NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

What an interesting proposal!

Hmm.....lemme think.... OK, how about no?

What a bunch of idiots!

My guns are none of their (or anyone else's) business.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: mazzroth
It makes your blood boil that your guns are being taking away. I would ask why. What possible reason could you feel that emotional about your government trying to reduce gun related death rates? I genuinely don't understand...

Is it fear of being shot and unable to shoot back?
Scared of immigrants with guns?
Won't be able to shoot as many animals as before?
You don't have the amendment BS to fall back on so I would genuinely like to know why you NEED this gun. I don't know what you have been subjected to in MSM and education but it does seem strange to me.

Ha! His guns are being taken away? Really? Republicans own both houses of the legislature and The SCOTUS has already spanked the President's pee pee on executive overreach through both regulation and executive orders. Polls show Americans aren't on board with gun grabbing either. The polls are not even close. it's like 9 to one against. So as much as you may wish it would happen; it isn't. Anti-gun types are completely powerless to enact their wishes against the will of the people. Saying the same fallacious things over and over and having embarrassing public tantrums will not alter reality.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
After every act of terror we are told we should not judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few...

Isn't it time the 80 million gun owners in American get the same treatment?

Yeah!........what Murgatroid said!

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Yep. Animals do. The don't carry guns however. Also, I don't know about you, but when I need food - I simply walk to the supermarket or visit a restaurant. No guns required. If I have a dispute with somebody, I either talk it through until we find a solution - or we go to court. And if I lose - I lose. Gnashing of teeth, but no clicking of guns, thank you. I'm actually quite pleased to be part of that weakened humanity that thinks that shooting others is barbaric

Yea way to lose the context. Your food is pumped full of things that are just as bad as a bullet. Won't kill you as fast but it will still kill you. Like I said if you actually comprehended what I wrote, the tools we will need to survive any situation where the social structure collapses will need to be in the common mans hands not being held by those who presume to lead us. As for the barbarity of killing, we get all sorts of revolving door criminals who get released in short order and resume the activities that got them incarcerated in the first place.

Link

A Brooklyn gangbanger who was busted twice in 10 days on charges of carrying illegal, loaded guns was set loose on a measly $1,000 bail Sunday.

Prosecutors had asked that Junior Regis, 23, a member of the Brooklyn’s Most Wanted gang with a lengthy rap sheet, be either remanded to jail or slapped with a $500,000 bail after he was nabbed the second time for gun possession.

But Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Genine Edwards, who has been filling in at Criminal Court to help clear a case backlog, gave Regis the paltry bail, which he easily posted.

So here we have a man breaking the guns laws of NY, who as a felon is not allowed by law to purchase or own a firearm set loose by our civilized court system. The laws are being enforced by emotions and ideals and not justice. Can you comprehend why the idea of more laws gets tedious from a pro-gun stand point? If the standards get changed under the guise of being PC what good are they? Civilization is more barbarous than being primitive at times.

a reply to: hangedman13

A classic example of a law on the books, being ignored by the courts.

Judicial discretion is a real problem. I know it was meant to be a part of Judicial Independence, but when laws are ignored and not upheld, what is the point of having them?

That "gangbanger" should be in jail for the foreseeable future.

Comparing the irrational burning of books to the fear of deadly weapons

Lost all credibility there, OP

originally posted by: Murgatroid
After every act of terror we are told we should not judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few...

Of course we should not judge anybody based on the actions of a few.

But the guns should go nevertheless.

It's quite normal for anybody to do risk analysis. You carefully balance the benefits of using something against the costs that usage has. There is a pseudo-formula you can use: R= I x P; the risk equals the impact (of something going wrong) times the probability (of it going wrong). Now, if there is a high risk, you try to either compensate it using some kind of control(s), or you simply do not use the risky procedure / process / instrument. As a rule of thumb: the costs you have to make to prevent the risk (or accept it, or insure against it) should never exceed the benefits.

Now, when I do a risk analysis on gun ownership, I see a very high risk. 30.000+ times each year a person is shot dead in the US. There are no real benefits either: there is high impact (death) and a high probability (30.000+ times per annum).

So, anybody with half a brain understands that guns are risky and should be avoided, or at least forms of additional controls should be used. Muslim terrorism has actually not really much to do with it, it's just a matter of logical thinking.

a reply to: ForteanOrg
Alcohol accounts for 88,000 deaths per year. It is the leading cause of preventable deaths.
Why don't you start a thread urging prohibition of alcohol? If you jump on that bandwagon, you might save more than twice as many people.
CDC

a reply to: ForteanOrg

But there's also the flip side of the argument. We also have to balance those numbers against the fact that we have perhaps as many as 100 million legal firearms owners, and statistically, we know that the overwhelming majority are law-abiding and will not commit a violent crime with their firearm in their lifetimes. What of their rights? I'm not speaking only of their right to own a firearm, but also their right to due process.

Forget the damn gun issue for a moment. Why should any individual lose *any* of their rights if they've committed no crime?

Ok so I hope I don't get much abuse, please don't I am only asking a NOOB question and not in anyway agreeing with the article, but can someone please tell me what exactly they need an assault gun for that a normal rifle or gun will not do?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xtrozero

Guns don't do it for me.....

Like I said correct me if I am wrong.... I assumed the term assault rifle was referring to either semi or automatic rifles...

AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, an assault is military use full automatic. Not really a big deal other than anything not with a wood stock is an evil assault rifle. Its like people want to band guns on their looks.

GH


Please excuse my lack of knowledge here.....so they want to remove rifles like AR15s....? Are you able to modify these into automatics and how many rounds do the hold?.... I'm not sure I get it but from what you are saying these rifles are essentially hunting rifles not military ....so what then is the point of taking them... It doesn't make sense as just as many people could be killed with handguns.....

I know I could research this I would rather hear from someone with knowledge on the matter

Because they have been deemed as evil and its black so AR15 = the first step to total gun ban or very heavy regulation including ammo regulation.

Obama is on record and I have watched the interview where he says he believes no civilian in the entire world should own a gun. Only military and Police.

Ar15 can hold a 100 round drum or a 30 round mag down to a 5 round mag.

AR15 can be modified to full auto with a lot of effort or simpler and legal is to just put on a slide fire stock.. It is basically a M16 platform, but the real reason they want to get rid of it is they can tag it as an evil assault weapon so that will be the first step to heavy regulation or total ban.

Fact is there are millions of Remington 750 rifles out there (semi auto) in all sorts of calibers but in particular you can get 10 round mags and they probably sell them modified to even more capacity and a 30-06 has a hell of a lot more fire power than an Ar15.

Think of half of a gun that Clyde Barrow used.

As far as AR10s and AR15's - Left-tards dont get why AR15s make such great hunting rifles.
Switch uppers to a different caliber in 15 seconds, low recoil etc.
Very light, very short and handy.
Very easy to disassemble and clean.

Then you hear the excuse of nobody needs a high capacity mag to hunt = BS.

Well they havnt hunted hogs...

One after noon in one session my cousin emptied two 20 round mags and half of a 30 round mags killing hogs that had invaded one of his fields over a period of about 15 minutes. There were about 20-25 of them and he got most of them.

Hogs are basically like giant rats and are a scourge and the AR15 is a perfect weapon for that and also good for home defense with the correct bullets.

Piers, the leftist communist who was so outspokenly against the AR15 is a sell out that knows nothing about what he was blathering. It used to literally make me ill to watch him.

If your family gets attacked, and it could happen with the way things are going with the muzzies, an AR15 a Semi auto shotgun and a pistol are good to have around.

Of course Obama probably wants everybody to lay down there arms, accept Sharia law and be nice to radical muzzies and everybody sing Kumbia.

Crazy murdering assholes will always be around and if they cant find a gun then they will build a pipe bomb or some other screwed up weapon.

Fact is more people are killed with blunt instruments than guns.

Its not the weapon -> Its the nut behind the trigger.

The reason the communist left-tard TPTB want a total ban is for control.

Once weapons are gone TPTB can do anything they want just like they did in Nazi Germany.

originally posted by: russ2102
Ok so I hope I don't get much abuse, please don't I am only asking a NOOB question and not in anyway agreeing with the article, but can someone please tell me what exactly they need an assault gun for that a normal rifle or gun will not do?

What's an assault gun?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

So, anybody with half a brain understands that guns are risky and should be avoided, or at least forms of additional controls should be used. Muslim terrorism has actually not really much to do with it, it's just a matter of logical thinking.

You think so, lets look at history....

Thankyou for taking the time to explain that

originally posted by: fishy6
Fact is there are millions of Remington 750 rifles out there (semi auto) in all sorts of calibers but in particular you can get 10 round mags and they probably sell them modified to even more capacity and a 30-06 has a hell of a lot more fire power than an Ar15.

And that, in a nutshell, is why those pushing the 'Assault Weapons Ban' may as well be pi$$ing in the wind. Not only is it almost impossible to define the term, the market will find ways to adapt, either by re-purposing 'hunting' rifles such as that Remington 750, or with new designs. One of my absolute favorite examples of the futility of this can be found in the Feinstein ban proposal from 2013, which explicitly banned and explicitly exempted from the ban two versions of the Ruger Mini-14 based purely on cosmetic features...yet both are semi-automatic, they both fire .223/5.56 and they both accept 30+ round magazines.

Furthermore, you touch on another inevitable adaptation of the market. Limit magazine capacity, and the market will shift away from weaker rounds like .223/5.56 and 7.62x39 towards more powerful chamberings such as .308 and .30-06 in an effort to compensate for the reduced capacity. For the same reason, the tactical 12 gauge, which I'd argue is actually far more dangerous in the wrong hands than an AR-15, will make a comeback. And likewise, you'll see a similar shift in handguns away from 9mm and towards .40S&W, 45ACP and perhaps back to .357 magnum revolvers.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: peskyhumans
"The most humane thing to do is arm law abiding citizens". That comment is why I try to not get involved in the threads. You genuinely belive that to be the solution. Can you name a single mass shooting killer that wasn't law abiding at one point.having a permit does not absolve you from commiting crimes in the future.we have all committed crimes so the statement of law abiding doesn't even mean anything in society.

I apologise if you didn't mean to write humane and I am picking up on a spelling mistake cos that is a terrible thing to say. Humane and guns should never be in the same sentence outside farming and hunting.

I did mean to say humane. It's also both the moral and just thing to do.

You're proposing that our government restrict people's rights based on what they might do in the future. That's not how free countries are supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty is how punishing crime is supposed to work. Going about it any other way is tyranny.

Law abiding does mean something in society and it's just dumb to suggest otherwise. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding and use their firearms responsibly, which is why CCW and stand your ground would be the most effective way to stop future mass shootings. The police aren't going to arrive at the scene before a mass shooter has killed a lot of people. However should a shooter target your local school and your teachers are CCW holders, they are able to respond immediately and protect the students.

CCW saves lives and as such is is the most humane way to prevent mass shootings. We have already seen what the alternative is like: gun control and relying entirely on the police for protection is how we end up with what happened in Colombine, Paris, San Bernadino, and so many others.

Guns save lives and stop crime, history shows gun control kills.


These are commercials so I don't think I can post the links so go to youtube and enter this, my two favorite..




Wrong Convenience Store Glock Commercial Awesome!

and

Wrong Girl - Extended Version - Glock & Gunny

a reply to: DBCowboy

What's an assault gun?

It's a semi auto high capacity revolver ...

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Murgatroid
After every act of terror we are told we should not judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few...

Of course we should not judge anybody based on the actions of a few.

But the guns should go nevertheless.

It's quite normal for anybody to do risk analysis. You carefully balance the benefits of using something against the costs that usage has. There is a pseudo-formula you can use: R= I x P; the risk equals the impact (of something going wrong) times the probability (of it going wrong). Now, if there is a high risk, you try to either compensate it using some kind of control(s), or you simply do not use the risky procedure / process / instrument. As a rule of thumb: the costs you have to make to prevent the risk (or accept it, or insure against it) should never exceed the benefits.

Now, when I do a risk analysis on gun ownership, I see a very high risk. 30.000+ times each year a person is shot dead in the US. There are no real benefits either: there is high impact (death) and a high probability (30.000+ times per annum).

So, anybody with half a brain understands that guns are risky and should be avoided, or at least forms of additional controls should be used. Muslim terrorism has actually not really much to do with it, it's just a matter of logical thinking.

What you just posted was fantastically stupid bull#.

How many of those 30,000 deaths were caused by a homeowner protecting their home and family, and saved more lives than they took?

How many of those 30,000 deaths were caused by law enforcement, who would remain armed and continue to be violent even if guns were confiscated from civilians?

How many of those 30,000 deaths were the result of a premeditated murder where the gunman would simply have resorted to some other tool to carry out his crime if a gun were not available?

How many of those 30,000 deaths were carried out using illegal guns that further gun control wouldn't have stopped anyway?

Also if you would like to talk statistics I have some for you. Some of the most common ways to die in the United States:
health.howstuffworks.com...

Where you live has a good deal to do with how you will die. In the United States, the top two causes of death are responsible for more than 50 percent of the annual death toll. In the world at large, there's a lot more variety in how you meet your Maker. Here is our list of the 15 most common causes of death in the United States:

Cause
Percent of Total
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5
2. Malignant tumors 22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4
11. Suicide 1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7
Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System

Less than 1% of the deaths in the United States are homicide, and only a portion of those would be caused by firearms. This is what real math looks like. Stop using math stupidly.

There is hope for those who get it....