In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles

a reply to: AmericanRealist

statistics can really be interpreted in so many ways. when looking at that, I havnt done the math or anything, but it sure does look like the numbers are greater when democrats are in office. Not saying it the cause, just an interesting tidbit. It begs the question on whether it is an interesting coincidence or an emerging pattern.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

You are going to screw up the works with genuine statistics people can verify for themselves. What are the party line regurgitation specialists supposed to do now? You ruined everything. Nice going...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SM2

So what are you left with? A very small number of actual civilian gun homicides?

No, an average of two or three per day in Chicago alone. I guess that's an acceptable sacrifice so that frightened people can delude themselves into thinking that guns make them safe.

I don't know about you, but I resent the fact that ordinary people are being treated like potential criminals in public places. I resent that children are being taught what to do in the event of a mass shooting at school. I am completely fed up with the NRA's lies and bribes to create the climate of fear underlying our diseased "gun culture." The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to allow every lunatic to have a gun, it is to organize the community to provide for its mutual self defense. The NRA has been actively working to undermine this. It has divided the electorate... and what happens when a people are divided?

Ummm, Chicago HAS gun control.
I agree, it is NOT working out

Locales that instead allow not only guns but even Conceal Carry permits, have a BETTER outcome

Let's look at actual facts, for example this study from the University of Chicago :

The results of this paper support the hypothesis that concealed handgun or shall issue laws reduce the number of multiple victim public shootings.
www.sfu.ca...

a reply to: M5xaz

Ummm, Chicago HAS gun control.
I agree, it is NOT working out

Neighboring Indiana does not, making it rife for black marketeering.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are going to screw up the works with genuine statistics people can verify for themselves.

The misdirection in the OP is positively Clintonian. What percentage of mass murders were committed with knives and bare hands? What percentage with military style rifles? Isn't that the relevant statistic?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are going to screw up the works with genuine statistics people can verify for themselves.

The misdirection in the OP is positively Clintonian. What percentage of mass murders were committed with knives and bare hands? What percentage with military style rifles? Isn't that the relevant statistic?

From the same study cited above, made with nearly 20 years' data across ALL States:

We also find that shall issue laws (ed. allowing conceal carry) deter both the number of multiple shootings and the amount of harm per shooting. Finally, because the presence of citizens with concealed handguns may be able to stop attacks before the police are able to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence on the reduction in severity of those crimes that still take place.

how many mass killings were done by one man kicking and punching people to death?
another dumb thread started by an idiot, trying to defend draconian gun laws.

a reply to: M5xaz

And yet an armed off-duty policeman at the Pulse nightclub was unable to prevent the slaughter. The presence of Air Force personnel at a cinema in Colorado was unable to prevent a massacre there. A whole Army base was powerless against a kook with a grudge. Why do I suspect the NRA may have funded that research project?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

And yet an armed off-duty policeman at the Pulse nightclub was unable to prevent the slaughter. The presence of Air Force personnel at a cinema in Colorado was unable to prevent a massacre there. A whole Army base was powerless against a kook with a grudge. Why do I suspect the NRA may have funded that research project?

Suspicions driven by lack of information
- the administration FORBIDS soldiers from carrying weapons (Fort Hood)

And with respect to the Pulse nightclub, you provided an excellent counterexample:
- if those 50 patrons had been armed, far fewer innocent people would have died

articles.chicagotribune.com... ers

a reply to: M5xaz

And with respect to the Pulse nightclub, you provided an excellent counterexample:
- if those 50 patrons had been armed, far fewer innocent people would have died

...because a bunch of club kids would be very careful to avoid crossfire when they took their shot against a maniac with an "assault weapon."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

And with respect to the Pulse nightclub, you provided an excellent counterexample:
- if those 50 patrons had been armed, far fewer innocent people would have died

...because a bunch of club kids would be very careful to avoid crossfire when they took their shot against a maniac with an "assault weapon."

...because 50 people shooting at the killer would have ensured he stopped/died relatively quickly.

What stops a mass public shooting is a person with a gun. Frequently it isn't even necessary to fire the gun. But the length of time between when an attack starts and when someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun is crucial in determining how many people get killed or wounded.
articles.chicagotribune.com... ers

a reply to: DJW001

Neighboring Indiana does not, making it rife for black marketeering.

By definition, these sales are... wait for it... already illegal.

So somehow enacting yet more infringements upon one of the very few rights which are set aside as belonging to we, the people (and one of only 4 references to "the people" thus further emphasizing how important it is we under stand that the entire population is included withing what is meant by "the people") of the United States of America is going to convince criminals to abide by that one final law whereas human decency (and, oh, it's already illegal to kill someone) should keep them from wanting to harm another individual for purposes other than self defense in the first place.

If someone has gotten to the mental space wherein killing another human is ok, then there is no law in the world that will keep them fro doing that.

Poof! Guns all disappear!

Then what? Do people stop killing one another?

Knives, bludgeons, cars, explosives, a pencil driven through their eye socket, etc., etc., ad infintium.

The motive for violence and the environments in which the idea that dealing death to another for purposes other than self defense is acceptable.

Those two areas are where focus of effort should be made. Not being distracted by people who would rather you pay attention to an item rather than their motives and environments.

a reply to: DJW001

I think the solution to that, is he should have been posted with a visible rifle. And the fact that multiple witnesses reported multiple shootings. This Orlando event is officially in false flag territory as far as I am concerned.

it started with Aurora, but the kills were not high enough. So the ones giving Obama the orders then facilitated Sandy Hook. It got close, but only a few states followed suite. So they waited a few years, picked a target that was already socially sensitive demographic due o current events. Once Obama declared June LGBT month, that was the signal for whoever left the UN arms treaty to go to Bilderberg and set the chain of events into motion. Orlando was an ordered hit made possible by a UN allied private security (CIA) company with the intent to utilize NDAA 2012 propaganda against the American people. And the first thing they say is "Ban the Rifles" . Well rifles are literally the least dangerous of these firearms when we factor in actual gun killings. Thus the premise of my op.

it does not matter if there is a lack of mass killings by feet and knives. Technically mass shootings are about as infrequent as targeted arson. If it is illegal to cause arson, and illegal to murder with any weapon, how does banning the rifle which is responsible for the least gun deaths in America (or least murders with a weapon at all for that matter) solve anything???

There were still mass shootings in the 1990's when the Assault weapons ban was in place, and they claimed virtually the same volume of lives in the same time frame after it expired. In both 16 year periods, the rifle was least responsible. Why is it the first target??

When a bomber kills, we blame the individual not the bomb. When a DUI driver kills, we blame the individual not the car. When a gunman kills, suddenly its the guns fault?
In my op, I did not mention mass shootings except in the context that they are rarely if ever used in mass shootings.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The motive for violence and the environments in which the idea that dealing death to another for purposes other than self defense is acceptable.

Which is why the NRA is to be faulted for making deadly force an acceptable option at any time and place.

Those two areas are where focus of effort should be made. Not being distracted by people who would rather you pay attention to an item rather than their motives and environments.

Again, it is the NRA which has a vested, commercial interest in keeping violence acceptable. I happen to agree with you here: the problem is not the guns, it is the culture. The media portray guns as symbols of power. The NRA tries to convince you that owning a gun makes you safe (when the statistics indicate you are more likely to lose a family member to accidental violence!)

One step towards "de-mythologizing" guns is to require gun owners to attend periodic "musters," in which they learn not only how to care for their weapons and how to aim and fire them, but when to use them, when not to use them, and how to apply military tactics in a crisis situation... in other words, to act as a civilian militia.

Look at the situation at Orlando. Someone opens fire in a disco. Fifty untrained kids panic and start shooting at each other. The situation might have ended quicker, but the death toll would have been the same. Now imagine that the few young adults that were carrying had spent a weekend every other month drilling for precisely these sorts of "urban combat" crisis scenarios. No-one would fire until the target was identified and they had a clear shot. No-one's rights would have been violated. The citizen militiamen and -women would safely exercise their right to bear arms, and the club kids could exercise their right to assemble without fear of being killed.

It is not without reason the the avidly "pro Second Amendment" RNC has banned guns from their convention.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are going to screw up the works with genuine statistics people can verify for themselves.

The misdirection in the OP is positively Clintonian. What percentage of mass murders were committed with knives and bare hands? What percentage with military style rifles? Isn't that the relevant statistic?

It is good to see that critical thinking is not dead.

originally posted by: DJW001

It is not without reason the the avidly "pro Second Amendment" RNC has banned guns from their convention.

The ultimate hypocrisy of this move, and the very valid reason behind it, combine to stun the mind.

This is represented in my mind by the image of that dweeb Mitch McConnell limply holding a rifle above his head in his last re-election campaign like a talisman of impotency.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

And yet an armed off-duty policeman at the Pulse nightclub was unable to prevent the slaughter. The presence of Air Force personnel at a cinema in Colorado was unable to prevent a massacre there. A whole Army base was powerless against a kook with a grudge. Why do I suspect the NRA may have funded that research project?

As for the "whole army base was powerless" comment....that is because Clinton signed off on making it illegal for military to carry weapons on military bases. The regulation change authorized only military law enforcement and qualified personnel engaged in security work to carry a weapon on base, and Ft. Hood, unless I am mistaken happened in the mess hall...no MP or security check points there.

Ever notice how these lunatics target places where they know there will no resistance? They all happen in gun free zones.

a reply to: SM2

As for the "whole army base was powerless" comment....that is because Clinton signed off on making it illegal for military to carry weapons on military bases. The regulation change authorized only military law enforcement and qualified personnel engaged in security work to carry a weapon on base, and Ft. Hood, unless I am mistaken happened in the mess hall...no MP or security check points there.

And no assurance that a couple of MPs were not having lunch wearing their sidearms. Ever notice how doughnut shops never seem to get robbed? Thieves make rational choices, madmen do not.

Ever notice how these lunatics target places where they know there will no resistance? They all happen in gun free zones.

Lunatics don't care about the possible presence of guns. They are insane, remember? They don't really care how soft a target is, they are concerned with the potential body count. Every mass murder in the past few years, whether colored by "Islamic terrorism" or not, has been a case of police assisted suicide.

a reply to: DJW001

if lunatics truly don't care about the possible presence of guns, then why are these atrocities ALWAYS committed in a gun free zone? So apparently they do care how soft a target is.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

And with respect to the Pulse nightclub, you provided an excellent counterexample:
- if those 50 patrons had been armed, far fewer innocent people would have died

...because a bunch of club kids would be very careful to avoid crossfire when they took their shot against a maniac with an "assault weapon."

You are part of the propaganda machine, aren't you?

I love how you call the victims "kids" and brand the gun an "assault weapon". We all know it was not an assault rifle. It was a semi-auto rifle, which by definition, is not an assault rifle. And the victims were not kids, they were adults. But it doesn't sound anywhere near as horrific if you call it what it really is does it...

You make a lot of assumptions when it is convenient for your argument, but offer no room for assumption to the opposing view. Nothing but agenda to see here...