- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: High Capacity ban... It won't won't stop anything.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:37 pm to Jamede4
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:37 pm to Jamede4
quote:
People's children are dying because of bad people with these weapons. Don't you see that?
Take that same weapon and load it, cock it, and take the safety off. Lean that fricker in the corner and walk away for 1000 years. As long as nobody touches it, when you come back to check there won't be any dead people. Not a frickin one.
It's not the guns you fricktard.
quote:
why you need such a powerful weapon?
Because the mothafrickin U.S. Constitution says I can.
1
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:38 pm to Jamede4
We can't know for sure exactly how many AR-15's are in the U.S., but using manufacturing, importing and sales numbers as well as trends in growth of sale and manufacturing we can get a pretty good estimate.
Using these number and factors, slate.com estimates that as of 2012 there are roughly 3,750,000 legally owned AR-15's in the United States. This estimate is also likely on the low side since it does not account for AR-15's that were pieced together from individual parts obtained over time, which is a common hobby among gun enthusiasts.
According to the FBI, assault weapons are used in 1% of gun crimes and 0.20% of violent crime. We'll make the same assumptions as before that all of the guns in these crimes are legally obtained and used only in one of the individual crimes. We'll also use the crime numbers from 2008 which will again be higher than the number of gun crimes in 2012 due to the trend of decreasing crime in the U.S.
1% or 0.01 x 303,880 = 3,039
3,039/3,750,000 = 0.00081 or 0.081%.
And keep in mind that the denominator in this equation is simply the number of AR-15's in the country and the numerator is the number of guns crimes where assault weapons were used. It does not take into account the other firearms that would fit the definition of an assault weapon. If those were taken into account, the percentage would be even lower.
So are we to ban or severely limit the use of these "scary" assault weapons for every law abiding citizen who owns one over the 0.081% who use them in crime? A far higher percentage of people abuse welfare, insurance, prescription drugs, and even their own children. Are we to ban all of them as well?
Using these number and factors, slate.com estimates that as of 2012 there are roughly 3,750,000 legally owned AR-15's in the United States. This estimate is also likely on the low side since it does not account for AR-15's that were pieced together from individual parts obtained over time, which is a common hobby among gun enthusiasts.
According to the FBI, assault weapons are used in 1% of gun crimes and 0.20% of violent crime. We'll make the same assumptions as before that all of the guns in these crimes are legally obtained and used only in one of the individual crimes. We'll also use the crime numbers from 2008 which will again be higher than the number of gun crimes in 2012 due to the trend of decreasing crime in the U.S.
1% or 0.01 x 303,880 = 3,039
3,039/3,750,000 = 0.00081 or 0.081%.
And keep in mind that the denominator in this equation is simply the number of AR-15's in the country and the numerator is the number of guns crimes where assault weapons were used. It does not take into account the other firearms that would fit the definition of an assault weapon. If those were taken into account, the percentage would be even lower.
So are we to ban or severely limit the use of these "scary" assault weapons for every law abiding citizen who owns one over the 0.081% who use them in crime? A far higher percentage of people abuse welfare, insurance, prescription drugs, and even their own children. Are we to ban all of them as well?
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:39 pm to tenfoe
quote:
Take that same weapon and load it, cock it, and take the safety off. Lean that fricker in the corner and walk away for 1000 years. As long as nobody touches it, when you come back to check there won't be any dead people. Not a frickin one
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:39 pm to DrTyger
quote:
DrTyger
Thanks for bringing reinforcements.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:40 pm to Jamede4
Its pretty obvious you have done absolutely no research on this topic, and the only thing thats worse is the millions of other ignorant Americans that not only believe the way that you do, but they want to force everyone else into that line of thinking as well.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:41 pm to NYCAuburn
AR's are not 'powerful weapons'. Everyone that deer hunts has a weapon that is WAYYYYYYY more powerful than an AR or AK.
How does a pistol grip and a detachable magazine make a weapon 'powerful'? That's delusion.
How does a pistol grip and a detachable magazine make a weapon 'powerful'? That's delusion.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:41 pm to bapple
It's from an article I wrote the other day. I'm seriously considering sending it in to a newspaper or something.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:42 pm to RATeamWannabe
quote:
Its pretty obvious you have done absolutely no research on this topic
This is equivalent to having kids stand on stage while you sign executive orders. It is an appeal to emotion at its finest, which is, by definition, a fallacy.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 12:46 pm to bapple
Well he may be evil but he's not stupid. He knows common sense, facts, and reason will prevent this from passing, so raw emotion has to be the driving force behind it to succeed. Then everyone who votes it down becomes an evil person thats "not thinking about our children"
Posted on 1/16/13 at 1:00 pm to Jamede4
[quote] What can you possibly be doing with military style weapons.[/quote
:beatdeadhorse: Please tell me: Just WHEN will you anti-gun people learn there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE, other than the way the weapon LOOKS, between any SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle and any of the SEMI-AUTOMATIC "military style" rifles??? They are both SEMI-AUTOMATIC, not fully automatic. Get that? You just don't like the way the "military style" rifles look. I wish more people like you did not own any firearms because it is obvious you know so very little about any of them and for you to possess a firearm could be a legitimate danger to society.
:beatdeadhorse: Please tell me: Just WHEN will you anti-gun people learn there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE, other than the way the weapon LOOKS, between any SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle and any of the SEMI-AUTOMATIC "military style" rifles??? They are both SEMI-AUTOMATIC, not fully automatic. Get that? You just don't like the way the "military style" rifles look. I wish more people like you did not own any firearms because it is obvious you know so very little about any of them and for you to possess a firearm could be a legitimate danger to society.
Posted on 1/16/13 at 1:04 pm to onelochevy
quote:
Osama isnt looking to prevent any killings or shootings. Theyre just using this as an excuse to disarm his subjects (us)
Exactly. If it were about protecting children he would put officers on the dole to protect them. But it is all about disarming the citizenry
Posted on 1/16/13 at 6:30 pm to Rantavious
Just had a logical argument on Facebook with some count. Why can't they use logic?
It was another person's status but here is our back and forth:
count: Give me one good reason that any law abiding citizen needs a clip with more than 10 rounds.
Me: You using the word "clip" shows how misinformed you are. A device that holds rounds in a firearm is called a "magazine."
Secondly, why are we setting terms for the good guys who follow the law when bad guys operate out of the scope of the law 24/7? I think if I were to be attacked or my house were to be invaded, I would be the one being victimized, not the criminal. Why should the criminal be victimized and allowed an advantage when he is the one hurting me?
Third, if you were defending your own children, why would you need to be handicapped if the criminal wasn't? What if you were facing multiple attackers? Criminals don't care about the law and never will. They will try anything in their power to take from good law abiding citizens, even if it means taking their life too.
And in case you didn't know the definition of a criminal:
crim·i·nal
adjective \'kri-m?-n?l, 'krim-n?l\
Definition of CRIMINAL
1
: relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2
: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3
: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>
4
I don't see anything about them following laws
count: Yes Bapple, I am not an expert in gun terminology. If magazines with fewer rounds can save the life of one innocent child it is worth it. 60per cent of people in the country are in favor of this. Doesn't that tell u something. Anyone opposed to such a ban is insensitive to the tragic death of those babies.
Me: This argument again?
More children are killed by abusive parents than firearms every year.
More children are killed by drunk drivers than firearms every year.
More children are killed by blunt objects than firearms every year.
More children are killed by fists and legs than by firearms every year.
"But if it saves 1 life"... Yea right.
If you really want to help protect children, get to the ROOT of the problem. Guns are not the root of the problem. They are merely tools.
______, way to dodge by comments. I'm trying to have a real discussion with you.
Also, your last statement is a fallacy. Just because one is opposed to a ban does not make said person a baby killer. This an obvious appeal to emotion.
count: The fewer such guns that are in circulation the less chance of them falling into the hand of criminals. It is quite logical. The more of these
Me: So because it would make you "feel better", we should disarm law abiding citizens? And just because it "scares" you, we should disarm law abiding citizens? Just making sure I have this straight...
count: The solution is not more guns. We need to reduce the # in circulation. Also I take offense to your demeaning our president. I am so proud of the logical, level headed, compassionate manner that he has responding to one if the greatest tragedies of our timer and I am so proud that I, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for him.
Me: Well congratulations. I am glad you felt you made the right decision. But just because criminals should not have weapons does not mean that I should be disarmed and handicapped from defending myself.
Tugging at peoples' heart strings is not a logical, level headed, compassionate manner, I'm sorry. It is a display of emotional appeal to sway the position of people in the middle and people who don't know any better.
"If you care about the children, support this legislation." That is an appeal to emotion and holds no water. Just because you oppose any measures of gun control does not mean you hate children.
I respect your right to choose not to own a gun but I don't feel that should be projected back at me.
If TL;DR then don't read it and tell me I won.
It was another person's status but here is our back and forth:
count: Give me one good reason that any law abiding citizen needs a clip with more than 10 rounds.
Me: You using the word "clip" shows how misinformed you are. A device that holds rounds in a firearm is called a "magazine."
Secondly, why are we setting terms for the good guys who follow the law when bad guys operate out of the scope of the law 24/7? I think if I were to be attacked or my house were to be invaded, I would be the one being victimized, not the criminal. Why should the criminal be victimized and allowed an advantage when he is the one hurting me?
Third, if you were defending your own children, why would you need to be handicapped if the criminal wasn't? What if you were facing multiple attackers? Criminals don't care about the law and never will. They will try anything in their power to take from good law abiding citizens, even if it means taking their life too.
And in case you didn't know the definition of a criminal:
crim·i·nal
adjective \'kri-m?-n?l, 'krim-n?l\
Definition of CRIMINAL
1
: relating to, involving, or being a crime <criminal neglect>
2
: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime <criminal statistics> <brought criminal action>
3
: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal <a criminal mind>
4
I don't see anything about them following laws
count: Yes Bapple, I am not an expert in gun terminology. If magazines with fewer rounds can save the life of one innocent child it is worth it. 60per cent of people in the country are in favor of this. Doesn't that tell u something. Anyone opposed to such a ban is insensitive to the tragic death of those babies.
Me: This argument again?
More children are killed by abusive parents than firearms every year.
More children are killed by drunk drivers than firearms every year.
More children are killed by blunt objects than firearms every year.
More children are killed by fists and legs than by firearms every year.
"But if it saves 1 life"... Yea right.
If you really want to help protect children, get to the ROOT of the problem. Guns are not the root of the problem. They are merely tools.
______, way to dodge by comments. I'm trying to have a real discussion with you.
Also, your last statement is a fallacy. Just because one is opposed to a ban does not make said person a baby killer. This an obvious appeal to emotion.
count: The fewer such guns that are in circulation the less chance of them falling into the hand of criminals. It is quite logical. The more of these
Me: So because it would make you "feel better", we should disarm law abiding citizens? And just because it "scares" you, we should disarm law abiding citizens? Just making sure I have this straight...
count: The solution is not more guns. We need to reduce the # in circulation. Also I take offense to your demeaning our president. I am so proud of the logical, level headed, compassionate manner that he has responding to one if the greatest tragedies of our timer and I am so proud that I, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for him.
Me: Well congratulations. I am glad you felt you made the right decision. But just because criminals should not have weapons does not mean that I should be disarmed and handicapped from defending myself.
Tugging at peoples' heart strings is not a logical, level headed, compassionate manner, I'm sorry. It is a display of emotional appeal to sway the position of people in the middle and people who don't know any better.
"If you care about the children, support this legislation." That is an appeal to emotion and holds no water. Just because you oppose any measures of gun control does not mean you hate children.
I respect your right to choose not to own a gun but I don't feel that should be projected back at me.
If TL;DR then don't read it and tell me I won.
This post was edited on 1/16/13 at 6:32 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News