Why isn't the NRA talking about the the average shooting which is the real problem?

[Sam1911]

If no one had access to high capacity assault weapons, less shots could be fired on shooting sprees before the police arrive, therefore less deaths would occur. This is a basic logical argument.

What fantasy world could that even occur in? There are MILLIONS of those guns and magazines already in civilian hands (RIGHT where they belong) and no legislation could ever change that.

As we've also pointed out here, the "high-capacity" thing is a complete red herring totally misunderstood or ignored by many who would ban such weapons. It takes 2-4 SECONDS to change a magazine. Even for a novice. There is no possible "logical argument" that supports the idea that this would somehow limit a shooters's opportunity to kill. As I've pointed out in other threads, given the amount of time Adam Lanza had between his first shots and the first responders arriving, he could have reloaded approximately THREE HUNDRED TIMES.

So, please don't repeat this argument ever again, here or elsewhere. It is foolish and disingenuous.

If by giving up assault weapons you could bring back just one of the children who died at Newtown, you like any other decent american would do it,

No, that is not true. More lives are SAVED by firearms of these types (and others) than are lost to madmen. Seriously look at the statistics on these things. VERY, VERY few of this type of weapon are used in crimes. No one would give up a gun to save a life, because fewer guns means more innocent lives lost on the balance.

Neither the President nor anyone in the Administration wants to take your legitimate sporting and defense firearms, that is another basic point that gets missed.

Well...that's completely untrue...they just SAID they do. Where were you last week?

The debate is only about the most deadly guns which are loved by the fringes of the far right.

Oh...you mean THE MOST POPULAR RIFLE IN THE US? The one nicknamed the "poodle shooter" or "mouse gun" because of how relatively wimpy a cartridge it shoots? That "most deadly gun"? The rifle that has outsold every other kind of long arm made in the US today? Yeah...that's all those "fringe" folks for you!

It is fun debating with you, but you're a long way from bringing a realistic argument to the table.

Got anything else?

 

[Solo]

Well if you have exit polls showing how many "gansters" vote and also have data conclusively showing how many "gangsters" there are then we can discuss facts and not your baseless claims.

Do you?


Anyways, dh55, what legitimate sporting guns do you use when hunting? I must admit, I am curious; do you use a high-powered sniper rifle, or a lever action rifle with "cop killer" .30-30 bullets?

 

[coolluke01]

The fact is that those who are poor and not able to make large political contributions don't get the same voice that those with money do. When the masses call for assault weapons to be banned many Democrats jump to, and do what they can for their supporters.

We morn over the 20 children who died in Sandy Hook. But a large portion of our nation doesn't know that about 446 school age children were shot in Chicago last year. Not killed, just shot. 62 have been killed.

The bleeding heart is really a just an greedy heart. And republicans are not always any better, it's human nature. Out of sight out of mind.

 

[gp911]

In case the joke slips by you dh55, the sniper and cop-killer comments come from gun-control advocates describing other commonly used legitimate sporting rifles they've sought to ban over the years. If you use a bolt-action rifle with a scope or any centerfire ammunition at all your gun is on the eventual ban list and has been for a very long time. We've seen it before and we'll see it again, and that is why the NRA has 4 million members.

 

[Justin]

If no one had access to high capacity assault weapons, less shots could be fired on shooting sprees before the police arrive, therefore less deaths would occur. This is a basic logical argument.

And if no one had access to single-stack 9mm carbines, pump-action or side-by-side shotguns the death toll at Columbine would have been a lot lower, too.

Why do you want children to die, just so you can keep a fowling piece?

 

[gossamer]

But a large portion of our nation doesn't know that about 500 school age children died from gunshots in Chicago last year. (please correct if this isn't right).

A large portion of our nation doesn't know it because it is not correct.

About 500 people total were murdered in Chicago last year. There is no data supporting the claim that Chicago stands alone as the only city in the country where 100% of murder victims were school-age children.

People (like the OP) REALLY REALLY need to get their fact straight before they start reporting them. Facts matter. Data matters, especially when you are using that data to make a claim about any segment of society in defense of liberty and rights.

Come on folks, we can (and desperately need to) do better.

 

[CZ-75BD]

Interesting.... in America you can be Democrat, republican, gay, lesbian, black, white, yellow, red, green but you cannot be racist?
I was under impression that same people who started Civil war... proposed second amendment too, or I was mistaken?

 

[gossamer]

Interesting.... in America you can be Democrat, republican, gay, lesbian, black, white, yellow, red, green but you cannot be racist?
I was under impression that same people who started Civil war... proposed second amendment too, or I was mistaken?

One is free to be a racist. One is free to be a complete and utter tool too.

 

[Sam1911]

Interesting.... in America you can be Democrat, republican, gay, lesbian, black, white, yellow, red, green but you cannot be racist?
I was under impression that same people who started Civil war... proposed second amendment too, or I was mistaken?

Of course you're free to be a racist. It isn't a "protected class" but you can be anything you want.

What in the world does this have to do with the question, and what does the second sentence have to do with the first?

 

[CZ-75BD]

It was far fetch
Second sentence was meant to show that people how let us have right to bear arms was no racist - it was irony...

 

[Shadow 7D]

It's an oblique attack, note the link of racism, civil war and guns (2nd amendment) (sorry the irony was lost and it's a too well tread path by many who view those with guns as 'throwbacks')
so..

The problem is that Anti's don't argue facts, they argue emotion, they don't look to solve a problem, they look to 'feel good'

And they are 'useful idiots' (and for anyone NOT familiar with the term look it up)

 

[DammitBoy]

Interesting viewpoint and on topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n8egXfmJM

 

[coolluke01]

Thanks for the correction. I was mistaken about the fact that they were (merely) shot not killed. The number of school aged children shot in Chicago was 446. 62 Died.

 

[dh55]

No, that is not true. More lives are SAVED by firearms of these types (and others) than are lost to madmen

Were more than 500 people saved by firearms in Chicago in 2012?

 

[Solo]

That is an excellent question, dh55! What data do you have to support or refute Sam1911's assertion?

Please excuse me as I go off to look for pertinent information. Let's meet back in about an hour with our results. I look forward to a well reasoned and enlightening debate.

The first thing I should note is that strict gun control laws mean that people in Chicago don't have the means to defend themselves with guns, even as criminals disobey the law and shoot each other with illegally acquire firearms, catching innocent civilians in the crossfire. So if the number of civilians defending themselves with firearms is low, that would be a result of Chicago's laws, would it not?

 

[dh55]

That is an excellent question, dh55! What data do you have to support or refute Sam1911's assertion?

Not my job to refute it, the person making the assertion has to prove it with evidence. Look up "Burden of proof" in wikipedia.

 

[Solo]

It's not your job, but surely you have the facts at your disposal? You strike me as a well informed individual, so please share with us your knowledge about guns, crime, and self-defense in Chicago.

 

[VVelox]

Because that's the argument that the antis are presenting.
When young black males shoot each other, it is a 'gang problem'. When a white guy shoots a load of kids, it's a 'gun problem'.
The antis have set the stage for the debate, and have chosen a nice juicy massacre to further their agenda. Gang violence doesn't fit their argument, so they ignore it.

What are they going to do? Campaign to make gangs and illegal guns illegal?

No they don't.

Here in Chicago it is exactly what drives the call for a state level and federal level assault weapon ban.

The reason is the local politicians here don't wish to poverty that has lead to the issues. Nor do they wish to discuss the issues with racism and then classism that has lead to it. Because they don't wish to discuss it, they yell about firearms as a distraction.

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

usmarine says;
The question the NRA and everyone else needs to be asking and talking about is how are we going to solve the real problem, which is these young black men getting illegal guns and using them.

The answer to your question is; no law will solve this problem. It is a moral and cultural problem. People and families have to fix themselves first. Also we must uphold laws we already have and prosecute criminals that commit these crimes. As Wayne has stated in his speech it is the culture that is causing these upswings in violence.

 

[danez71]

If no one had access to high capacity assault weapons, less shots could be fired on shooting sprees before the police arrive, therefore less deaths would occur. This is a basic logical argument.

If no one had access to alcohol, there wouldnt be any drunk driving..... Oh ya... the whole prohibition thing didnt work.

Prohibition truely prooved that if you ban it... only LAW ABIDING people wont have it and only CRIMINALS will.



If someone wanted to commit a mass murder and the gun was never invented, they could just drive a car into a few crowded bus benches.

Evil people do evil things.


Why do you want to put the law abiding person at a disadvantage?

Why do you want to support the criminals and give them an advantage?

 

[Sam1911]

Were more than 500 people saved by firearms in Chicago in 2012?

Very probably YES. There is no verifiable way to collect and verify that information, however, as "saved by firearms" means several things (shot and killed attacker, shot and wounded attacker, shot and missed attacker but attacker fled, and the most common -- brandished weapon and attacker fled with no shots fired). Many of those are not reported to any authorities, and certainly not to any statistical analysts. But for a better handle on this, please read Gary Kleck's scholarly work (a taste of it here: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html).

To quote that brief:

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

Now, further, 2 points:
1) In Chicago a great many firearms commonly used for defensive purposes in most parts of the country are ILLEGAL (and all firearms are rigorously regulated). So, assuming that "law abiding people" do not violate that law (ignoring for the moment all the poor folks who are criminals ONLY because they keep a firearm that they shouldn't have, by law) then Chicago would see arbitrarily and artificially depressed numbers of self-defense gun usage because the good folks aren't ALLOWED to save themselves from attack with a handgun or "assault firearm." So there are 500 deaths via firearm in Chicago one year? Hmmm...wonder how many of those folks wish they'd had a handgun or rifle? (And I wonder how many of those deaths were under circumstances of criminal activity such as drug deals gone bad, gang killings, etc? Kind of hard to have a meaningful level of concern for these numbers if you don't filter them to remove the ranks of social predators killing EACH OTHER.)

2) Again...Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws to be found ANYWHERE in the country, and the laws of the City of Chicago are an order of magnitude WORSE. In such a totalitarian anti-gun environment -- FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE WERE SHOT IN ONE YEAR??? What does a logical person draw from such data?

Dh55, did you have anything at all to say to my other points, or have you reached a better understanding of these issues now?

 

[Hacker15E]

Don't get me wrong, I am an avid hunter.

It is an incredibly myopic worldview to believe that:

1. Hunting is any more of a "legitimate" use of firearms than any other legal use.
2. Legislation to restrict types of firearms that you don't particularly see a need for is okay so long as it doesn't impact your uses.
3. The day that someone uses a shotgun or "hunting rifle" to commit a high-enough profile murder, the anti-firearms folks aren't going to have those types on their list next to ban.

 

[Solo]

But for a better handle on this, please read Gary Kleck's scholarly work (a taste of it here: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html).

I've heard Keck's statistics overestimated, and that the actual number could be anywhere from 300,000 to 1.3 million per year.

 

[Sam1911]

I've heard Keck's statistics overestimated, and that the actual number could be anywhere from 300,000 to 1.3 million per year.

Sure. Anywhere up to 2.73 million. Pretty much impossible to say, for sure. At any rate, it is clearly A LOT. Many orders of magnitude more than "lives lost to gun violence" or whatever pablum the anti's spread.

 

[Solo]

But more importantly, even if it cost more lives than it saved...

Well, free speech costs lives too, and we don't quite need it to live, but we keep it around because the cost of a certain amount of social instability is outweighed by the benefits free speech provides.