Mass shootings... Guns ..... Or Drugs? - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 93
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: Mass shootings... Guns ..... Or Drugs?

  1. #41
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It doesn't mean that at all. Why would someone spend that amount of money for something that just collects dust? In fact I would argue that rifles are used more than other types of guns.

    This is just your home state of CO

    Big Game | Colorado Parks and Wildlife
    I can say...without a doubt...you do not need to have ALLL the kinds of rifles that are available in existence right now in order to effectively hunt.

    We could easily put regulations that I think would cover what Alissa might be referring to as "Assault Rifles"...and still have plenty of proper firearms to actually hunt things with. Everything from squirrel to moose.

    The trick is in the details. And i actually do think this part is very tricky.

    ETA: I should not say "we could easily"...i think it will take some time to come up with the specifics on what is banned and what isn't, not really all that easy. Not anywhere close to impossible though.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 01-08-2013 at 02:27 PM.

  2. #42
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Wow you sure make a lot of assumptions about something that I haven't even expressed an opinion on yet.
    Then by alll means, express your opinion.

  3. #43
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    [QUOTE=GloriaInTX;9039602]
    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Gloria, I think that Alyssa and I are both responding to this statement of yours ~



    Where exactly did anyone say anything about animals until you just did? Alissa said that the only reason for these guns are to kill PEOPLE.

    Yes, I'm throwing you a bone here and acknowledging that one other useful purpose of guns would be to kill animals. You said that guns are being used for all sort of reasons OTHER than to kill people. So I'm saying, okay hunting. Your turn. Name one.

  4. #44
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,254

    Default

    [QUOTE=Potter75;9039598]Gloria, I think that Alyssa and I are both responding to this statement of yours ~

    There are millions of these guns that are out there that people are using for reasons other than killing people/QUOTE]

    You seem to imply that these millions of guns are being employed for numerous industrious purposes, like, flossing and land hoeing or something, not just killing people and/or animals. I think that we are both asking you to name a few of these other reasons.
    Why yes, guns are used for "millions" of other reasons than just killing people. There's robbing a bank, taking a hostage, threatening others, celebrating New Year's Eve, killing a snake up a tree, pretending you are Wyatt Earp. Oh, maybe there aren't millions.
    Potter75 likes this.

  5. #45
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    I can say...without a doubt...you do not need to have ALLL the kinds of rifles that are available in existence right now in order to effectively hunt.

    We could easily put regulations that I think would cover what Alissa might be referring to as "Assault Rifles"...and still have plenty of proper firearms to actually hunt things with. Everything from squirrel to moose.

    The trick is in the details. And i actually do think this part is very tricky.

    ETA: I should not say "we could easily"...i think it will take some time to come up with the specifics on what is banned and what isn't, not really all that easy. Not anywhere close to impossible though.
    Yes. I'm not looking to get rid of all guns, I'm talking about assault rifles. I'm fine with people keeping revolvers to protect their homes with, or hunting rifles to hunt with. You will have a hard time convincing me that they need an assault rifle to protect their home, or to hunt with. Which is why I say that THOSE guns are designed for killing people, and we could probably do well to get rid of them.

    Gun control AR-15 rifle: The NRA claims the AR-15 rifle is for hunting and home defense. Not exactly.

    On Dec. 24, in Webster, New York, an ex-con named William Spengler set fire to his house and then shot and killed two responding firefighters before taking his own life. He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle—the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. James Holmes used an AR-15-style rifle with a detachable 100-round magazine this past summer when he shot up a movie theater in Colorado. (Though the AR-15 is a specific model of rifle made by Colt, the term has come to generically refer to the many other rifles built to similar specifications.)


    Three makes a trend, as we all know, and many people have reacted by suggesting that the federal government should ban the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons. Gun advocates have responded with exasperation, saying that, despite appearances,AR-15-style rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun. In a piece today on humanevents.com titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to Hate,” NRA president David Keene blasted those critics who “neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.” Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15—among them recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense—and argued that law-abiding firearms owners shouldn’t be penalized because of homicidal loners who use semi-automatics like the AR-15 for criminal purposes.


    I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter, and I haven’t yet decided where I stand on post-Newtown gun control. I would own a gun if New York City laws didn’t make it extremely difficult to do so. But I nevertheless find Keene’s arguments disingenuous. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.


    The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent. From 1994 to 2004, AR-15-style rifles were subject tothe now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since then, the rifle and others like it have become tremendously popular. Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States. People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.


    But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”


    In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)


    AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant hunters. In its 2011 annual report, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales. The Freedom Group’s 2011 annual report noted that the commercial modern sporting rifle market grew at a 27 percent compound annual rate from 2007 to 2011, whereas the entire domestic long gun market only grew at a 3 percent rate.


    As the NRA’s David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions. But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn’t get nearly as much press—paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster. Online shooting message boards are rife with references to potential “SHTF scenarios,” where SHTF stands for “**** hits the fan”—governmental collapse, societal breakdown. (Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as “a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.”) An article on ar15.com titled “The Ideal Rifle” notes that “the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a ‘survival’ rifle is real. Selecting a single ‘ideal rifle’ is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else.”

    Depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal to stockpile weapons to use in the event of Armageddon. But that’s a far different argument than the ones firearms advocates have been using since the Newtown shootings.


    As I said, I generally think of myself as a Second Amendment supporter, and a month ago, I would’ve probably agreed with the NRA’s position. But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance—as is, I think, fitting—and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use to defend weapons like this. In his piece at Human Events, Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because“a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers.” But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.
    Bolding mine.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #46
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    DP - Is it just me or is PO acting weird today?
    Last edited by Alissa_Sal; 01-08-2013 at 02:43 PM.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  7. #47
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Yes. I'm not looking to get rid of all guns, I'm talking about assault rifles. I'm fine with people keeping revolvers to protect their homes with, or hunting rifles to hunt with. You will have a hard time convincing me that they need an assault rifle to protect their home, or to hunt with. Which is why I say that THOSE guns are designed for killing people, and we could probably do well to get rid of them.
    Again, you are still talking about a gun that is RARELY used in crime. This article estimates that are close to 4 million AR-15 type rifles in the United States. It doesn't really matter what they want to use them for, I would guess many of them just like to shoot targets with them. Why should all the people who own these guns be punished for crimes that very few PEOPLE commit with these guns. Again people commit crimes, not guns. Especially when if they didn't have this gun the criminal could have easily used another sem-automatic gun that is not banned. In fact both the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters had multiple guns that would not have been banned.


    Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal. And keep in mind, the AR-15 is just one of the many assault weapons on the market. Overstreet estimated that more than 800,000 Ruger Mini-14 rifles—the rifle that Anders Behring Breivik used in the Oslo summer camp shootings last year—had been produced since 1974. There are other types, too. This is only the tip of the gunberg.

    No matter the exact figures, there are a whole hell of a lot of assault weapons in America, which complicates any talk of gun control. The most effective way for the government to reduce the existing gun stock would be to buy them back from their owners. When Australia imposed strict gun control measures in 1996 in the aftermath of a mass shooting, the Aussie government bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The gun buyback program, which cost an estimated $400 million in U.S. dollars, was funded by a temporary 1 percent income tax levy.

    Would such a plan fly in America? Extrapolating from Australia's numbers, a similar buyback in this more gun-laden country would cost billions. While a tax increase isn't the only way to raise that much money—the federal government could have a bake sale, or auction off some of its lesser-known historical treasures—it's certainly the most obvious way to do it. We might soon see what voters and politicians hate more: guns or taxes.
    Assault weapon stats: How many assault weapons are there in America?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #48
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Again, you are still talking about a gun that is RARELY used in crime. This article estimates that are close to 4 million AR-15 type rifles in the United States. It doesn't really matter what they want to use them for, I would guess many of them just like to shoot targets with them. Why should all the people who own these guns be punished for crimes that very few PEOPLE commit with these guns. Again people commit crimes, not guns. Especially when if they didn't have this gun the criminal could have easily used another sem-automatic gun that is not banned. In fact both the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters had multiple guns that would not have been banned.




    Assault weapon stats: How many assault weapons are there in America?
    You don't need a gun like that to shoot target practice. Seriously, how much "practice" is it to spray a rain of bullets at a target? I would think that if you really wanted to practice your marksmanship, you wouldn't be using a gun that sprays bullets. Hell, I could probably hit the middle of a target if I had enough bullets and the ability to just stand and spray.

    You also don't need it to protect your house, and you don't need it to hunt. In fact, it may be worse to use than traditional guns for that purpose.

    I'm not talking about getting rid of all guns, but I do think that we need to look at why we have such an attachment to such an unneccessarily dangerous gun. The times when they are being used to kill lots of people - that's when they are being used to do what they were designed to do. I don't understand why there can be no compromise on this subject, and we can't say "Okay, let's keep the "useful" guns, and get rid of the really dangerous and non-useful ones. Just because we can? That's....not such a great reason to do things, sometimes. I believe it was you that recently said "Just because you can do something doesn't make it the right thing to do." (or something along those lines.)

    If people want to hunt, or shoot targets, or protect their homes, why can they not do so with guns that are better suited to those purposes?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #49
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,103

    Default

    I think assault weapons are a great place to crack down on regulations. Again, like stated before, its not about just the numbers, its about purposes, and what is sacrificed in return.

    Maybe we can't crack down as much on the types of guns with the highest numbers, because they would infringe more on peoples ability to defend their home(We can regulate handguns differently...by use, not by banning). But here with assault weapons we are infringing on someones hobby...much more worth the sacrifice. And Assault weapons are not responsible for NO deaths...so I think its fair that they be under consideration.

    Of course people who like the guns and own one for some reason are another are going to have to sacrifice. That's the truth with everything that was legal once and then banned later.

  10. #50
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,103

    Default

    I think assault weapons are a great place to crack down on regulations. Again, like stated before, its not about just the numbers, its about purposes, and what is sacrificed in return.

    Maybe we can't crack down as much on the types of guns with the highest numbers, because they would infringe more on peoples ability to defend their home(We can regulate handguns differently...by use, not by banning). But here with assault weapons we are infringing on someones hobby...much more worth the sacrifice. And Assault weapons are not responsible for NO deaths...so I think its fair that they be under consideration.

    Of course people who like the guns and own one for some reason are another are going to have to sacrifice. That's the truth with everything that was legal once and then banned later.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions