Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darthtang AW http:///t/397238/by-the-grace-of-god#post_3540530
Seems quite a few actually do.
https://www.google.com/search?q=we+should+ban+all+guns&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
Over ten pages on google of blogs and articles supporting the banning of all guns.
Go look at all the NRA misconception of information sites that tries to refute these people's claims. What's your point.
Thanks for the insult. How is that for tolerance.
Not sure how it's an insult. Every mass shooting that's occurred in the last few years, and semi-automatic assault rifle was used. Yes other weapons wee in their possession, but those were only used after the major damage was done.
1 shot gun round can do this.
Please. Yes, 1 shot gun round can do the same if the victim is within a 150 ft range. You can take that AR and nil someone as far as 3/4 of a mile away and still make a fatal shot. With the exception of some of these modified assault shotguns, every standard shotgun has a maximum shell capacity of 5 rounds, as opposed to an AR that comes with a 30-round magazine. Do the numbers and tell me which firearm can be more lethal in the long run.
Shotguns kill more people on a yearly basis than all rifles combined (this includes the ar-15)
They kill more because they are more readily available, easier to purchase, and have a low cost in regards to ammo.
Hammers and knives kill more people than either category. But you will just say hammers and knives have an additional purpose.
Brother, the ridiculous hammer and knife analogy. Let's add baseball bats, pol cues, sticks, or whatever to the list. No, these items are sold for a SPECIFIC purpose for their intended use. Using them as a weapon is just secondary. The primary purpose of a firearm is to injure or kill its intended target. It's secondary purpose is it being used as a form of "hobby", where your "victim" is some target or inanimate object.
So you condone the ownership and use of an illegal weapon over a legal one? Sawed off shotguns are illegal. The spread pattern of a sawed off shotgun increase your chance of collateral damage in the immediate area versus my semi automatic unloading of my AR. The bullets go in a straight line at their target from my ar. The sawed off shotgun spreads in a very wide pattern. Past a range of 5 feet you have no control over who or what that spread pattern hits. Since shotguns require a minimum of 18.5 inch barrel, most shotguns are bulkier and less manueverable than an AR. Especially in narrow hall ways of my home. My AR rounds are frangible. In fact all home defense guns in the safe are loaded with frangible rounds. No risk of the bullet going past its initial strike point.
You know what I meant in regards to legally owned shotguns. Most states allow an 18" barrel. Less maneuverable and bulkier that an AR? Guess it depends on the "accessories" you stick on an AR. Start adding all the bafflers, upper receiver forearm mods, and other "additions", that AR is just as heavy and bulky as most conventional shotguns. Most people also stick the same 16" barrel on them.
I'm an avid skeet shooter and wild game hunter (duck, pheasant, geese, quail, dove, etc.). I own three very nice skeet guns, and even my lower-end shotgun is probably lighter and more agile than your AR. In a small-area incursion like a home invasion, I guarantee you my 2 shots would be more effective than your two shots, even with your red dot/green dot sniper optics. Besides, my shotgun isn't even my first line of defense. That's what my 9mm is for. Unless you have one of these high-end biometric-opening safes (which very few people own), you couldn't even get to that AR by the time you heard the door break down and they come rushing into your room.
Implementing a law like that. you murder rate would decrease after the first year by 10 fold. You would have less prison costs. Your statement and my statement are pure opinion. Neither are based in provable fact with data or statistics. Thus can be ignored in this debate.
Let's just hope it never comes to that point to even obtain the statistics and leave it at that.
If a person didnt still worry about their safety or their family's safety they wouldn't carry the gun. Those of us that do carry don't feel safer. We just feel a bit more prepared. I carry a gun about 70% of the time when I am outside of my home. Depends where I am going. You are right my attitude changes. When I carry I do not engage in verbal arguments,. altercations, etc. etc. I am more concerned about my own actions as the could spark an altercation which any responsible gun owner I know wishes to avoid.
"More prepared" are the operative words. You can be prepared all you want, and you still can be a victim in any situation a firearm comes to play. Instead of carrying a gun when I go out, I tend to avoid any location where the potential of some kind of danger could arise. Yes, I could become a victim even in places where it's assumed to be safe, but that hasn't happened to me or any of my family members yet. "Responsible gun owner" is such a misnomer. Anyone who owns a firearm is considered that, until they use it in an illegal manner. The guy in the movie theater and the guy who shot the kid in the car with loud music where considered "responsible gun owners" until they took the actions they did. Shoot, the old guy in the theater was a former cop. How much more "responsible" can you get than that?
I present my video in the opening post as evidence. Gun to her head. She defended herself.
Over 10,000 people are killed in drunk driving deaths each year. Yet you support the consumption and usage of alcohol. You don't request that background checks be done on individuals purchasing or consuming alcohol for mental state of mind or past DWI convictions.You don't ask for the banning of higher proof alcohol. Alcohol is fine when used responsibly (similar to guns). However the usage of alcohol greatly impairs responsible actions. Alcohol serves no other purpose than for enjoyment either through the buzz, taste, or drunken euphoric feeling. The deaths involving firearms and the deaths involving drunk driving are similar in statistics.iv>
Now the drunk driver argument. You do make valid points, but the two are still dissimilar. Most drunk driver injuries and deaths are never considered intentional. Most people who are involved in those incidents don't sit around saying "You know what. I'm going to get plastered to the extreme on Jack and Coke, go jump in my car, and drive down the road completely impaired until I either crash into another vehicle, run over an innocent pedestrian, or slam my car into a tree, whichever comes first." Most crimes committed with firearms are intentional. When someone pulls a firearm, whether it's intentional to commit a crime, or unintentional to protect oneself in a situation needing to do so, the full intent of pulling that weapon is to injure or kill. As far as individuals who are found guilty of DWI? I'm an advocate for zero tolerance when it comes to that offense. First conviction, minimum 1 year in prison, regardless if they injured another individual or not. Second conviction, minimum 5 - 10, depending on whether someone was injured. Third conviction, life. Life with no parole if someone was fatally injured.
