I always wondered! My cuz has a blackout version, it's a beast. Fun to shoot for sure....scary to think about in the hands of a pyscho in a crowded public place
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
That's true, except sometimes in the case of mass shooting events, which America seems to have pretty much exclusively in the world. So since most crimes are committed with handguns let's get rid of them!
How about we just get rid of the people that commit crimes?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I always wondered! My cuz has a blackout version, it's a beast. Fun to shoot for sure....scary to think about in the hands of a pyscho in a crowded public place
Any weapon in the hands of a crazy is bad news. Let's not try to compare casualty rates because of the device. One death is one too many.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
That's true, except sometimes in the case of mass shooting events, which America seems to have pretty much exclusively in the world. So since most crimes are committed with handguns let's get rid of them!
How about we just get rid of the people that commit crimes?
Sounds pretty impossible. I'd love a mental health fix for America, but in the meantime we at least gotta shove a finger in the dyke to stem the flow.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
Less violent media=less violent culture.
Was wondering if you have any evidence to back up this claim?
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Used "assault" as a descriptor and you knew exactly type of gun I was referring. In language when the receiver understands message, communication has taken place. And as we both know fully automatics are severely restricted, so what's sold on open market are all Semi's. So now that we have that out of the way debate subject matter rather than NRA feel good talking points.
I see some people have been busy on here! I cannot speak for gun violence and crime in any other area except for where I live. You must remember that different places have a different set of circumstances. There are several factors that go into who someone commits a crime with a gun. Someones financial situation, unemployment, mental health, etc can influence why someone may choose to use a firearm in any other way other than self defense. I live in Indiana which is one of the most pro gun state in the country. Indiana is also one of the lowest states with gun deaths and homicides with guns. If you were to take Gary, Indiana, out of the picture then Indiana would definitely be an example for how a pro gun state has very few gun crimes. The fact is that we have to accept Gary, Indiana, in the statistics and the similarities between Gary and South Chicago are almost exact. You have very low income with very high crime. Jobs that cant compete with the money that you will make selling dope or robbing someone. I carry a gun every day and I know several people who do the same. Ive never had to use it or even take it out of the holster in any real life scenario. If I did and it saved my life or an innocent persons life, you wouldnt hear about it. You only hear the stories on the news where a crime was committed with a gun. Now dont take that last statement LITERALLY because I know you can site examples where it does make the news. I am trying to convey that tragedy makes the news. I see it often where I live. The news shows up for a story, but if no has died they leave, if someone dies, then its a top story for them.
So you live in low crime area but feel need to carry a gun? If there's ever a PJ concert in Indiana and I happen to visit and guy starts to rob us in 10 Club line Please don't try to protect me. If there's one thing I'd consider fighting an evil doer, it would be my 10 club tix but alas I would simply hand them over.
The paranoia is insane. Live in crime laden city and have no want to carry a gun around with me. Not only will there be little opportunity to be brave man and protect the innocent (possibly causing more damage than good) but what a pain in the ass to carry around a gun then making sure it's safely stored. Oh yeah evil doers steal guns from the Good Guys every freak in day.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I don't know what an assault rifle is. The word assault is a verb, an action. It is not a noun.
If you happen to be speaking of a sporting firearm like an AR-15 then I would just call them what the general government calls them when they purchase them, which is personal defense weapons.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
I know he is talking about gang violence but just because its gang violence doesn't mean that there is no mental health issues involved.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
I know he is talking about gang violence but just because its gang violence doesn't mean that there is no mental health issues involved.
I would say that any time someone shoots someone else they have mental health issues! Honestly, I consider gang violence more similar to soldiery than criminality. Just like American soldiers they are heavily conditioned to murder, both by living in war zone type situations and through outright brainwashing by their "superiors" to accept murder as a solution to their problems.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
I do.
Pick up a Chicago Tribune.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
Ignore the facts, that's fine. In the meantime the disease will continue whole the symptoms grow stronger.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
I know he is talking about gang violence but just because its gang violence doesn't mean that there is no mental health issues involved.
I never denied that mental health wasn't an issue, I stated it was a minor issue.
Interesting how it only takes a few posts to twist my viewpoint to suit your needs.
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
I do.
Pick up a Chicago Tribune.
since you are in Chicago and I am not can you please show me an article showing that mental health plays a very small role in gun violence in america?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Mental health issues are a very minor part of shootings, just like the use of an AR15. It is what sells newspapers though.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Do you have any proof of this? I am not saying that Mental health is the sole reason for gun violence I do believe that mental health plays more than a minor part along with other issues.
He is talking about "black on black" gang violence. To be fair, it does make up a large percentage of the totals for gum homicide. Chicago isn't the center of the universe though and it doesn't represent all of america. To say mental health plays a "very minor part" is obtuse, it ignores virtually all shootings that take place outside of major cities. It also comes off somewhat racist to suggest it is mostly a demographic issue. Geographic would be more accurate, as whites and Latinos have much higher violence rates within those same problem districts. You are using NRA propaganda here Unsung. By trying to frame it as a gang only issue, you are trying to downplay all the "hicks and hillbillies" who kill for fuedin' reasons. Why? Because they represent "responsible gun owners" who use their guns for hunting and don't hurt anybody. They are the poster children for the NRA so you can't take them into account, it will bust up your image of "average joes" as "responsible gun owners" Better to lay it all at the foot of that other demographic, much more comfortable for Joe the farmer, even if he knows that his cousin Billy is in the stir for catching his wife cheating and blowing them away.
Ignore the facts, that's fine. In the meantime the disease will continue whole the symptoms grow stronger.
The fact is, gun violence takes many forms and "demographics" and you ignore all but the one kind that occurs in the city where you live.
Don't blame him for doing so. Just as religious fanatics cling to their looney fantasies, some gun enthusiasts cannot distinguish (or acknowledge) reality from their indoctrinated opinion. And, when challenged, snidely assert their ill-formed belief system in attack mode as a mechanism for defence.
It's exactly the same thing as believing the world is flat. And when people say it isn't, asserting, "Yes it is!" And when people ask for proof... snidely remarking, "Look outside. Does the world look round, duh!"
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. In fact, many places will not let you use a .223 to hunt deer because it is considered too small of a caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary". If you want the gun owners to "find a middle ground" at least take the extra effort to prove to us that you know what you are talking about, because there are people in the media that think rubber ear plugs are bullets.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
If more guns=more deaths then why haven't we seen a skyrocket in gun deaths over the past 4 years? More guns were sold over the past 4 years that any time throughout history, stores couldn't keep them on the shelves. By that logic, it's amazing any of us are still alive... And how does a pistol grip make a gun more deadly? Yes, a large magazine makes a gun hold more ammunition, but I would still say that your father's "30-06" hunting rifle is far more deadly than a 5.56x45 or .223 that most ar-15 type rifles shoot. 30-06 is merely the caliber of a rifle and shoots faster, further, and with more force than a .223 caliber. This is where I would like more specificity in the anti-gun croud. I've heard people say "let's ban the ammo that ar-15s use" which is the same damn ammo that any other hunting rifle uses. In fact, 30-06 was the caliber used in "assault rifles" in WW2 and there are 30-06 rifles out there that can accept just as large of magazines as ar-15s. Not all semi-auto rifles are ar-15s. Many of the popular hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR(which also comes in the popular 30-06) is just as deadly and fires at the exact same rate (one squeeze, one shot) as an ar-15, but it does not "look scary" therefor it does not get the attention. I think the arguments do need to be made with the right terms because many people know nothing about these kinds of things and are grouping semi-automatic rifles in the same categories as military weapons because of terms like "assault rifle" and "military style". Does that make a little more sense? And how the fuck does a pistol grip effect anything? I am actually way more accurate without using a pistol grip...oh yeah, it makes it look "scary".
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now?
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
"Hold below eye level and spray more effectively". Wow, now I've heard everything... I thought we had already established that semi-auto rifles do not "spray bullets". And I would like to see someone accurately shoot a gun without holding it up to look through the sights. Sounds like you have watched one too many Rambo movies. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of firearms to convince any firearm owner to give theirs up...good luck to you my friend.
The reason the general public doesn't need an assault rifle is the same reason why the general public doesn't need a rocket launcher.
I don't give two shits about how gun enthusiasts want to misinterpret the constitution. People will keep dying needlessly and we'll eventually have much stronger gun controls then even the liberals are asking for now. All this because of the rights obsession with making themselves feel like their penises are bigger by having assault weapons.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Comments
How about we just get rid of the people that commit crimes?
Any weapon in the hands of a crazy is bad news. Let's not try to compare casualty rates because of the device. One death is one too many.
You want to get to the heart of the issue? What are the demographics of most shootings in Chicago? It isn't mental health.
Was wondering if you have any evidence to back up this claim?
The paranoia is insane. Live in crime laden city and have no want to carry a gun around with me. Not only will there be little opportunity to be brave man and protect the innocent (possibly causing more damage than good) but what a pain in the ass to carry around a gun then making sure it's safely stored. Oh yeah evil doers steal guns from the Good Guys every freak in day.
Pick up a Chicago Tribune.
Interesting how it only takes a few posts to twist my viewpoint to suit your needs.
Don't blame him for doing so. Just as religious fanatics cling to their looney fantasies, some gun enthusiasts cannot distinguish (or acknowledge) reality from their indoctrinated opinion. And, when challenged, snidely assert their ill-formed belief system in attack mode as a mechanism for defence.
It's exactly the same thing as believing the world is flat. And when people say it isn't, asserting, "Yes it is!" And when people ask for proof... snidely remarking, "Look outside. Does the world look round, duh!"
maybe you can show me an article backing up your statement that mental health plays a small role in gun violence in america
The post you quoted was me responding to your allegation that I had no clue of what I was talking about regarding assault rifles. I noted some characteristic differences between the common hunting rifle and the assault rifle that you suggested I knew nothing about.
A pistol grip allows the shooter to hold the gun below eye level and spray bullets more effectively than the classic rifle stock. So, let's not pretend that a pistol grip makes a rifle less formidable. If pistol grips made the assault rifle less accurate with no 'upside' to speak of...militaries throughout the world would not want their rifles equipped with them.
I also understand that the assault rifle typically uses smaller ammunition than many hunting rifles, but that's hardly relevant. The smaller ammunition packs neatly into magazines allowing for more rounds and more shots. These rifles are designed for killing in closer proximity than a hunting rifle that is designed for single shots that carry longer distances to kill, say a deer 500 yards away. But ask the parents of Sandy Hook if they feel the smaller calibre bullets make any difference to flesh and bone from close quarters.
I don't give two shits about how gun enthusiasts want to misinterpret the constitution. People will keep dying needlessly and we'll eventually have much stronger gun controls then even the liberals are asking for now. All this because of the rights obsession with making themselves feel like their penises are bigger by having assault weapons.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2