I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
I probably should not have mentioned the Mini-14 and the AR-15 in the same post. I have made several posts today and I'm glad one of them was to pray for a 90-year-old Gamecock. I'm sorry I supported this discussion on a site like Gamecock Central. In the future, let's concentrate on Gamecock Sports and leave the political discussions to another venue.Give yours up if you like. But it seemed to me the point of your original post was that AR-15s were somehow worse than your rifle. Neither is bad or good. But they're very similar. Sure we can do something. Whatever that something is, or whether it will make any difference is the topic of debate. Murder victims in 2017 from rifles was 364. Handguns accounted 6,368. Rifles are behind blunt objects, hands-fists-feet and weapons other than guns/knives. 3,709 people drowned in swimming pools in 2017. That's more than 10X by rifles. Scary rifles are not the epidemic everyone pretends they are. They just get all the media hype. You'll say "If it saves one life..." Well, smoking related illnesses kill 480,000 annually. If we want to save lives, we should focus our efforts where we can make a bigger difference.
Homicides by murder weapon in the U.S. 2022 | Statista
Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 7,936 homicides in 2022.www.statista.com
Tobacco-Related Mortality
See the data and statistical information on tobacco-related mortality rates regarding smoking and tobacco usewww.cdc.gov
Exactly! Murder never existed until social media! Oh wait...
For all those who think gun owners are all conspiracy nuts, this just came out. If this happens and this administration proceeds with this, they will absolutely start a civil war in this country.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksi...661CR469qdUMrq4q-35UUK44ufxYg&sh=70f6b1d42829
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksi...661CR469qdUMrq4q-35UUK44ufxYg&sh=70f6b1d42829
It was too political of a topic for it not to happen. I am middle of the road on politics as no on party accurately represents my personal beliefs. When it comes to guns- responsible ownership of reasonable weapons seems fine. I see nothing wrong with limiting access to those weapons deemed extremely dangerous, or limiting access for those people deemed unfit to own any gun. I feel that is a reasonable take no matter a person’s political affiliation, but as we see on all subjects these days- events become politicized and reason exits the conversations quickly. I hope everyone who choses their sides so adamantly understands the forces at work behind the political party/politician they have allowed to mold their stance. Regardless of the side you take you will find- if you dig deep enough- money and power are their primary motivations not morality or our safety.
Not all gun owners are conspiracy nuts... Just the ones who talk about starting a civil war every time an election or political policy does not go their way.
Just going to point out that many other countries have all those factors and don't have high murder rates as we do. The difference? Availability of weapons. Don't get me wrong, I support the second amendment, but pretending like guns aren't a large part of the problem is ignoring facts and is disingenuous.
Edit: quoted the wrong person
Edit 2: I guess I'm not as done as I thought lol.
so, maybe they should outlaw smoking in public places like restaurants or something... perhaps limit the people who can and cannot buy cigarettes with an age limit...? In a crazy world they might even check them out by like getting them to prove their age with IDs?? I don’t know just tossing out some potential restrictions we could impose to reduce the dangers... Kinda spit balling here! I know it sounds crazy and like a terrible invasion of privacy and one could even say an infringement on our rights... but it just might work! 😉
Defining what is "extremely dangerous" is the issue. You have repeatedly called the ar15 a weapon of war, which it is not.
Another poster bragged about owning a rifle that is functionally identical to an ar15, but looks different, as a good substitute for an ar15.
Before we start talking about what should and shouldnt be banned, I think we need to start acknowledging cosmetic differences and functional differences.
This is not correct, and was covered in the thread earlier.
The ar was a semi auto that armalite tried to sell to the army. The army said no.
Colt bought either armalite or just the rights to the ar, and made the m16 (fully auto) for the military. That usage led to the popularity of the ar as the civilian (semi auto) version of the military m16 (fully auto).
This is an interesting read...
The US comes in at 5.35 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. Japan is the lowest at 0.2 intentional homicides per 100,000 people and El Salvador is the highest at 82.84 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. The average is 7.03 for the data set.
Murder Rate by Country 2024
another data set:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
The numbers do not bear out what most of us think they would...
Sure. But those problems may manifest in other ways. Suicide rate, depression, drug use. You can't just throw causation at that and say less guns equals less death. The US is unlike any country in the history of the world. We are the most culturally diverse country in the history of the world. We have our problems, as do those countries. Sure they may have less deaths by firearm, but do they have higher stabbing rates? higher assault rates? more domestic abuse? additional draconian laws? homogenous populations? It's impossible to compare 1 statistic in a vacuum. Or you can, but that's being disingenuous.
see my post above yours for some actual data on intentional homicide rates...the numbers will surpise you. The US is not as bad as people think it would be.
Didnt say I was starting anything. I said that that particular law would start a civil war in this country.
This distinction has been defined by numerous local and national bans of assault style weapons in recent years/decades. Every one I am aware of includes the AR-15, if it does not specifically single it out as enemy number one. In short- It has been defined and virtually everyone disagrees with your opionion on that specific gun.
Again, we are talking countries with similar population density and civilization. Comparing the US to El Salvadore is not an equitable comparison. Comparing the US to Europe you find that only 2 or 3 countries have a higher rate than the US.
Then you sir are clearly not one of the conspiracy theory nuts... Anyone who would allow a single policy like this to instigate them to violence against their own country and other citizens most certainly is.
There is plenty of mentally indolent, tyrannical trash posting in this thread that would love to make such a policy a reality. These maggots would gladly have your life ruined to satisfy their deluded sense of righteousness and misguided view of what is for the overall good of society.
You said that Obama said a majority of R's agreed with him and that you believed that.
And the SCOTUS did not find that it was unconstitutional. That is why Roberts, that snake, changed the penalty aspect of the law to be construed as a tax. As it was presented to SCOTUS, it was unconstitutional until he changed that part of it. Where does he have the authority to do that? That is the responsibility of the legislature, not the SCOTUS.
Right- “gonna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs” is the crux of the defense here- IOW: “I like owning my big sexy gun and have fun shooting it, so I don’t care if my fellow Americans are being slaughtered in the streets around me.” That is what it boils down to. ‘merica!!
I wasn’t attacking you; just using your comments as a jumping-off point to illustrate what modern insurgency/counter-insurgency war at the small unit level really is, for those whose acquaintance with combat is watching movies or playing video games. My one disagreement with your post, is that for the most part, the Civil War was not fought as a typical insurgency, but as war of two organized massed armies maneuvering and slugging it out on relatively defined fronts; basically a conventional war between two nation-states. There was some insurgent or guerrilla activity (the bulk of it on the Confederate side), but it wasn’t strategically significant in the grand scheme of things, the way it was in, for instance, Cornwallis’ disastrous southern campaign in the American Revolution. On that last, if you haven’t already, you might want to read Dr. Walter Edgar's excellent book “Partisans and Redcoats”, a perspective on what Cornwallis' army encountered in the Carolina Backcountry which you won’t find covered in depth in most histories of the birth of our nation. Some of the British experience in that campaign bears an eerie resemblance to what America walked into in Vietnam.
And once again, there's the disconnect.
Both rifles can be chambered to shoot the same caliber.
Both rifles can have 30 round magazines.
Both rifles have the same rate of fire.
But, lets outlaw one of them, because it's scarier looking to some people than the other. That's just outright silly.
More people are beaten to death with fists or blunt objects than shot with ANY kind of rifle, AR or not.. But lets outlaw the AR.
More people are shot with pistols in a Chicago Summer than with rifles of all kinds yearly, but politicians don't want to discuss that. But lets ban the AR.
I just don't get it. Supposedly rational people lining up to give up not only their rights, but the rights of many millions of responsible gun owners who possess many millions of guns....because one "looks scary".
You gotta be kidding me.
In this case, the weapon was the gun just like the vehicle is a weapon in a homicide where an individual was struck and killed by a driven car. The person with a gun killed the people in Colorado like a drunk driver can hit any pedestrian or other driver in his path while operating the vehicle. I don’t see arguments for wanting no sales of automobiles or alcohol. Why the call for guns? The people hurt in these arguments are the law abiding citizens.
LOL. You really think politicians know about guns? Most couldn't tell a rifle from a handgun.
It has been defined incorrectly, is my point, by people who think the ar is a military rifle. Or they know better and are just playing to their constituents.
See bitingcurves post above. One is an "assault rifle" and one isnt, for cosmetic reasons.
You make some good points but it seems for some there's no middle ground -- you can't even suggest looking at ways to address the problem without being labeled either an anti-second amendment nut by the pro second amendment folks or a gun nut by the other side.
By the way, how many ARs are used in massing shootings versus the mini? I ask because I do not know. But I suspect that one of the draws of the AR to purchasers is its looks. It looks deadly, so therefore it is popular amongst a certain segment of the population.
Unfortunately, among them are those unbalanced enough to shoot up schools and concerts and grocery stores and whatever else happens to strike their fancy.
Incorrect. And the type of rhetoric that destroys any chance at reasonable discussion.
population density goes out when it is rated per 100,000 inhabitants. And still you’d think it would be much higher with the saturation level of guns in the US compared to the other countries.
10-4. I'll drop it right here. I hope you have a good evening. I'm about to swear off this thread as well.
What did you think they would based on the links you provided?This is an interesting read...
The US comes in at 5.35 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. Japan is the lowest at 0.2 intentional homicides per 100,000 people and El Salvador is the highest at 82.84 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. The average is 7.03 for the data set.
Murder Rate by Country 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
another data set:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The numbers do not bear out what most of us think they would...
Agree on the no middle ground. I strongly suspect many people feel like me, and are wary of concessions that will simply be used as the starting point for the next debate. I simply dont trust when people say they only want these few restrictions today, then they'll be satisfied. I also strongly object to bans or restrictions based on cosmetic features.
As for the ar vs mini. I bet the ar is used a lot more, but it's because it is by far the most popular rifle of its kind. I'm sure looks have something to do with it. And dont underestimate all those accessories.
Imho, you get rid of one, and the next shooter buys the rifle that looks different but functions the same, and then people will wonder what to do with THAT gun.
FGF poster: “hmmm, 877 posts and the gun debate still isn’t settled” : pauses to think: “yep, just needs one more post”
Population density is exceptionally pertinent. If you have 50 people spread out over 5 miles, then they will interact far less often than those same 50 people in a city block. Interactions increase the likelihood of incidents, good or bad. Assuming that a significant portion of intentional deaths occur spontaneously as the result of a negative interaction, or as a random attack against grouped strangers, population density affects the likelihood of interactions happening. Countries with significantly lower population density AND a lower intentional death rate are right out. Same with countries that have a significantly higher population density and a higher number. Countries that have an unstable government and/or economy should also be excluded since those conditions do not accurately represent our condition here, and inherently breed more violence due to opportunity and necessity. Poor countries and countries under totalitarian rule should likewise be excluded due to the economic conditions that make violence more common and the level of control exerted by the government that keeps people from disobeying too openly. That leaves us with generally European countries.
Still let's not quibble details, let's address my original post that brought us to this point. If you refuse to acknowledge that access to weapons is a significant part of the problem, you're kidding yourself. How many of those countries that have higher intentional death rates than the US have strict gun laws and lack of access? Central America and South America have access from the US and from criminal elements in nearby countries. There are war torn countries in Africa and the Middle East, so access is moderate regardless of laws. Europe is generally the best comparison to the US that has somewhat similar culture and freedoms without widespread access to firearms and also having fairly strict laws on possession of weapons. The largest difference in the US and most of Europe in relation to intentional deaths is access to and laws regulating ownership of firearms.
- Status
