns and for good reason.

.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

So are you OK with making hand grenades as readily available as assault rifles?

That's irrelevant. But, no, I don't believe they should. I still believe it makes no difference what the weapon is these kind of people are going to find whatever means necessary to carry out their insane plans. It wouldn't have mattered if he had a bat, he was obviously crazy and willing to cross the line.

[leglessdan 1,934]

This only reinforces my stance on the problem being the culture and not the weapon.

http://www.nbcconnec...3957221.html?dr

Head O’Meadow School, Newtown Closed After Threat

Tuesday, Dec 18, 2012 | Updated 11:52

Head O’Meadow School, an elementary school in Newtown, is closed after the school received a threat on Tuesday, according to the superintendent.

Public schools in Newtown were scheduled to open two hours late, so no students were at school when the threat was received.

School officials said police had predicted that there might be some threats and there was one.

All staff members are safe, school officials said. Police were at the scene as a precaution before the threat was made.

The threat was made on the day that Newtown public schools returned to school after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday.

No additional information has been released on what the threat was.

[homersapien 11,388]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

[3rdgen 2]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

Thanks for projecting your feelings onto me once again. In 3 gun competitions there is no danger you are shooting at paper and steels targets. In fact any safety lapses penalize the shooter and can lead to them being asked not to return. The guns have about as much of a cool factor as a baseball bat. Just a piece of equipment needed to compete.

[homersapien 11,388]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

I think we could all agree that mentally impaired people should not have access to firearms. The problem is that these very people are able to access firearms time and time again.

That has always been the problem, not the caliber or type or rate of fire or appearance. It's the human factor that fuels these attacks. Take the military style off the market, fine, won't bother me a bit. But...what then? Their will still be other guns out there. Guns that CAN be modified if needed. You and I both know the Government can't very well put a ban on all guns. That will NEVER pass....NEVER. Nor should it. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves. I don't think there really is a concrete. solution. There could be a more aggressive study and monitoring of mental health, but in most cases these people just snap. How can you monitor or study that until after an event takes place. I hate this happened to this community in CT. It broke my heart, I have a 6 yr old girl that I couldnt wait to hug and squeeze when she got out of school, but gun control isn't the solution as far as type. He could have just as easily gone in there with a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun(that we all use to hunt deer and dove) and cleared the classrooms with a handful of blasts. This event is a byproduct of the poisonous culture we live in combined with mental issues. They can try and legislate this to death in regards to gun control, but that will NEVER address or solve the driving force behind these type of events.

But the question is (as I see it) should we place greater restrictions on "modern combat weapons" (getting tired of "assault rifles"). No one has suggested it is going to solve the problem of "demonstration" (mass) shootings. No one has suggested it is the only thing that needs to be done. No one has suggested banning guns, which as you point out would be impossible at any rate.

I submit that there is no justification for mass marketing "semi-automatic rifles with high capacity detachable magazines" (aka as military style or assault rifles) any more than there is for mass marketing grenades or mortars. Our society would be safer and better off without the proliferation of these combat weapons.

[homersapien 11,388]

I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

Yet they aren't the ones doing this stuff.

Well, it was the crazy son of one of them in this most recent incident.

[homersapien 11,388]

I still think the preppers, the people who claim these are for protection, invasion of foriegn military. You guys are on the fringe of insanity anyway.

Yet they aren't the ones doing this stuff.

By the way, I wasn't referring to a foreign military. I was referring to the foreign criminals invading our southern border every day.

It doesn't have to be foreign criminals or military. Defending yourself & property from ANY type of lawless types caused by natural causes (storms, earthquakes, flooding) or manmade (riots, tyranny) is your 2nd amendment right. And whether or not a citizen chooses to arm themselves with a brace of flintlocks, a samurai sword or a few dozen Bushmaster rifles with banana clips ... For those who keep asking why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon -- who the hell are you to dictate how someone chooses to arm themselves?

Let's go back to Nancy Lanza's situation: divorced mother living with her youngest (mentally troubled) son in a large home in a wealthy neighborhood. With no man in the house, responsibility of defending the homestead fell to her. Call her paranoid if you must about being a "prepper" but the even the possibility of being targeted by thieves must have been a concern for her too. So she arms herself with a Bushmaster rifle and a few semi-auto pistols and teaches her sons to shoot. By any standard she would have to be considered a responsible gun owner. The unpredictable factor here was her trusting her mentally troubled son. In hindsight, she should have obviously sought professional help for him.

Thanks for supporting my argument. Guess it's a good thing hand grenades aren't as accessible as Bushmasters.

Oh, and to point out the obvious, our government already restricts the availability of certain weapons that you could otherwise use to defend your home. Apparently some people need guidance in issues of common sense.

[homersapien 11,388]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you.

wtf?

[AUGradinTX 0]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

This is ridiculous. You really believe that you know why other people choose to do things better than they do?

I played sports because I loved competition and hated to lose. It had nothing to do with the "cool factor." If you do things for the cool factor, it seems you don't really do things because you enjoy them, but rather so other people might think you are cool.

[homersapien 11,388]

"It looks like a machine gun"

So effing what. A Tippman paintball gun looks like a machine gun. An airsoft rifle looks like a machine gun. Your point is worthless.

Secondarily - liberals fear gun nuts. They demonize gun nuts. The media wants you scared of gun nuts. The picture painted is a "Tea Party" republican gathering up a bunch of weaponry and putting it in their weapons room.

The problem is - NONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVER GO ON SHOOTING RAMPAGES. None. Never. Never, never, never. Did I say never?

There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s in America. We live in Alabama - the land of the gun loving redneck. Yet when we have a mass killing - it's a democrat Yankee female with one pistol. The kid in Colorado was a mentally ill science nerd (also probably a liberal). Jared Lee Loughner wasn't a gun nut. His friends said he was crazy, with 'extreme liberal' views and he got 'angry at the sight of George Bush.'

I'm not saying that to say liberals are the ones likely to carry out a mass killing. I say it to suggest that the person you all are scared of, is the LEAST likely to actually carry such an action out. Preppers, gun collectors, munitions stockpilers, and guys who go to the range all the time - they aren't the ones carrying out these acts. So why is everyone using THEM as the type we have to protect ourselves from?

:homer: :homer:

You my friend are totally clueless.

[AcUmen 242]

"Logical comparisons"?

Lets not regulate guns because people are dying in auto accidents?

That is logical only to the irrational.

He has a point. It is a simple fact that far more people die in auto-accidents every year than are killed with guns. It's not even close. I can name you a bunch of people I knew directly who have died in car accidents. How many people do I know that have been killed in a mass shooting? ZERO. I bet the same goes for everyone on this board.

The only reason people talk about guns is because on rare occasions they are used in dramatic crimes like Columbine or some other school massacre. The media then latches onto it 24/7 with photos of people running and crying and mourning family members, etc. Yes, it's awful. Yes, I feel for the victims and families. But far more people die every day of accidents. The difference? The media rarely covers accidents.

As I covered in my previous post, the murder rate in 2011 was lower than it has been in any year since 1969. Even with these mass shootings in the 2000's, the murder rate is STILL lower than any decade since the 60's. This is a fact that I guarantee you will not hear any liberal gun grabber mention on MSNBC.

Ok here's another statistic: In the last five years there have been 46,313 murders by firearms in the U.S. Out of those, 1,874 were done with rifles (assault rifles fall into this category but it doesn't mean every instance was an assault rifle). That means only 4% of murders are done with rifles of any kind.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that *all* 4% were done with AR-15 style rifles. So, let's do a little math. We know there are 308 million people in the U.S. We also know there are roughly 10,000 gun murders each year for the last 5 years. 4% of 10,000 = 400 assault rifle murders per year. This means you have a 0.00013% chance of being killed by an assault rifle in any given year. Converted to odds, it's 770,000 to 1. According to the National Weather Service, your chances of being struck by lightning in a given year is 775,000 to 1. This is almost exactly the odds of being killed with an assault rifle.

[homersapien 11,388]

"Logical comparisons"?

Lets not regulate guns because people are dying in auto accidents?

That is logical only to the irrational.

He has a point. It is a simple fact that far more people die in auto-accidents every year than are killed with guns. It's not even close. I can name you a bunch of people I knew directly who have died in car accidents. How many people do I know that have been killed in a mass shooting? ZERO. I bet the same goes for everyone on this board.

The only reason people talk about guns is because on rare occasions they are used in dramatic crimes like Columbine or some other school massacre. The media then latches onto it 24/7 with photos of people running and crying and mourning family members, etc. Yes, it's awful. Yes, I feel for the victims and families. But far more people die every day of accidents. The difference? The media rarely covers accidents.

As I covered in my previous post, the murder rate in 2011 was lower than it has been in any year since 1969. Even with these mass shootings in the 2000's, the murder rate is STILL lower than any decade since the 60's. This is a fact that I guarantee you will not hear any liberal gun grabber mention on MSNBC.

Ok here's another statistic: In the last five years there have been 46,313 murders by firearms in the U.S. Out of those, 1,874 were done with rifles (assault rifles fall into this category but it doesn't mean every instance was an assault rifle). That means only 4% of murders are done with rifles of any kind.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that *all* 4% were done with AR-15 style rifles. So, let's do a little math. We know there are 308 million people in the U.S. We also know there are roughly 10,000 gun murders each year for the last 5 years. 4% of 10,000 = 400 assault rifle murders per year. This means you have a 0.00013% chance of being killed by an assault rifle in any given year. Converted to odds, it's 770,000 to 1. According to the National Weather Service, your chances of being struck by lightning in a given year is 775,000 to 1. This is almost exactly the odds of being killed with an assault rifle.

Good grief.

That's an argument only an autistic savant would make.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

But the question is, does he have a point? This move for gun control is not going to end with people not able to own handguns or hunting rifles. So put that aside. So let's say you eliminate the AR-15 and similar rifles. The question becomes:

Have you really accomplished anything that will make a real difference or just managed to make yourself feel like you accomplished something?

[leglessdan 1,934]

Its not the weapon....it's the person with the weapon, andthe chemical imbalance in their heads. There's no other way to paint it. No matter how many valid points each side presents. That is the trump card.

I think we could all agree that mentally impaired people should not have access to firearms. The problem is that these very people are able to access firearms time and time again.

That has always been the problem, not the caliber or type or rate of fire or appearance. It's the human factor that fuels these attacks. Take the military style off the market, fine, won't bother me a bit. But...what then? Their will still be other guns out there. Guns that CAN be modified if needed. You and I both know the Government can't very well put a ban on all guns. That will NEVER pass....NEVER. Nor should it. Every citizen has a right to defend themselves. I don't think there really is a concrete. solution. There could be a more aggressive study and monitoring of mental health, but in most cases these people just snap. How can you monitor or study that until after an event takes place. I hate this happened to this community in CT. It broke my heart, I have a 6 yr old girl that I couldnt wait to hug and squeeze when she got out of school, but gun control isn't the solution as far as type. He could have just as easily gone in there with a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun(that we all use to hunt deer and dove) and cleared the classrooms with a handful of blasts. This event is a byproduct of the poisonous culture we live in combined with mental issues. They can try and legislate this to death in regards to gun control, but that will NEVER address or solve the driving force behind these type of events.

But the question is (as I see it) should we place greater restrictions on "modern combat weapons" (getting tired of "assault rifles"). No one has suggested it is going to solve the problem of "demonstration" (mass) shootings. No one has suggested it is the only thing that needs to be done. No one has suggested banning guns, which as you point out would be impossible at any rate.

I submit that there is no justification for mass marketing "semi-automatic rifles with high capacity detachable magazines" (aka as military style or assault rifles) any more than there is for mass marketing grenades or mortars. Our society would be safer and better off without the proliferation of these combat weapons.

Look, in all honesty whether you want to admit it or not, that could be said for an infinite amount of things. Why do they make 10,000 types of cigarettes, Different types of beer, cars, shoes, toothbrushes, deodorant,soap, soft drinks,cell phones, Tvs,football helmets, cleats, baseball gloves, houses. They all achieve the same thing, why not just make one kind and be done with it?

As far as your second sentence goes, it is statistically and factually wrong and only an assumption you make of your own belief. Nothing more.

[channonc 466]

Ok, I admit that I have not read every post on this thread, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating issues that have already been hashed out. But here's my $0.02 FWIW.

I am definitely a pro-gun advocate. I believe in the second amendment, but I do have issues with regular citizens having access to military grade weapons (this is not just limited to guns, but rather other military grade weapons and explosives). However, I am not sure I agree with some of the more liberal definitions of what an "assault" weapon is. For example, outright banning semi-automatics or limiting clip size I think in most instances is invasive and doesn't make sense, this includes limiting the number of legal guns someone can have or limiting how much ammo you can purchase/have. These measures don't really solve any real problems, it only creates issues for legal gun owners. I think fully automatic weapons should be banned, and ammunition for those fully automatic weapons should not be available commercially.

I am also in favor of background checks and waiting periods. I believe like any right, there must be limits and people who have proven to not be trustworthy should be restricted in their rights. I believe felons and those who are proven to be mentally ill should not have access to weapons. I also believe we should make gun license information, etc. to be available electronically. I think if someone is banned from purchasing a weapon legally, that information should be available across state lines to try to prevent people from going from place to place, state to state to circumvent the rules. Face it, right now it is much easier to get a gun then to get sudafed for your cold. This seems to be backwards IMO.

[homersapien 11,388]

"It looks like a machine gun"

So effing what. A Tippman paintball gun looks like a machine gun. An airsoft rifle looks like a machine gun. Your point is worthless.

Secondarily - liberals fear gun nuts. They demonize gun nuts. The media wants you scared of gun nuts. The picture painted is a "Tea Party" republican gathering up a bunch of weaponry and putting it in their weapons room.

The problem is - NONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVER GO ON SHOOTING RAMPAGES. None. Never. Never, never, never. Did I say never?

There are hundreds of thousands of AR15s in America. We live in Alabama - the land of the gun loving redneck. Yet when we have a mass killing - it's a democrat Yankee female with one pistol. The kid in Colorado was a mentally ill science nerd (also probably a liberal). Jared Lee Loughner wasn't a gun nut. His friends said he was crazy, with 'extreme liberal' views and he got 'angry at the sight of George Bush.'

I'm not saying that to say liberals are the ones likely to carry out a mass killing. I say it to suggest that the person you all are scared of, is the LEAST likely to actually carry such an action out. Preppers, gun collectors, munitions stockpilers, and guys who go to the range all the time - they aren't the ones carrying out these acts. So why is everyone using THEM as the type we have to protect ourselves from?

Every time something like this happens, they want to take guns away from the people who didn't commit the crime. And it seems that "they" have little knowledge of firearms.

The weapon used was not an assault rifle. It's similarities to the military rifle are mostly cosmetic. If you are against this weapon, you should focus your argument on the cartridge size. If you want to ban the weapon itself, you are wanting to ban semi-automatic weapons and that encompasses a whole lot of guns out there. Not just the ones with the appearance of a military weapon.

For the record, I do not own any guns. I do have a friend (active army) who owns several. One of which is .223 AR-15 that he chooses to hunt with because it has the feel of the weapon he has the most training with. I have fired it on several occasions and it isn't this killing machine some of you make it out to be. It fires one bullet per trigger pull. The same as 1000 other weapons out there. The appearance of this weapon coupled with the media screaming "assault rifle" irresponsibly is causing hysteria by the masses of massively ill informed.

He also has a semi-automatic shotgun that I have fired. Far more damage can be done with this weapon.

Puuuuleeze. Arguing gun semantics and or cosmetics is so lame. Yeah, there are a lot of ignorant people making technically incorrect arguments. That doesn't take the question off the table.

I provided a working definition in my original post. Ignorance is not the issue.

[homersapien 11,388]

I'm really getting sick of people pulling the race card and calling people racists in here. Those that do it make this society stagnant. Pitiful.

I am getting really sick of people talking about the "race card". You can't tell me that many people who are fantasying about mowing down raging rioters in New Orleans are "seeing" black people in their vision.

But then, like I said, I could be mistaken. Maybe you are one of the few who see zombies.

Regardless it has nothing to do with my arguments so it is hardly playing a "card". Find something else to rescue your case.

Wow, your a danm fool. I personally don't envision gunning anyone down. And your the only one in here I've seen say anything racially motivated. Just because someone used Katrina as a reference to widespread looting doesn't specify anything to do with race.

One should never deploy a weapon without envisioning using it.

And chill out on the race thing. I'll even stipulate that all your fantasy looters are white zombies if you prefer.

[AcUmen 242]

"Logical comparisons"?

Lets not regulate guns because people are dying in auto accidents?

That is logical only to the irrational.

He has a point. It is a simple fact that far more people die in auto-accidents every year than are killed with guns. It's not even close. I can name you a bunch of people I knew directly who have died in car accidents. How many people do I know that have been killed in a mass shooting? ZERO. I bet the same goes for everyone on this board.

The only reason people talk about guns is because on rare occasions they are used in dramatic crimes like Columbine or some other school massacre. The media then latches onto it 24/7 with photos of people running and crying and mourning family members, etc. Yes, it's awful. Yes, I feel for the victims and families. But far more people die every day of accidents. The difference? The media rarely covers accidents.

As I covered in my previous post, the murder rate in 2011 was lower than it has been in any year since 1969. Even with these mass shootings in the 2000's, the murder rate is STILL lower than any decade since the 60's. This is a fact that I guarantee you will not hear any liberal gun grabber mention on MSNBC.

Ok here's another statistic: In the last five years there have been 46,313 murders by firearms in the U.S. Out of those, 1,874 were done with rifles (assault rifles fall into this category but it doesn't mean every instance was an assault rifle). That means only 4% of murders are done with rifles of any kind.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that *all* 4% were done with AR-15 style rifles. So, let's do a little math. We know there are 308 million people in the U.S. We also know there are roughly 10,000 gun murders each year for the last 5 years. 4% of 10,000 = 400 assault rifle murders per year. This means you have a 0.00013% chance of being killed by an assault rifle in any given year. Converted to odds, it's 770,000 to 1. According to the National Weather Service, your chances of being struck by lightning in a given year is 775,000 to 1. This is almost exactly the odds of being killed with an assault rifle.

Good grief.

That's an argument only an autistic savant would make.

Nope, it's an argument someone who enjoys facts would make.

Human beings are very good at overestimating their chances of danger in rare circumstances, but very POOR at accurately estimating the chances of danger in everyday scenarios.

[AUGradinTX 0]

"Logical comparisons"?

Lets not regulate guns because people are dying in auto accidents?

That is logical only to the irrational.

He has a point. It is a simple fact that far more people die in auto-accidents every year than are killed with guns. It's not even close. I can name you a bunch of people I knew directly who have died in car accidents. How many people do I know that have been killed in a mass shooting? ZERO. I bet the same goes for everyone on this board.

The only reason people talk about guns is because on rare occasions they are used in dramatic crimes like Columbine or some other school massacre. The media then latches onto it 24/7 with photos of people running and crying and mourning family members, etc. Yes, it's awful. Yes, I feel for the victims and families. But far more people die every day of accidents. The difference? The media rarely covers accidents.

As I covered in my previous post, the murder rate in 2011 was lower than it has been in any year since 1969. Even with these mass shootings in the 2000's, the murder rate is STILL lower than any decade since the 60's. This is a fact that I guarantee you will not hear any liberal gun grabber mention on MSNBC.

Ok here's another statistic: In the last five years there have been 46,313 murders by firearms in the U.S. Out of those, 1,874 were done with rifles (assault rifles fall into this category but it doesn't mean every instance was an assault rifle). That means only 4% of murders are done with rifles of any kind.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that *all* 4% were done with AR-15 style rifles. So, let's do a little math. We know there are 308 million people in the U.S. We also know there are roughly 10,000 gun murders each year for the last 5 years. 4% of 10,000 = 400 assault rifle murders per year. This means you have a 0.00013% chance of being killed by an assault rifle in any given year. Converted to odds, it's 770,000 to 1. According to the National Weather Service, your chances of being struck by lightning in a given year is 775,000 to 1. This is almost exactly the odds of being killed with an assault rifle.

Good grief.

That's an argument only an autistic savant would make.

It makes more sense than talking about hand grenades....