Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[The Rabbi]

It's a poor response. The UK, Norway,and Germany have all had mass shooting events after their gun control was enacted. But looking at overall crime, it has not decreased in those countries since gun control. Actually the opposite.
So that argument is a fail.
It was going to be because there is no, absolutely no, well reasoned intelligent argument for gun control. None.

But NZ hasn't. Australia hasn't. Norway has had one incident. What incident has the UK had? There has been an overall decrease in gun crime in all those countries. And it's not about crime, it's about knowing when I walk down the street some guy isn't going to go postal on my arse because he got a bad haircut. Here's my list of mass shootings in the US since 1982 A Guide to Mass Shootings in America Mother Jones

Where's yours with regard to the Germany, Norway, Australia, France, NZ, Canada et al since firearms restrictions have come into place.

Oy. Why do you have to doubt me?
Winnenden school shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sixteen children killed in Dunblane massacre From the archive 14 Mar 1996 From the Guardian theguardian.com
Norway shooting incidents from the past 20 years - Telegraph
Note the reference to the shooting incident in NZ in this last article.

Again, people are arguing two different things: heinous shooting incidents like Sandy Hook and general crimes involving guns. Gun control solves neither of those issues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Accoring to the FBI uniform crime reports, compiled from the relevant yearly releases...

1995-2011:
248797 murders
7612 involved rifles.

Assuming the best case for your argument, that every one of those rifles was an 'assult weapon' and that every murder involved a different rifle (irony alert), ~3% of all the murders over a 16 year period involved an 'assault weapon'.
Over the same period, you were 4.2x more likely to be murdered with a bladed weapon, 1.5x more likely to be murdered with a blunt weapons, and 2.0x more likely to be murdered with a body part.

Thus, your fear can only be described as irrational.

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

I don't fear firearms, I find the need for them in a so-called civilised society irrational.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

 

[The Rabbi]

has anyone ever seen a well reasoned and intellectually honest statement from a gun banner?

Yes - in France, Australia, the UK, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany - all have certain restrictions on certain kinds of weapons. The vast majority of people are happy with those restrictions...go figure...

No, he was asking for a well reasoned and intellectually honest statement. Not the crap you threw out, which combines an erroneous selection of countries with a democratic fallacy. Thus proving:
Rabbi Rules!

Sometimes societies decide to do things for the greater good. Those civilised societies I have mentioned have decided they don't want to live in a society where there is a proliferation of guns. Shrug...up to them.

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Accoring to the FBI uniform crime reports, compiled from the relevant yearly releases...

1995-2011:
248797 murders
7612 involved rifles.

Assuming the best case for your argument, that every one of those rifles was an 'assult weapon' and that every murder involved a different rifle (irony alert), ~3% of all the murders over a 16 year period involved an 'assault weapon'.
Over the same period, you were 4.2x more likely to be murdered with a bladed weapon, 1.5x more likely to be murdered with a blunt weapons, and 2.0x more likely to be murdered with a body part.

Thus, your fear can only be described as irrational.

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

I don't fear firearms, I find the need for them in a so-called civilised society irrational.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is

"show me where the government is allowed to remove our rights simply because some believe we are exercising them irrationally?" I mean do we people who wander around town talking to themselves that they no longer have freedom of speech?

 

[Dr Grump]

People who think and FEEL like you are the reason why freedom loving people need firearms. When people like you get in power, you might well start trying to use government force to confiscate items you don't think we need

and then we will need such weapons to deal with those who want to confiscate our arms.

I don't want to take your firearms away from you. I just want a back ground check to make sure you are not insane. I want you licensed so I know you know how to handle a firearm. And I want the magazine capacity reduced. Everything else can stay the same.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oy. Why do you have to doubt me?
Winnenden school shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sixteen children killed in Dunblane massacre From the archive 14 Mar 1996 From the Guardian theguardian.com
Norway shooting incidents from the past 20 years - Telegraph
Note the reference to the shooting incident in NZ in this last article.

Again, people are arguing two different things: heinous shooting incidents like Sandy Hook and general crimes involving guns. Gun control solves neither of those issues.

Note how most of those incidents in England, Canada, NZ and Australia are more than 20 years old - ie, after stricter gun controls were put in place.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

 

[Dr Grump]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The thread title here is correct

NO ONE needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine. If it doesn't have a 100 round drum it's just a paperweight.

 

[CitizenSeven]

I don't want to take your firearms away from you. I just want a back ground check to make sure you are not insane. I want you licensed so I know you know how to handle a firearm. And I want the magazine capacity reduced. Everything else can stay the same.

There already is a background check at the federal level for all FFL sales. That's too chilling as it is, you get no more. Eventually, SCOTUS will hopefully find licensing and capacity restrictions are unconstitional. That's still left to the states at the moment.

 

[turtledude]

People who think and FEEL like you are the reason why freedom loving people need firearms. When people like you get in power, you might well start trying to use government force to confiscate items you don't think we need

and then we will need such weapons to deal with those who want to confiscate our arms.

I don't want to take your firearms away from you. I just want a back ground check to make sure you are not insane. I want you licensed so I know you know how to handle a firearm. And I want the magazine capacity reduced. Everything else can stay the same.

why should I need to get a license when criminals won't

why should a constitutional right be subject to a license

and why should I have less rounds than criminals or cops?

at what point does someone become UNTRUSTWORTHY due to number of bullets

Listen-If I cannot trust you with 30 rounds I cannot trust you with 5 rounds

I get really impatient with liberal do gooders who cavalierly want to limit my rights because they are CLUELESS about this issue

and BTW I consider do-gooder gun banners equally disgusting with the hard core gun confiscators. If the SHTF I see the do gooders as the first place for reprisal

 

[turtledude]

The thread title here is correct

NO ONE needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine. If it doesn't have a 100 round drum it's just a paperweight.

100 round drums JAM a lot and are hard to maneuver with

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The thread title here is correct

NO ONE needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine. If it doesn't have a 100 round drum it's just a paperweight.

100 round drums JAM a lot and are hard to maneuver with

Quite true, but damn they are fun to burn through LOL

 

[ChrisL]

It's a poor response. The UK, Norway,and Germany have all had mass shooting events after their gun control was enacted. But looking at overall crime, it has not decreased in those countries since gun control. Actually the opposite.
So that argument is a fail.
It was going to be because there is no, absolutely no, well reasoned intelligent argument for gun control. None.

But NZ hasn't. Australia hasn't. Norway has had one incident. What incident has the UK had? There has been an overall decrease in gun crime in all those countries. And it's not about crime, it's about knowing when I walk down the street some guy isn't going to go postal on my arse because he got a bad haircut. Here's my list of mass shootings in the US since 1982 A Guide to Mass Shootings in America Mother Jones

Where's yours with regard to the Germany, Norway, Australia, France, NZ, Canada et al since firearms restrictions have come into place.

Those are different countries with completely different cultures, who also do not have the problems with gang violence that we have here in America. Even if Americans decided to give up one of their precious rights, do you honestly think that the gang members and other criminals are not going to have weapons? Then what? Do you think the police can be everywhere at once to save you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

I dont know. How much is it worth to you not to have to hide in your home quivering in fear lest the mob break in?
You'll notice that you generally dnt find riots in the US in places with looser gun laws. That isnt a coincidence.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

FACT: Banning blacks would do more to reduce the crime rate in this country than banning guns would.

Why is that a discussion liberals won't have?

 

[The Rabbi]

People who think and FEEL like you are the reason why freedom loving people need firearms. When people like you get in power, you might well start trying to use government force to confiscate items you don't think we need

and then we will need such weapons to deal with those who want to confiscate our arms.

I don't want to take your firearms away from you. I just want a back ground check to make sure you are not insane. I want you licensed so I know you know how to handle a firearm. And I want the magazine capacity reduced. Everything else can stay the same.

There is no background check to show someone is not insane. Of the high profile shootings in the last several years most of the people involved either passed a background check or would have had they bothered.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oy. Why do you have to doubt me?
Winnenden school shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sixteen children killed in Dunblane massacre From the archive 14 Mar 1996 From the Guardian theguardian.com
Norway shooting incidents from the past 20 years - Telegraph
Note the reference to the shooting incident in NZ in this last article.

Again, people are arguing two different things: heinous shooting incidents like Sandy Hook and general crimes involving guns. Gun control solves neither of those issues.

Note how most of those incidents in England, Canada, NZ and Australia are more than 20 years old - ie, after stricter gun controls were put in place.

They already had gun control at the time of the shootings. So your point is a fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

People who think and FEEL like you are the reason why freedom loving people need firearms. When people like you get in power, you might well start trying to use government force to confiscate items you don't think we need

and then we will need such weapons to deal with those who want to confiscate our arms.

I don't want to take your firearms away from you. I just want a back ground check to make sure you are not insane. I want you licensed so I know you know how to handle a firearm. And I want the magazine capacity reduced. Everything else can stay the same.

None of those things would prevent a single crime. Dream on. Criminals won't submit to them and honest people will pass.

 

[ChrisL]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

And how many die in mass shootings, percentage wise? The answer is less than 1%.