It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

page: 23
62
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Here's some more: Americans are twice as likely to be murdered by a handgun than any other type of weapon. Almost 70% of all homicides are committed with handguns . About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.

Now ask yourself why the gungrabbers want to ban assault weapons.




In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.

NOW.... Why wouldn't they include FATAL violent crimes where a firearm was used? Maybe the victim killing the assailant would skew the numbers the wrong way?







posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Sounds like a good question to me?

You're in favor of felons being able to purchase guns?

Yeah, try to spin it Neo. The statistics are nation-wide. Another swing-and-a-miss.

No other comments about the stats? What was the source of your 0.00001% comment or whatever it was?

Surely you don't want us to think you're just making stuff up, right? Source it?

Please, and thank you.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Another good question is, "Why are they so concerned with banning those scary rifles, when clearly more people are killed with handguns?"

I repeat, is that their idea of "common sense legislation"?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'd guess Rate of fire? Potential to cause mass-harm on the scale of military attack? I'm not a fan of the assault-weapon ban.

I don't know any "gun grabbers" except that silly person Feinstein. I'd be the first to admit it's time for her to retire.

Why don't you find that statistic and share it with us? The point is that 90$ of those non-fatal victimizations were committed with handguns and only 1% of those people (or "the good guys") defended themselves with the 350 million or so guns we always hear makes us safer.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

Another good question is, "Why are they so concerned with banning those scary rifles, when clearly more people are killed with handguns?"

I repeat, is that their idea of "common sense legislation"?


What specific legislation are you referring to, and I'll answer to the best of my ability?

By banning, do you mean assault rifles? Yeah, I'm not a fan of that effort.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

FYI: Rate of fir of a semi-auto rifle is THE SAME as a semi-auto handgun. One trigger pull, one bullet. Same...same...same. Next false accusation?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

FYI: Rate of fir of a semi-auto rifle is THE SAME as a semi-auto handgun. One trigger pull, one bullet. Same...same...same. Next false accusation?


Quote the accusation you're referring to.

I answered your question in good faith (btw, you didn't refer to semi-auto rifle or handgun you said "banning those scary rifles", just for the sake of honesty.)
edit on 23-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You were asked why they want to ban the "assault rifles". Your reply, "rate of fire". To which I pointed out they are the same between that class of rifle and a semi-auto handgun. And, for the record Mr Pedantic, semi-auto is the class we were discussing, not cap pistols. Derf.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Why don't you find that statistic and share it with us? The point is that 90$ of those non-fatal victimizations were committed with handguns and only 1% of those people (or "the good guys") defended themselves with the 350 million or so guns we always hear makes us safer.

If guns 'don't make you safer',

why the hell is Hillary surrounded by them wherever she goes?
Why is Obama surrounded by people toting guns... wherever he goes?
Why is it that Anti-gun Ted Kennedy had problems flying on airlines with his bodyguards ..... hint (they were armed)?
If those guns don't make these rich and powerful anti-gun bastards safer, why the hell do they surround themselves with guns???

edit on b000000302016-06-23T15:15:37-05:0003America/ChicagoThu, 23 Jun 2016 15:15:37 -0500300000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

You were asked why they want to ban the "assault rifles". Your reply, "rate of fire". To which I pointed out they are the same between that class of rifle and a semi-auto handgun. And, for the record Mr Pedantic, semi-auto is the class we were discussing, not cap pistols. Derf.


LOL ... "Mr. Pedantic" ... that's funny when you;re the one who jumped on something someone else was asking and then take it on yourself to clarify it for them.

Did you miss anywhere in there that I've stated I'm not in support of the "Ban" on assault rifles? Guess that doesn't fit into your narrative though, huh, "Derpy"?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




You're in favor of felons being able to purchase guns?


Try reading that AGAIN.



Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than a year?


Talk about swing and missing.

Could imprison.

ANY other crime.

Thats speeding, and jay walking for those that ARE NOT paying attention.




No other comments about the stats?


That TRASH ?

Yeah I have a few.

From figure 1

1993 to 2000.

There was a downward trend.

Virtually NO EFFECT from Clintons ASWB and Brady 'law'.

From 2000 to 2008 not much change.

From 2008 to 2011 even with the assault weapons ban sunset. Not much movement.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66



Why don't you find that statistic and share it with us? The point is that 90$ of those non-fatal victimizations were committed with handguns and only 1% of those people (or "the good guys") defended themselves with the 350 million or so guns we always hear makes us safer.

If guns 'don't make you safer',

why the hell is Hillary surrounded by them wherever she goes?
Why is Obama surrounded by people toting guns... wherever he goes?
Why is it that Anti-gun Ted Kennedy had problems flying on airlines with his bodyguards ..... hint (they were armed)?
If those guns don't make these rich and powerful anti-gun bastards safer, why the hell do they surround themselves with guns???


Hmmm ... Secret Service Agents exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Is there a law they have to be armed? They're there to protect, right?

Same as Mr. Trump's detail? Or Mr. Bush's?

Not really sure what you're on about. I made a specific comment about a specific statistic.

Now, if you'd like to be civil and ask me a question without all the partisan hoo-haa, I'd be glad to respond.

Unless someone else wants to clarify your comments for you again ...



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66



Why don't you find that statistic and share it with us? The point is that 90$ of those non-fatal victimizations were committed with handguns and only 1% of those people (or "the good guys") defended themselves with the 350 million or so guns we always hear makes us safer.

If guns 'don't make you safer',

why the hell is Hillary surrounded by them wherever she goes?
Why is Obama surrounded by people toting guns... wherever he goes?
Why is it that Anti-gun Ted Kennedy had problems flying on airlines with his bodyguards ..... hint (they were armed)?
If those guns don't make these rich and powerful anti-gun bastards safer, why the hell do they surround themselves with guns???


Hmmm ... Secret Service Agents exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Is there a law they have to be armed? They're there to protect, right?

Same as Mr. Trump's detail? Or Mr. Bush's?

Not really sure what you're on about. I made a specific comment about a specific statistic.

Now, if you'd like to be civil and ask me a question without all the partisan hoo-haa, I'd be glad to respond.

Unless someone else wants to clarify your comments for you again ...

Yes, that's right... you don't understtand what I am asking!
Whether you are playing stupid or.... the other option, it doesn't look good on you.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Are you under indictment for a crime Neo? I mean, if you're not, did you mind answering "No."? that much???

Still not going to give the source on your comment? Typical Neo. /sigh

I'm happy that gun violence has decreased as well! It's still a factor in 70-90% of all violent crimes.

Which is more than enough reason to keep and expand background checks, right?


edit on 23-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You want to ask questions but aren't much on answering them.

/shrug

What was the line from that movie? "Stupid is as stupid does?"

Ask a reasonable question rather than pretending that only Democrats have security details and I'll give you a better answer.

If not, well, read the quote again.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

You want to ask questions but aren't much on answering them.

/shrug

What was the line from that movie? "Stupid is as stupid does?"

Ask a reasonable question rather than pretending that only Democrats have security details and I'll give you a better answer.

If not, well, read the quote again.

My point is that the gungrabbers that say guns are dangerous are surrounded by guns.... for their own safety.

How much simpler can one make it?

Sorry if you can't grasp it.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Are you under indictment for a crime Neo?


Stop TROLLING.



Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than a year?


What does that SAY ?




Which is more than enough reason to keep and expand background checks, right?


Wrong.

Marteen passed a background check.

Lanza killed his mother.

San Bernadino used a straw buyer.

Expand them to WHAT ?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Trolling? I was responding to your claims about forms you have to fill out to buy guns!

I admit it's a backward example for the point you're trying to make, but, that's your issue not mine.

I believe the effort is to expand the checks to all gun sales, including intrastate and gun shows, and private.

Mateen passed a background check, two or more different psychological profiles and direct investigation by the FBI.

Are you SURE that's what you want to use for your example of why we DON'T need background checks?


SM2

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The question is what are the DEMOCRATS complaining about ?

Over 100 million sold in the last few years.

A TOTAL over 300 million exist.

And yet not even .01 % is used in the commission of crimes.


I believe they'd like to see universal background checks for all firearms, not just the 60% or so that are traded through licensed gun dealers. I believe they'd also like to limit the number of potential terrorists who can purchase weapons in a week or so. As best I recall.

LOL ... what an interesting statistic.

Here's some more:

Americans are twice as likely to be murdered by a handgun than any other type of weapon.

Almost 70% of all homicides are committed with handguns.

About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.

In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.


Firearm Violence 1993 -2011 (Bureau of Justice)


Where do you get that stat that only 60% of firearms are traded through licensed dealers? That is a complete fallacy.

"But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not. Even Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that the statistic may not be accurate in a speech at a mayoral conference on Jan. 17. Biden prefaced his claim that “about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system” by saying that “because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct.”

www.factcheck.org...


"Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 that isn’t yet published. The national survey of 4,000 non-institutionalized adults found that 22 percent of the people who purchased guns -- at gun shows, stores or elsewhere -- underwent no background check, said Matthew Miller, professor of Health Sciences and Epidemiology at Northeastern University and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check."

www.politifact.com...


In all actuality, it is probably lower still. Whenever I go to a gun show, there is maybe 1 or 2 tables in the hundreds there with a private seller selling off all or part of their collection. Anything other then that does require a Federal Firearms License and a background check. If you are selling off a couple of guns to thin out the collection or make room for something new, thats fine. If you buy a gun or refurbish a gun with the intent to resell it, you are a dealer and need the FFL. So, this 60% number and the "gun show loop hole" are pure lies told by con artists trying to separate people from money and property. To the people that actually know the law and do purchase weapons, the people that parrot these BS catch phrases and bogus numbers look like complete fools.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not a gungrabber.

Speaking of simple: You say that guns make us safer. I asked for the statistic that proves that. The statistic I gave does not.

It's not a matter of my "not being able to grasp it" ... drop the silly attempts to insult. Makes your case look weak.



new topics




 
62
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join