This is why I NEED an AR-15 with 30rd mags

mattsl1983

As for the car comparison, let's break the death due to automobiles down to a percentage. Again this is dealing with estimates I was able to find. It's estimated that there are 230,000,000 registered cars and 40,000,000 unregistered cars. Added those then rounded up to give an even estimate of 300,000,000 automobiles in America. In 2012 there were 34,080 traffic fatalities. That comes to %0.00011 drivers are responsible for the death of another while operating a vehicle.

Guns 0.0002
Cars 0.00011

The percentages are not that far off, especially considering I rounded the estimated cars up by 30,000,000 vehicles.

I would have to say that it is pretty fair to compare car deaths and gun deaths.

mattsl1983

Halifax, for your comment as to the states with the less strict gun laws have higher rates of gun murders, can I ask where you got this stat at? I looked up the 10 states with the strictest gun laws. These include; California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois. All of which rank in the top 10 states for gun deaths. California being number one on both lists.

Halifax2TheMax

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax, for your comment as to the states with the less strict gun laws have higher rates of gun murders, can I ask where you got this stat at? I looked up the 10 states with the strictest gun laws. These include; California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois. All of which rank in the top 10 states for gun deaths. California being number one on both lists.

I'll dig it up, probably tomorrow, but if my memory serves, it was an article by Ezra Klein?, who accurately predicted all 50 state presidential election outcomes. He had charts and a map illustrating the gun ownership rates along with gun deaths per 100,000 residents, along with other types of murder, etc. Southern states, with higher gun ownership also had higher death rates from guns. I'll dig it up tomorrow and post the link or links. I think it might have been titled, "7 myths or facts about guns" or something like that. I remember Maryland and Illinois were high in death rates probably because of Chicago and Baltimore but DC had the highest per 100,000 residents. Most were around 3 to 4 per 100k, the high were 6 or 7 per 100k and DC was like 12 or 13 per 100K. I'll post the link tomorrow.

Peace.

unsung

Maryland, Chicago, DC... the anti-gunners Utopias.

rgambs

gun violence in america is a GEOGRAPHIC problem. Strip away the gang-related shooting deaths that occur in a few dozen heavily impoverished neighborhoods and you are left with a fraction of an issue. The gun issue is just not that big of an issue. Take away assault rifles and large clips and you don't change gun murder rates noticeably. Take away handguns and you do. It's all or none folks. Life is either a peace agreement or an arms race and we live in the latter. If you want to live in fear, if guns are that much fun for you, whatever. Lame. If you hate guns because you hate death, you might start with poverty and war. If you just hate guns...Lame.. Small beans

jmuscatello

<

unsung said:

You've gone off the deep end.

Just have to ask, is it really Cosmo who has gone off the deep end? The OP started this thread claiming he NEEDS 30rd mags. When I brought up Holmes's 100rd mag found in the Aurora theatre, the OP stated there was zero evidence of a 100rd mag and that it was "a fact" that he only had 30rd mags. This "fact", he pulled out of his ass, as Cosmo posted all kinds of evidence of the 100rd mag, and made a well-thought argument for how those extra rounds Holmes was able to fire (until the double drum mag jammed) most likely ripped through a few extra movie-goers, at least. Then the OP went away mad.
Now he's back on the attack, because Cosmo suggests that maybe the OP does agree that some restrictions on weaponry or expanded background checks might be in order. This is why the gun-rights advocates are losing credibility - they can't accept any limits whatsoever, even when the majority of Americans support some common-sense restrictions.

So okay, the stats. The stats Mattl1983 on more gun restrictions not helping bring down gun murders in those states - well, that's not a causal relationship by any means and you know stricter gun laws were passed in response to already high gun murder rates... also, those same stats can be used to argue for the need for more restrictions on a FEDERAL level. Both sides will find the stats to support their arguments, and I really NEED to get my March Madness picks done by noon EST. But just focusing on limits on high capacity mags for a minute, here are a couple facts from Sen. Blumenthal's call for a 10rd magazine limit: 1) since 1982, 31 of the 62 mass shootings have involved high-capacity mags. 2) fact that Jared Loughner's 13th bullet killed the 9 year old in AZ. Many of the crazy mass-shooters want notoriety - they want the biggest death toll they can get next to their name in the papers. And this: why do the super well-trained, responsible gun owners argue AGAINST magazine size limits, when they can change out a mag in a couple of seconds? Wouldn't slow them down much at all. But for a Holmes, a Loughner, a Lanza, having to stop and change mags could mean they are finally tackled (like Loughner was) or stopped or some potential victims have a few extra seconds to escape. You can't stop all of this obviously, but mag limits are a common sense start - in my mind. The response that "it wouldn't make any difference" .... it's gettin' old.

So really, I'm trying to understand the NEED for high-capacity mags. Is it that it's just way more fun to shoot at stuff without having to stop to change mags? Or is it about having enough ready firepower to fuel your anti-government fantasies? I don't see that the self-defense argument really holds up.

JonnyPistachio

There's no point in even talking about this anyway... There are too many guns already and many citizens of America have an uncanny and overwhelming desire to stockpile them. There's no other country with a reputation for guns like the USA. There's no turning back.

I can agree with rgambs that it would seem to be geographic too. But after mentioning DC, Chicago, Maryland... Then I see the news in Florida, just in my area alone, where at least once or twice a month, a child is killed by accident with a gun. ahh, its only a few kids though...who cares right? It just cant be stopped. But here's where I find the car/gns analogy to be ridiculous: Of course kids are killed in car crashes. What's the answer? Homeschool them? Dont let them get in a car? Kids killed by guns? What's the answer? Dont be irresponsible with a gun? Dont have a stockpile of guns? Simply live without them because you dont NEED them?

Cosmo

unsung said:

You've gone off the deep end.

...
You put me on your "List", didn't you?

Halifax2TheMax

Here's some links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/states-gun-violence_n_3091993.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/

The Ezra Klein article I alluded to below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

Is it cause and effect? Or can you reasonably say that there is a correlation between higher gun ownership rates and lax gun laws and deaths caused by guns? And going back to the car comparison, I don't think you can compare the two but you can draw correlations. Kids dying in cars has fallen due to seat belts, car seats, passage of laws that penalize drivers for having unrestrained or un- car seated kids in the car and a massive PR campaign. Hell, I remember my mom flying over a hill and us unbuckled kids 4 or 5 of us, hitting our heads on the roof of the car before she went into dead man's curve at a high rate of speed and we all piled up against one side of the car. Poor man's roller coaster. Everything is much safer today than it was 50 years ago as it relates to cars and particularly with the total number of miles driven (and at higher speed limits I might add). Using registered cars only isn't fair as a registered car could sit in the driveway or garage all year. But with guns, ownership has gone down, the number of guns owned by a smaller percentage have gone up and the death rates are still, to me anyway in many places, unacceptable. Put a kid in a car unbelted or not in a car seat, get in an accident, said kid dies, you go to jail. Accidently allow a child to be "accidently" shot, its a tragic accident and the parents have suffered enough. Bullshit, go to jail and think about how much you love guns. And urban areas like Baltimore and Chicago and DC, with strict gun laws but high gun death rates? Thank the NRA and gun lobby for allowing straw purchases and no background checks for gun shows in the states within 300 miles of those cities, hence the need for federal legislation.

You really do have to do some digging as everyone uses different stats and the CDCs stats are much lower due to how they compile and where they draw from. The FBI's stats are higher. The Huffington Post article explains their methodology and sources and hey, it makes sense to me. And I'm glad I don't live in a state where my congressperson was shot in the head in a supermarket. Or any of those other gun nut Utopias.

Take your pick of those 10 or 20 states but to me, they're gun nut, delusion, paranoid, government is out to take my guns Utopias.

Peace.

mattsl1983

The links you posted seem to have conflicting information with rankings. Also one of the articles stated gun ownership is on the rise, another states it's on the decline. To my it's just journalism using multiple factors (one article said they used 10 different factors) to get the math correct in order to support the the authors thoughts. I'll stick with the basic breakdown of states with the strictest gun laws and states with the most gun deaths as my reasoning for your argument that the states with the most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.

And with actual gun violence being on the decline in the past 20 years, what is the issue? The movie shooting and Sandy Hook shootings are no doubt horrible events. But they do not actually reflect gun violence in our society. To me it's all media fueled, and politicians jump on it as a way to get votes.

jmuscatello

I know, I can't believe the liberal media thought that 12 dead and 58 wounded in Aurora, and 20 little kids and 6 adults dead at Sandy Hook, was news-worthy! They shouldn't even print that stuff, I mean, really. There's usually some great NASCAR news I'd much rather follow.

Halifax2TheMax

mattsl1983 said:

The links you posted seem to have conflicting information with rankings. Also one of the articles stated gun ownership is on the rise, another states it's on the decline. To my it's just journalism using multiple factors (one article said they used 10 different factors) to get the math correct in order to support the the authors thoughts. I'll stick with the basic breakdown of states with the strictest gun laws and states with the most gun deaths as my reasoning for your argument that the states with the most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.

And with actual gun violence being on the decline in the past 20 years, what is the issue? The movie shooting and Sandy Hook shootings are no doubt horrible events. But they do not actually reflect gun violence in our society. To me it's all media fueled, and politicians jump on it as a way to get votes.

I readily admit there is a lot of conflicting information but my argument is that in states with high gun ownership AND lax gun laws they have higher rates of death by guns. And what is particularly galling to me is that in the US 30K+ dead a year and another 80K+ injured, some very seriously, is considered not statistically significant to be considered a problem worth fixing. Then compare our carnage with the OED countries and its even more glaring. What the fuck is wrong with us? Oh yea, the 2nd amendment and the tyranny of the government. Sheesh.

Go ask the parents and family or community members of those kids in Newtown or the victims of Aurora and the MIT police officer killed on campus and Columbine and McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA and Virginia Tech and the Navy Yard what the ISSUE is. When will enough be enough?

Peace.

Smellyman

Cosmo said:

mattsl1983 said:

I just don't see the idea of how soon everyone will have a gun and there will be shootings on every block due to random arguments.

...

...
Also, try this observational experiment...
Go to your local Wal-Mart this Saturday afternoon. Park your car... stroll across the parking lot... enter the building and walk the aisles for one hour.
Look at every person you see there. Imagine them carrying a loaded weapon.
Come back here and tell me if you would feel safer if every one of those people had a loaded gun on them.

i like to exchange Wal-Mart with a bar

mattsl1983

I fully understand that Newtown and Aurora were horrible events. But at the same time why do these two horrific events always seem to be the focus of anti gun advocates? I am not diminishing the tragedies that they are, but at some point we have to move away from those events and look at gun violence for what it actually is. And not feed into emotional stories and base or facts on those stories. The guns are out there, they won't all of a sudden disappear if they aren't in regulation or become illegal. I am in full support of figuring out a way to keep them out of the hands of that 0.0002 that use them to kill people. The million dollar question is how, and at what price of individual freedom? People freaked out about the NSA (which I honestly don't care if they government wants to listen to my silly phone conversations) invasion of privacy. Also let's say you open it up to a possible mental health check in order to buy a fire arm, will the buyer be required to take an annual test? Who pays for it? Once that Pandora's box is open, what's to stop them from doing the same with drivers license tests? How about job applications? Just because someone feels strongly against guns, regardless if the statistics show gun violence is actually decreasing, does that mean it's okay to invade someone who supports guns privacy? I just hate this idea that because I don't like something, it has to change.

mattsl1983

And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.

rgambs

mattsl1983 said:

And as for the Walmart comment, are you implying that you judge people on looks, or that they shop at Walmart, or both? I personally think that was a very tasteless off base comment.

apparently you havn't been to one recently. It's not about judging the way people look, it's about observing the way they behave. Crazies muttering to themselves, children running amok, people who can't manage basic hygeine...Doesn't exactly inspire confidence!

mattsl1983

Some people will mutter to themselves, I've done it before. Hygiene doesn't exactly equate to a person with evil motives. Children running a muck, that's just lack of parental control. But at the same time if a parent were to punish their kid in public, there is an outcry of child abuse. I live in a large city (Houston) and many people don't inspire much confidence in many things. An example is their driving ability, but I'm not calling for there to be an overhaul of who's aloud to drive. People live differently from myself, from yourself ect ect. It part of human nature. I still stand by that I personally think the walmart comment is off base and in bad taste.

jmuscatello

mattsl1983 said:

I fully understand that Newtown and Aurora were horrible events. But at the same time why do these two horrific events always seem to be the focus of anti gun advocates? I am not diminishing the tragedies that they are, but at some point we have to move away from those events and look at gun violence for what it actually is. And not feed into emotional stories and base or facts on those stories. The guns are out there, they won't all of a sudden disappear if they aren't in regulation or become illegal. I am in full support of figuring out a way to keep them out of the hands of that 0.0002 that use them to kill people. The million dollar question is how, and at what price of individual freedom? People freaked out about the NSA (which I honestly don't care if they government wants to listen to my silly phone conversations) invasion of privacy. Also let's say you open it up to a possible mental health check in order to buy a fire arm, will the buyer be required to take an annual test? Who pays for it? Once that Pandora's box is open, what's to stop them from doing the same with drivers license tests? How about job applications? Just because someone feels strongly against guns, regardless if the statistics show gun violence is actually decreasing, does that mean it's okay to invade someone who supports guns privacy? I just hate this idea that because I don't like something, it has to change.

Hey Mattsl1983, honestly, I was trying to stay with you, read your stats, follow your arguments, maybe I'd see another perspective. But frankly you're sounding pretty fucking naïve. Do you think we're all emotionally-charged reactionaries? Don't understand numbers? Really? I think I probably understand statistics and the concept of crime being "random" or "isolated" easily as well as you do. So here's an emotionally-charged question: any chance you have kids yet? are they in school? maybe just a significant other or wife that goes to the movies? Not to say your viewpoint isn't valuable either way, because a lot of people "get it" without families to worry about, but my guess is that you might tune in a bit differently, your awareness might be heightened, if maybe you had kids in school these days. Oh, but that's reactionary and emotional, sorry about that.

Not a pity party - I feel more fortunate than so many. And many people feel the impact from tragedies that happen nowhere near them. But guess what, my kids, in our very suburban, "normal" school district have known the "run to and crouch down in the inside corner of the classroom away from windows" routine since they were 4. Man, they really have it down! Makes a parent so proud! Columbine is in our school district - that was a bummer. But the much less famous Deer Creek MS, Platte Canyon HS, and Arapahoe HS shootings were also in our district or immediately adjacent. Never mind that one of my sons happened to be at a movie theatre about 12 miles away from Holmes the night he was opening fire on movie-goers in Aurora - won't even go there. Have a kid and figure that one out for yourself, asshole.

But back to just school shootings - so very isolated for sure.... as a parent you end up reading up and trying to figure out why and how it could happen and how maybe it won't happen again. Maybe you too will look at things in such irrational, emotional terms some day. Well, Columbine made me look to mental health problems and easy illegal access to automatic weapons. Deer Creek led me to mental health problems (darn, off his meds again!) and unsecured guns owned by family members. Arapahoe HS again leads me to undiagnosed mental health problems (because most of it doesn't present until adolescence and isn't yet diagnosed) and the ease of walking into a big box store to buy a shotgun at age 18 because your debate coach pissed you off (isn't it great to be an American!? that boy had his rights though). And Platte Canyon? Well, check out the 3/30/2007 Denver Post article about the mentally ill guy's firearms. Guess, what? It's not only the ones dead you need to consider in your statistics. Everyone anywhere near that school, kids and adults, especially those held hostage and assaulted, are affected to some degree. Not to be too dramatic, but I don't think you get it.

I've got no corner on this market. Every parent in every school district in the US has been right in this stuff, or closely affected, and all kids in US public schools now know about "school-shooter preparedness".

Do I give a shit about Unsung's rights to arm up so he's stockpiled and ready for that big fiery showdown with the oppressive US govt? Really I can't say I do. Do your concerns about unfair disparaging remarks about Walmart and the traffic in Houston matter to me? Nope. Sorry. I honestly tried to listen to you, but you got nothin'.

Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?

mattsl1983

I'm not going to take away from your very emotionally charged post. That is a yes to me having a family. My question is how do you make the changes you wish to see? Will they actually make a difference, or will it just be a "we did something" change? I ask because let's say AR14's get outlawed, statistically that makes no change in the bucket aside from maybe a drip. Mental healthcare checks, that wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. What is the logical feasible solution?

mattsl1983

I'm not a big guns person, I'm pretty neutral on the issue. Would I like to see a change to stop some of the horrific events that have happened? Absolutely. Am I willing to just change the Bill of Rights when the real issue isn't being addressed? Absolutely not. If a proposed amendment that will actually make a difference and changes comes up, I will absolutely support it. But I'm not about to support any change that will violate individual rights based off gun violence (which is on the decline) because of a few media hot topic events. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.