The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 4:27pm

Nelle, while there is a middle ground here, nothing proposed by either the far right or far left is rational or well reasoned.  Having no restrictions on firearms is not any more reasonable than banning a type of firearm simply because it's been used in some high-profile shootings.  This is especially true in that the weapon class in question here (assault weapons) are used in relatively few homicides compared to other types of weapons.  That makes this debate a political exercise rather than a simple, wholly understandable concern over homicides.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 4:41pm

  Ignorance is what the media promotes because it sells newspapers and brings in advertising dollars.  High capacity is 75-150 rounds,  Most modern rifles have 30.  They are semi-automatic not full automatic.  We had the ban in1994 and it did nothing. 

  There is people who have never experienced lethal violence.  I have.  You are very wrong.  I have handled weapons since I was 7.  It Is the lack of training in weapon usage,safety and the constant reminders that most kids received that is the difference.  The guns we are talking about are NOT military weapons they have modern features.  You would not go to a car dealer and expect to choose between Model T's would you?

chaika

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 6:59pm

  It is clear that you are spouting what the Dems say and your emotional feelings.

    Modern civilian rifles do not spray they cannot.  They are semi-automatic.  The rifles in question are superior in design  to the old obsolete guns.  Here is a series of video including police and explanation of what is cosmetic and what is not.  You will find Leroy Pile's explanation helpful in understanding the differences and why there is confusion. 

In Leroy's video titled: San Jose Police Officer explains Assault Rifles the three rifles he first introduces the viewer to are Kalashnikov designs. From 1947!  

 http://www.awbinfo.com/?gclid=CJKX8KqjqrUCFcc-MgodoRYAiQ

 

  

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported*

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.

 

 

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 7:42pm

"Logical people wouldn't chose to try and ban a weapon used in so relatively few homicides while ignoring other weapons which are used in far, far more homicides, yet you and others are agitating for exactly that."

Who said the premise was to fix the number of homicides?  Talk about a strawman.  That is not at all the reason I'm saying specific weapons have no place in a civil society.  You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife.  REALLY?!  When an autopsy was performed on some of these children's bodies in CT some had up to 11 bullets in a single body.  He killed over 20 people in just minutes.  You may not like the word "spray" but I think its fitting.  Again, no place does such a weapon have in a civil society.  Sadly, getting stabbed or shot with a bullet can lead to death but bullets spraying out and deliving up to 11  shots in a victim is just beyond words and will indeed cause massive damage to a victim with nearly zilch chance for survival.  We don't need these weapons legal and we don't need to stop all violence before declaring the importance about this specific problem.  If the same weapon used in the CT killing was used against Gabby, she may not be with us today. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 7:49pm

Semantics is all you got?  You don't like the word spray so I won't use it.  Let's use the word Oppa and what is means is that over 20 people died in a matter of minutes with multiple gun shots to the bodies with up to 11 shots in a single body.  There is clearly NO debate that this weapon caused massive damage and a very short period of time and that is the problem with such a weapon.  It has no place in the hands of the general public.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 9:03pm

So it doesn't matter how often or how seldom the firearms in question are used in homicides, nor how many people are killed by someone using them, you just don't like them and they need to be banned.   Thanks for making that clear.

You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife. REALLY?!

Not what I said.  What I posted and firmly stand by is data from the FBI which quite clearly establishes that rifles (including assault weapons) are used in fewer homicides than handguns, edged weapons, or even hands & feet.  Disbelieve that if you will, but the numbers are there in the UCR if you care to look at it.  It's on the FBI website.

You may not like the word "spray" but I think its fitting.

So because you think it, that makes it so?  And you comment on the logic of my posts.

Again, no place does such a weapon have in a civil society.

Again, according to you.  Others have a different opinion, and that opinion is just as valid as yours, more so if you take actual personal experience with the weapons into account as well as objective knowledge of the facts surrounding this issue.  By your own admission your arguments and position on this subject aren't about saving lives, or eliminating those firearms used most often in homicides, it's just about what you personally like and dislike, what you feel and what you think rather than any objective rationale or purpose. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 10:35pm

Bologna, it did not take a lot of time to do that damage. Feel free to minimize all you want.

And you are right about that greed thingy.  The NRA should be ashamed of itself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 10:44pm

[quote=maskedmullet]<p>So it doesn't matter how often or how seldom the firearms in question are used in homicides, nor how many people are killed by someone using them, you just don't like them and they need to be banned.   Thanks for making that clear.</p><p><em>

That is a blatant attempt to misrepresent what I said.  You can ban items due to the potential hazards it can cause regardless of how often it happens.  When the topic of banning items on planes comes up, do people start pulling out statistics on how many airplane tragedies happen compared to off airplane tragedies?  Do people bring up statistics on how much deadlier kung fu is when comparing say hairspray, a pocket knife or nail clippers and then go on to argue therefore those items should not be banned on a plane?  Everyone knows those items are banned due to the potential hazards they can cause and have caused even though airplane killings/hijackings are rather rare compared to the deaths off planes. Get my drift? 

And, facts are facts so feel free to play semantics. The bodies of the people in that rampage had multiple bullets, some up to 11 and they were killed in a matter of minutes.  That degree of destruction by that weapon was significant.  A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 11:46pm

  Good state of the art weapons have a very good place in civilized society.  It is the fact that they are superior to any thing else.  This is about politics.  This is Obama trying to make the US like Chicago and following the UN creed.  It is designed to steal from the individual the rights that are ascribed to that individual.  Oppression is another word for bullying. 

     These are the gunmaker's art.  A truly civil society does not run around like a chicken with out it's head.  Gabby was shot by a pistol. A much more powerful pistol  "9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

  "You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife."

    That's right.  They are the same.  Most pistols shoot a heavier bullet.  One cannot compare a pistol to a knife.  A pistol is easier to use in close quarters.  That is where the conspiracy theory comes from the corner could not tell the caliber of the bullets. 

  "A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage."  Yes, it would.    Now let me ask have you ever fought for your life?  No?  I have.  It is not like movies or tv!    This person had plenty of time.  11 bullet wounds so?  That is quite possible but they could also be pass thru from other victims too.  So what?  Any hand gun can do that  some can do more.  .223 is a wounder not a stopper round.  It's velocity would pass the bullet thru not stop in tissue.  However, so would most other calibers in small mass targets.

 http://www.ballistics101.com/the_gun_is_civilization.php

 

  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

  A  .223 is a very small bullet.  In a Bushmaster it would have a muzzle velocity of 3000 fts (feet per second) There should be bullet holes all over the place.  If that scares you go down to see what a 357 magnum wound looks like.  

    To shoot 11 bullets into one victim means he had a lot of time. 

What is a civil society?     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

What is civilization?   a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained   http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

  Now do we live in a civil society no we do not.  From HOV's to gun control the desire to effect control over another is uncivilized behavior.  Yet we embrace the bully over the individual.  Greed is more important than the welfare of the population. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 7:08am

 A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage.

A knife, probably not.  A handgun, or course it could.  Depends on caliber, range, and things of that nature, but a handgun could certainly inflict wounds just as lethal as those of a rifle. 

And I didn't say you couldn't ban items based on arguments such as your's, just that it didn't make sense as it wasn't particularly logical.  What you're wanting isn't banning something under certain circumstances, such as being on a mode of public transportation like an aircraft, but under all circumstances.  So yes, I get your drift, but you're relying on a false analogy to support your conclusion.

Pages