Anybody with comments?
I have a few but will will hold off.
I like Biden's nonconfrontational style, which is very refreshing because it is the polar opposite of Trump and is what I have always loved about him going way back to when he was the lead Dem senator during the late 1980s to early 1990s on the Judiciary Committee. Trump literally treated the Dems like mortal enemies. He thrived on divisiveness. Biden repeatedly invited the GOP to work with him or give their alternatives to consider.
The most negative thing I can say about him is that he lacks charisma and is kind of boring. But hey, it far beats Trump's bombastic style!
Tim Scott was less nonconfrontational, which to be fair is common for the spokesman for the opposition's speech. The first thing he said about Biden is that he “seems” like a good guy. Seems like rather than saying he is a good guy? That wasn’t very nice. His saying the US is not a racist nation wasn't an accurate remark imo as I feel there's plenty of it. Geez, even Scott himself has been the recipient of racist behavior!
I didn’t hear Biden’s speech, I only read about it later, online. And I realize that the printed presentation of his speecdh may have been streamlined by the site I was reading.
Some of Biden's comments immediately reminded me very much of a politician who ran in Germany in the early 1930s… (you know who I am referring to).
A long time ago, I believed that the government should take care of all of us (and I don’t mean, having everyone on welfare, but the government should be our safety net, in case of sickness, unemployment, retirement, any catastrophe, etc). I remember getting chewed out a bit on this forum by mcfarm, for my socialist views... lol
But that was a long time ago. Since then, I have grown up… especially the last 4 years.
Biden’s program is a socialist dream… and that’s what the masses like to hear.
Sure. Our infrastructure needs repair… and repairing it, creates jobs. But these activities don’t create revenues (not like Ford building cars, or other "capitalist" companies building things). Where is the money for these new jobs coming from?
All his other wonderful proposals... free this, free that... sounds great. But somebody has to pay for all of these wonderful plans. Where is the money coming from?
I don’t believe taxing the “rich” will do it. The “rich” will always find ways to cut their tax liability down. Taxing big business will also backfire (many of us are working for these big businesses)… they either lay off people, or they raise prices for the stuff we buy from them, or they move their business overseas (which in turn will cost us jobs and tax revenue)
If the US was a corporation, it would be in bankruptcy proceedings already. His plans are adding another 6 trillion. OMG
Another thing that turned me off, was his presenting himself as the savior from all the destruction Trump has caused.
Sure, Biden has a much more pleasant personality than Trump. And we don’t have to listen to the daily, offensive Trump tweets any more.
Yes, the pandemic seems to be fading away, while under Trump’s reign there was chaos. But let’s not forget that Trump was against the lockdown that caused all the economic suffering. And we can’t blame Trump for not dealing with the pandemic properly, when Dr Fauci and CDC had no clue how to deal with it either.
However, before the pandemic, Trump’s policies were making the US a better place. All you have to do is, look at how well things were going, before the virus showed up. Record employment numbers in record-keeping history, for minorities, etc., etc. If it wasns't for the pandemic, Biden might not be in the WH
In the end, the astronomic cost of all of Biden’s plans will dilute the value of the dollar. In the end, the consumer will pay for all of his plans, be it through higher taxes, or increasing cost of consumer products, or devaluation of the dollar.
And not much mention of one of the REAL prolbems facing us right now... the border
My reaction to the speech…. using Biden’s terminology… it’s “malarkey”.... Only dog-faced pony-soldiers will fall for it.
I do agree with him though, when it comes to ending the never-ending war in Afghanistan.. But then, Trump was planning to do the same.
I need to add....
I grew up in Germany. Germany has had many of such social programs for decades. However, I remember everybody in Germany working... there were very few people unemployed and on welfare (as is the case in the USA). And they didn't stick it to the "rich" people... everybody paid taxes (higher than we are used to in the US). So, the People of Germany accepted high taxes, and in return expected and received these benefits
It is my understanding that, in recent years, things have shifted a bit.... due to the ultra-liberal immigration politics, their welfare system had to be expanded dramatically to accommodate the refugees.
Thanks Larry and Gunter!
I only heard the later parts of the Biden speech, then all of Tim Scott.
Several things stuck out for me.
1. Like Larry said, it was nice to have somebody give a calm speech that used words telling that he wants to unite. However, I was able to separate myself from the "not Trump" mentality and see Joe Biden as Joe Biden and not "not Trump.
2. When he referred to the US/cops as being systemically racist, I winced for 2 reasons. The first is that this is not true. People think that because the MSM and politicians have convinced them that we are racist, beginning at the start of Obama's 2nd term but its not true. Somebody show me the proof and I'll believe it. Just because people have been fooled into believing it is not proof. The other, even bigger problem I have with this is that when you accuse people of being systemically racist (cops/republicans) it's about the worst insult that you attack them with. Absolutely no way, are you trying to get unite with people that you call racists. This shows hatred and judgment and puts them on the defensive, as they feel offended, especially the vast, vast majority that are not racist. If you are trying to get people to hate you, call them names like this.
3. Along the same lines. He brought up the Insurrection a couple of times as an example of our democracy having its worst attack in history but we somehow managed to withstand it. WTHeck! It was a 1 time protest that got way out of control/turned into a riot in the worst place possible. Stop the dramatizing please and for peats sake, if you are trying to unite with people on the other side, the last thing you do is totally exaggerate something they did wrong almost 4 months ago, then continually bring it up ad naseum for political reasons to make them look bad and you look good.
4. He talked about his relationship with China and how he was going to hold them accountable and do this and that and when he met with their leader recently showed him who the boss was. Total bs. Their leader owned and embarrassed Biden in that meeting. If you actually followed it, then listened to Biden describe what happened last night, you would have thought they must have been 2 different settings, with 2 different people.
Biden And Kerry Get Humiliated by China
6 responses |
Started by metmike - April 25, 2021, 3:54 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68502/
5. He mentioned that the problem at the border is from problems those people have in their country that he is working to fix. He says that if they are climate refugees, the result of human caused climate change which is causing drought and floods(and earthquakes), then he will let them in. I am 100% for us helping poor countries. But this new definition, now means that anytime a country has extreme weather, they have justification for being a climate refugee and getting into the US. Almost every country in the world has had extreme weather during my lifetime. Prior to that, they all had the same extreme weather, even before CO2 went up.
This new definition of his on climate refugees, comes straight out of the United Nations playbook, used to make the rule in the Climate Accord. The Climate Accord, as you may have noted above in that link, allows all the poor counties to emit CO2, including China and the Green Climate Fund, collects money from the rich countries, like the US to give to the poor countries for climate reparations because we supposedly wrecked their climate.....so they can adapt to their bad climate.
Ironically, their crops are producing 40% more BECAUSE of climate change. They should be paying the CO2 emitters an atmospheric fertilizer commission for the best weather and climate and CO2 levels in the last 5,000 years.
Tim Scott gave a powerful, sincere and truthful speech.
As a black man, he set the record straight on racism and corrected Biden on calling us systemically racist.
Interesting that he related that he was getting called more names related to his race..............by the left, N____, Uncle Tom and so on then from the right.
He told us about the anti racist bill that he introduced after the George Floyd incident last Summer and the democrats refused to sign it.....because he said they are more interested in using the issue for politics instead of solving it.
Exactly Tim!
metmike: They also have turned their backs on the issue that is the real killer of blacks.........violent crime because there arent any political things to gain from it. Blacks commit 6 times more violent crime. Anybody with a few objective brain cells, would know that this is going to result in at least that many more confrontations with the cops. When criminals are being arrested for crimes, asking "pretty please" for compliance, isn't a very effective strategy.
Again, I am for
1. Body Cams
2. Compete accountability/transparency...weed out the bad ones
3. The best training
But all the best cops will NEVER cut the stratospheric violent crime rates committed by blacks.......which is doing almost ALL the damage to black communities. Ironically, the cops are the only ones risking their lives to stop the REAL problem.
Sadly, the group pretending that Black Lives Matter, when they can be used for political gain...... are the most counterproductive to black lives in the real world.
We should be on the exact same side as the cops.....help them to be better at what they do in serving us.
It's clear from their actions where cops stand, in spite of the media taking every incident and putting cops on trial, always looking for the criminal to be the victim if the criminal was black.
The other side, putting cops on trial and always assuming the worst, uses subjective, inflammatory words attacking the ones that we know are dedicated to serving us for a living.
thank you metmike. You have repeatedly addressed the issue about police/crime/race in the past. I wish, more people in the world would read your logical comments.
Biden's comment about the US being "systemically racist" made me wonder... he was vice president under the first black man electred into the WH. That election certainly proved that the Jim Crow days are behind us. Has he already forgotten? Is he that senile? Or was it just the typical rethoric intended to promote hate, division and racial conflict? (which is used by certain democrats and the MSM all the time)
Gunter raises and interesting point. Strong social saftey nets work well if the vast majority of the population has a strong work ethic.
thanks Tim
in conclusion of my comment in my last point....
about the refugees.... most of them are on welfare... free housing, free food, free education, etc etc
here is a refugee, telling another refugee a joke..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sfiPwZspZQ
During the 2020 campaign, Trump had huge rallies, while few people showed any interest in Biden’s rare appearances.
This pattern is repeating today. Trump’s first SOTU speech had an audience of 45.6 million, while Biden’s speech yesterday had 11.6 million, it says here
Also, at the WH Life site, the “most popular” president in history, had an audience of only 40k, with 600 “likes”, and 7,700 “dislikes”
gunter, along those lines rumors out today that Trump will restart his Maga rallies in May and move around the country to highlight the next generation of possible Repub candidates for President and finish the job he started
Your views on Trump are the complete opposite of how Tim views Trump.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68613/#68617
Who is correct?
I forgot to mention that I am 100% on board with all the no brainer positions that Biden verbalized last night on gun control.
There is no reason for high powered guns and ammo to protect yourself from anything less than a large gang/small army.
There must be tighter regulations on who is allowed to purchase a gun.
I will note though, that deaths from mass shootings, which get all the attention..... while a major problem, when added up for the last decade for the entire country............are less than how many people were killed in just the city of Chicago last year......often by guns.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19376/number-of-mass-shootings/
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-homicides-murder-report/8424707/
biden sounds like a typical 3rd world politician... i will give you these handouts, and these handouts, and these handouts...and we will just destroy the currency to fulfill our christmas wishlist.
i am not a republican, but tim scott gave a speech that was far superior to biden.
biden just sounded dumb, dumb, dumb.
long ago, i used to agree with much of what biden would say. but lately, he has lost all credibility.
There is no reason for high powered guns and ammo to protect yourself from anything less than a large gang/small army.
See, that's the beauty of the founding principles of this nation. I don't have to justify to anyone why I feel I need something. It's up to the state to prove that my actions somehow infringe on the rights of others.
I can have a basement loaded with AR-15's, large clips and pallets of ammo and it's really none of your business. You have to prove why the contents of my basement infringe on your rights. And quite simply, unless I start firing at your house, I have not infringed on your rights. AT that point, it's very likely my weapons and ammo will be confiscated and I'm probably going to jail.
Gunter, if you want to see racism in this country, watch how liberals address conservative POCs.
"And quite simply, unless I start firing at your house, I have not infringed on your rights. AT that point, it's very likely my weapons and ammo will be confiscated and I'm probably going to jail."
BINGO!
That's exactly what we are trying to avoid...............waiting until somebody actually uses the weapons that have maximum KILL power.....to KILL people in order to put them in jail.
The founding fathers did not understand terrorism, extreme ideologies and mental illness in the year 2021. How could they?
They did not understand background checks or the ease with which anybody could obtain weapons more powerful than anything they could imagine.
To use the mentality of the thinking of a world from over 200 years ago to make decisions in a massively advanced society is very primitive and over looks countless key items that should be at the top for priorities.
Back when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, slaves were still accepted, women were still over 100 years away from having the right to vote and they were still just trying to wrap their heads around the fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.
Brilliant men in their time that produced one of the greatest documents in history that deserve tremendous honor and recognition.
But an elementary school aged kid, in 2021 can go on the internet and learn more in 1 day about things that took them years to learn over 200 years ago and many things they would never know about.
https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/constitution-faqs
So, your argument is we restrict the rights of innocent people based on the actions of a few criminals. There are millions of weapons in this country with billions of rounds of ammunition. If we legally armed citizens were a problem, you'd know it.
Should we ban high performace cars because of drunk drivers?
I have thought about Scott’s comment about the US not being racist. Despite his being a recipient of it and there being widespread white supremist based racism among other types of racism, I don’t know if it incorrect to say the US, itself, is racist. To be honest, I don’t know exactly what that means. Some will argue that the country WAS racist with slavery being legal and widespread, including even some of the Founding Fathers owning slaves. But that was a different time when perspectives of what’s right and wrong or what is acceptable were vastly different. We’ve thankfully come a long way since then government-wise. And now Black folks like Scott CAN go from poverty to success with hard work and some luck. But that still doesn’t mean racism isn’t widespread.
"Should we ban high performace cars because of drunk drivers?"
Thanks Tim!
Your creative analogy completely overlooks the relevant factor.
High performance cars don't give a person 10 times more killing power than an average sized car does.
A drunk driver with a big engine won't kill anymore people than a drunk driver with a small engine.
It's the speed at which they are driving, along with the size/weight of the vehicle that increases its killing power.
We have speed limits for ALL vehicles to cover that realm.
If you want a better analogy, that makes sense, let's make it with this one.
Having a speed limit, takes away a persons freedom to choose whatever rate of speed they want to drive. This is unfair to all the safe, skilled drivers who should be able to exercise their fundamental rights to choose what speed is safe for them on the road.
However, government has stepped in, using data/safety standards and physical laws to set maximum speed limits based on the environment.
They do this, because we know that higher speeds kill more people...............just like higher powered fire arms kill more people when used by somebody out of control.
Larger, heavier vehicles also kill more people on the other side of the accident.............but we don't set limits because they protect people inside and it makes sense to have larger vehicles because they can transport more people, carry more things.....are more efficient at accomplishing the positive objective in society of using vehicles.
What positive objective is accomplished by giving all people the right to own high powered guns that can kill more efficiently? Especially in a society that has way too much killing from guns?
This is only a small part of it but there are ZERO benefits to letting everyone own high powered guns and some detriments. Because people should have the right to do it is not a good reason.
Can you give me good reasons, other than "that people should have that right" for owning high powered guns?
My analogy is exactly on the money. Capacity is irrelevant. You want to restrict the rights of millions for the actions of a few. That is unjust and counter the the bill of rights. You cannot take rights away from someone without due process.
Using your logic, it's perfectly fine to ban a type of vehicle because of the potential for someone to do harm. We must protect ourselves from something that MIGHT happen.
How about this? My RV weighs 35 thousand pounds. I could plow through most buildings, including grade schools before coming to a full stop. I'll put my freighliner frame up against just about any building you got. And with the rear mounted high torque turbo diesel, it's gonna keep pushing long after I've bashed in the outer wall. Using your logic, we must ban RV's. The potential harm is just too great.
You interpreted and used my points to mean 100% the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
I guess that kills the point of continuing on this topic....on to the next one please.
You interpreted and used my points to mean 100% the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
Huh? I directly quoted you and showed why my anaology was exactly right and why you were exactly wrong.
By the by. I garantee I will never ram my RV into a school, and I'll never start randomly shooting into a crowd. Get the point yet?
How did I use your points to mean 100% opposite of what they were intended to mean?
With all due respect, and I am betting this is not the first time you've heard this... You have a huge problem with admitting when you are wrong.
Since you want to persist.........here you go.
You must be unaware of this but I never drop things because I am losing an argument....NEVER. When thats the case, I adjust or even change my opinion so that it lines up better with the facts that are causing me to be wrong..
I ALWAYS drop things when my opponent is losing the argument, especially badly but they persist because:
1. They are unable to see the most obvious points and continuing an argument for the sake of a non productive argument is pointless......... other than
2. Embarrassing them more to show how wrong they are, which a I totally do NOT want to do here out of respect for them.
3. So here is the response that you are demanding after I attempted to drop this.
Tim says: "How about this? My RV weighs 35 thousand pounds. I could plow through most buildings, including grade schools before coming to a full stop. I'll put my freighliner frame up against just about any building you got. And with the rear mounted high torque turbo diesel, it's gonna keep pushing long after I've bashed in the outer wall. Using your logic, we must ban RV's. The potential harm is just too great."
metmike said the complete opposite because those heavier, larger vehicles are justified because of reasons that metmike gave and Tim, ignored because he is apparently not able to see this issue with even enough objectively to get clear points made from people that disagree with him.
metmike: "Larger, heavier vehicles also kill more people on the other side of the accident.............but we don't set limits because they protect people inside and it makes sense to have larger vehicles because they can transport more people, carry more things.....are more efficient at accomplishing the positive objective in society of using vehicles."
4. You insisted on a confrontation Tim and accused me of being the complete opposite of who I am(devoted to practicing the scientific method). You accused me of displaying the exact behavior that you are displaying.
I responded with the authentic facts.
Where is just 1 example from you to back up your false allegations?
Tim,
Here are some recent posts to help you out........conversations with you in some cases for you to use as homework to learn a few things, when your mind was obviously closed.
I love you to pieces Tim and you are a great unselfish contributor of many wonderful, insightful sources and posts............that we could never replace but I am just giving you exactly, EXACTLY what YOU asked for from me in your last post.
You are a good and sincere person as well as intelligent too Tim.
However, one thing that you are NOT...........is objective or open minded. Neither of those rare human attributes/ qualities are required here. Almost nobody is that way. This is why our country is so divided and becoming MORE divided every day.
No hard feelings or emotions about it for me. I'm just giving the facts for my side in an argument that YOU insist on having:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/67899/#67946
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/66095/#66127
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62603/#62692
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62634/#62673
These were just recent posts: I have dozens more examples but you should get the point from these if you ever will get the point.
Edit: 5pm What was previously the 2nd link above was not supposed to be there, as it was an entire thread, not just 1 post like the others..
Sorry about that if there was any confusion.
Also,
If others think that I'm being unfair or not listening to or not responding to your points, I welcome your comments.
Please provide examples so that I can understand it better and assist you and try to communicate better.
Keep in mind that, ideally this is a forum where everybody converses with each other and doesn't sit around to see what I have to say about everything.
Let me encourage you to be more active posters here.
ALL opinions and ideas are always welcome as long as they are not personal attacks on somebody else here.......an area that I'm very proud of you in accomplishing well.
Predator trolls that came here to attack others and spread hate to amuse themselves, like vandenplas and mojo will never be allowed back.
MM "This is only a small part of it but there are ZERO benefits to letting everyone own high powered guns and some detriments. Because people should have the right to do it is not a good reason"
CW It is not for you (or me ) to determine what someone sees as a benefit to them for owning what ever gun they want. What I am saying is benefit is a mute point. That is what makes us individuals.
"It is not for you (or me ) to determine what someone sees as a benefit to them for owning what ever gun they want"
Are you against this law cutworm?
If the speed limit is 60 mph, I have a dang good reason to go 80+ mph. I know that I am a safe driver, I have good eyesight, reflexes, skills and judgment. Never been in an accident. Heck, most people are like me and it saves us precious time, so that we can get home or to our destinations and do productive things.
So what if higher speeds are much more deadly in car accidents because of the law of physics and statistics. The government shouldn't be able to apply a law thats best for society that infringes on my individual rights.
Do you agree?
Tim says: "How about this? My RV weighs 35 thousand pounds. I could plow through most buildings, including grade schools before coming to a full stop. I'll put my freighliner frame up against just about any building you got. And with the rear mounted high torque turbo diesel, it's gonna keep pushing long after I've bashed in the outer wall. Using your logic, we must ban RV's. The potential harm is just too great."
metmike said the complete opposite because those heavier, larger vehicles are justified because of reasons that metmike gave and Tim, ignored because he is apparently not able to see this issue with even enough objectively to get clear points made from people that disagree with him.
metmike: "Larger, heavier vehicles also kill more people on the other side of the accident.............but we don't set limits because they protect people inside and it makes sense to have larger vehicles because they can transport more people, carry more things.....are more efficient at accomplishing the positive objective in society of using vehicles."
What a complete load of tripe.
Did you read this before you hit submit?
You did not say the complete opposite. You said exactly the same. The capacity for damage is your criteria, That is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
Larger heavier vehicles are OK because they protect the people inside? So AR15's are bad, because the don't protect the shooter? But then tanks must be OK? So your argument says we have a right to bear tanks, but not AR15's?
Seriously. I must be misunderstanding you.
If the speed limit is 60 mph, I have a dang good reason to go 80+ mph. I know that I am a safe driver, I have good eyesight, reflexes, skills and judgment. Never been in an accident. Heck, most people are like me and it saves us precious time, so that we can get home or to our destinations and do productive things.
So what if higher speeds are much more deadly in car accidents because of the law of physics and statistics. The government shouldn't be able to apply a law thats best for society that infringes on my individual rights.
Do you agree?
Another complete load of tripe coupled with a false analogy.
If I exceed the speed limit, I'll get a ticket if pulled over, I get that. Does this mean, if I speed, everyone should get pulled over and given a ticket?
Are you sayng.. If I shoot smeone for no reason. everyone should lose thier right to bear arms?
But if you want to own a car that does 150mph so what. That doesn't mean you violated that law. I can own that gun and never hurt anyone and it is for me to decide the benefit. I have the tools to commit rape. Does that make me a rapist. Absolutely not.
MM "The founding fathers did not understand terrorism"
CW I would contend that the founding fathers not only understood terrorism but they lived through the terrorism of excessive government. Their answer to that was the right to keep and bear arms.
OK, good points cutworm.
But you were BORN with the tools that make it possible to rape somebody.
With cars that can go 150 mph, it doesn't add to the killing power because we have laws that make speeds that high illegal.
A person that buys a car that can go 150 mph, will never go 150 mph .....ever for recreational use. That element of the car is not why they bought it. It might be for the bigger engine but not because they will need to go 150 mph for any reason.
A person that buys a high powered gun, Ar-15 almost always intends to use it. That's THE reason to purchase a fire arm like that.
Cars are killing machines but they also do dozens of great things for us and we wouldn't be able to do well in our world without them.
So you didn't answer, do you think we should have speed limits or not.......which is how we try to control the use of those killing machines with laws that limit how much power we can use to make them safer.
I think that we should do the same thing with guns.
Set limits/laws for their use(like we do cars), while appreciating their value:
1. In defending us
2. Helping us to hunt game
3. Recreational use, like target practice
I'm also aware that the vast, vast majority of homicides are committed by handguns and am not totally unsympathetic to those that want higher power weapons.
I have 3 guns and a life long license to carry.
The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
The military-style gun, the weapon of choice for mass shootings, can be bought in most states starting at the age of 18
America's gun culture in charts
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
The facts on guns in 6 charts: A 2018 midterm report
https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/sep/30/facts-guns-6-charts/
https://www.valuepenguin.com/most-americans-want-tougher-gun-legislation
Over half of all gun owners — including a majority of Republicans — favor new laws which would limit assault weapons through weapons bans and buybacks.
metmike: I am for mandatory background checks too, besides banning the assault-style weapons.
So are you guys against all these things?
There are laws against speeding and there are laws against shooting people.
I've bought high peformance cars with the full intent of using them. I've bought assorted firearms with the full intent of using them. Both can be used legally and I intend to follow the law tho I have sped a few times.
The weapons can also be used for self defense. I've never had to use them that way and I hope I never do. But I also have a fire extinguisher. In both cases, I'd rather have them and not need them than the other way around.
I agree 100% Tim.
That's why I have 3 guns. 2 handguns and a rifle.
I don't need, nor does anybody need a device that can mow down a small army.
Sure they are fun to play with but the dangers of them when somebody unstable gets ahold of one offsets the fun for the majority. This is why the majority of people including republicans are against them....even for buy back policies.
Are you for tougher background checks and vetting/screening?.
MM With cars that can go 150 mph, it doesn't add to the killing power because we have laws that make speeds that high illegal. "
CW We Also have laws against assault, murder and higher penalties for doing it with a gun.
MM A person that buys a car that can go 150 mph, will never go 150 mph .....ever for recreational use. That element of the car is not why they bought it. It might be for the bigger engine but not because they will need to go 150 mph for any reason.
CW I think that we have race tracks around this area. I'll have to ask Wayne.
MM A person that buys a high powered gun, Ar-15 almost always intends to use it. That's THE reason to purchase a fire arm like that.
CW In your article it said that something like 1.5 million sold.
If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.
Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.
CW Any murders are to many but the assault rifle is not the problem.
CW,
I am in total agreement with you on the number of deaths from assault weapons being small..............in fact, maybe you didn't notice it but I showed a graph/source as evidence:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68659/#68837
However, you guys continue to want to use deaths from car accidents to compare it too to make assault weapons look good. This is fatally flawed logic.
For a better comparison, please compare with something else that does not provide the MASSIVE, irreplaceable benefits to society and people, like motor vehicles do.
The main selling point on the high power weapons is that they are fun to use and people should have the right to pick their own fun. So please find something else that is fun to use and doesn't do alot more than that, that kills more people but we accept the deaths.
If you find an apple to apple comparison like that, I am likely to say that the other item should be banned too if the benefits(fun) are outweighed by the killing.
I don't need, nor does anybody need a device that can mow down a small army.
We're back to the crux of the debate. You don't get to decide what someone else needs until it infringes on your rights. Not that it might, not that it could, not until it does.
I have a friend who's a guitar player. One of the best I've heard. He's also for serious gun control.
He has a massive collection of guitars. Accoustic, electric, a ukelele or 2, you wonder how he finds room. Yet, when I say "No one needs that many guitars", the irony is lost on him.
You'll porbably fall back on the flawed argument that guitars are not lethal weapons, tho I could argue that getting hit in the head with a Strat would probably take you out. But weapons are not lethal until they are used in a lethal way. I can lock them in a safe, and no one will ever get hurt. I can take them to a firing range, and as long as I follow the rules, no one will get hurt.
The point is, he wants all those guitars and he is not depriving anyone of their rights in aquiring them.
I can take lots of things and make them lethal. I can do things with gasoline that would make an AR15 look like a pop gun. Should gas be illegal? By your logic, yes.
I totally understand where you are coming from Tim. Totally.
You think that we should NOT have to give up any rights or freedoms to choose whatever we want to do, when just a few people abuse that right.
The majority of people, including me, think that we should take away this specific right....even though it would UNFAIRLY take away this one right from the vast majority, who are not doing any harm because it would save at least a few INNOCENT lives.
Maybe you are worried that once you take away one freedom, it sets a precedent and then more freedoms get taken away. This would be flawed thinking to justify a position on this particular issue which should stand alone, by itself based on the pros and cons.
The facts say, irrefutably that banning these type of weapons, would save, at least several lives.
Muddying up the waters by showing us how many people die in car accidents or while using other VITAL devices in society doesn't change the authentic facts.
This is a stand alone issue. Banning these weapons would save at least several lives.
I'll bet the families of those killed because of these weapons could tell us a some persuasive things.
Is this tugging on emotions?
Exactly so........just your humanity.
We can use statistics/numbers to prove that SOME people DO get killed from these guns that would not have been killed and we can appeal to your humanity............use the actual people that I am not willing to sacrifice, not even 1 human beings life so that the rest of us can have fun with a device we don't need.
You are defending everybody's right to have fun with a device(fun is an emotion) while completely ignoring a more important emotion.........COMPASSION for other human beings and human lives.
Is this a sacrifice?
Of course it is Tim.
In society, sometimes the good people have to make a tiny sacrifice for the best interest of some people. This is the unselfish part of humanity that defines who we are.
EVERYBODY, is not the everybody as defined by the majority but everybody as defined by what we really are...........millions of individuals that are completely different from each other that have different wants and needs/requirements.
This sometimes includes the majority making a very, very tiny sacrifice to help a tiny minority.
It's all in the mindset Tim.
John Kennedy said, during his inaugural address in 1961, as we have read a zillion times: "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
This is exactly what he meant!
OK, shot guns are the most popular weapons used in mass shootings. Do we ban those? Handguns are used in far more killings than AR15's. How about those?
Do we ban all semi-automatics or just the ones people think look scarey? There is very little difference between a reminington semi auto .222 and an AR-15. except the appearance. A .222 is arguably more deadly.
Do we just keep banning weapons until people stop getting shot? And when we've banned them all, and shootings continue, what then?
Your thinking that banning AR15's will save lives has no basis in fact. It may keep law abiding citizens from having them, but they are not the ones you need to worry about.
And arguing what the majority wants is a poor argument. The majority is often misinformed and often wrong which is why we have the form of government we do. The founders hated the idea of majority rule, and they had lots of good reasons that are just as good today..
Sorry to butt into your debate.
Just checked through my pockets, and I do have 2 cents which I will share here.
I saw metmike’s graph of gun deaths in the US. IMHO, it is outrageous!!!! No civilized country comes even close. I can understand why so many politicians want to take guns away from the People.
On the other hand, timnew also makes sense.
Law-abiding citizens own guns, but they keep them at home and don’t kill people with them.
Criminals own guns, but they take them to the streets and kill people with them.
Now let’s assume the government decides to outlaw assault rifles (that would be the easy first step… later comes banning hand guns).
Then..
Law-abiding citizens will turn in their assault rifles to the government, while criminals keep their assault rifles and take them out on the street and kill people with them.
One could say the same thing about banning all guns.
Now here is an interesting incident… in Kentucky ( I don’t know what the open-carry laws are in that state.)
Link below…
A few people were dining in a nice restaurant, when one of the peaceful Breyonna Taylor protests marched by and started hollering and screaming at the diners.
One of the diners eventually had enough. He pulled out a little gun (it looks like a Derringer to me) and told them “don’t mess with me!”
The scene reminded me of that old saying “don’t come to a gun fight armed with a knife”… well this guy had a little Derringer, while the peaceful Breyonna protesters carried assault rifles (I don’t quite know why AR-15s are needed when protesting about Breyonna Taylor.).
This kind of provocation is happening now more and more often. Maybe the new slogan should be “don’t take your family out to dinner without bringing an AR-15 with you.”
I assume, this guy in Kentucky was arrested for pulling out his gun. He had 3 things going against him… he is old, he is male, and he is white. That’s what the woke population is at war with.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9542919/Louisville-diner-brandishes-handgun-armed-BLM-protesters-surround-restaurant.html
Gunter,
Where do you get the idea that I'm against guns or even against carrying laws?
I have 3 guns and a life permit to carry.
Tim,
Where do you get this from:
"Do we just keep banning weapons until people stop getting shot?"
Like I just told Gunter, I have 3 guns and a life permit to carry, I would be totally against that.
Please don't mischaracterize my position so that you can attack that position.
Please stick to THIS topic about THESE type of weapons. This is NOT about banning other weapons. If that comes up, then you and me will be on the same page.
I'll just repeat what you must have decided to ignore:
"Maybe you are worried that once you take away one freedom, it sets a precedent and then more freedoms get taken away. This would be flawed thinking to justify a position on this particular issue which should stand alone, by itself based on the pros and cons."
I can't make my actual position and rational/reasoning any more clear than what was just stated.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68659/#68894
"Your thinking that banning AR15's will save lives has no basis in fact."
Not sure why you are saying this is not a fact, other than you must not have actually checked. Tim, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Empirical data.
https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107
"AR-15-style assault rifles have been a common trend in some of the deadliest mass shootings. These weapons possess an enormous amount of killing power because they can inflict what one of their designers called "maximum wound effect." These weapons are generally able to fire far more bullets at a faster rate than manual-action hunting rifles.
A 2018 study found that fatalities were lower when a federal ban on assault weapons was in effect between 1994 and 2004"
Now that you've actually seen the convincing data, which is quite a bit different than what you thought......... is your position changed accordingly?
Your argument is, and has been, we must ban dangerous weapons.
Shotguns and handguns are more often used in Mass Shootings, so they are more dangerous than AR-15s and by your logic, must be banned.
Semi Auto .222's, operationally, are nearly identical to AR-15's except they have a heavier slug and higher barrel speed. More deadly than the AR-15 and by your logic, must be banned.
Your article states that the AR15 can fire far more rounds than a manually operated hunting rifle somehow setting it apart from hunting rifles. But the vast majority of hunting rifles are also semi-auto and can fire just as many rounds as quickly. Which of these do we ban? All of them, or just the ones that look as "scarey" as the AR15.
Just curious, do you think, since 26% of mass shootings involve AR-15's, banning them would save 26%? More likely, if the shooter has his heart set on an AR15, he'll still be able to get one, or he could choose from one of the more popular items above. AR-15's do not create mass shootings. They aren't even the most popular weapon for them.
Assuming I am misunderstanding your logic, if it is not the actual or potential danger of a weapon, and we know there are several more dangerous than the AR15, what is your criteria for banning weapons? Perhaps if I understand your criteria, we can find some common ground.
No tim'
I keep telling you over and over what my point is. It’s not to ban dangerous weapons. All guns are dangerous. Just certain types of guns that are well defined.
Are you just playing me for amusement?
I’m not going to keep repeating the exact same thing anymore, then have you twist it into a mischaradterization of what I said with clarity, so that you can attack a made up position.
I will just assume that the lack of answering my last question after showing you the data that you were unaware of ....means that nothing anybody says or any data that contradicts what you thought that you knew will ever change your mind.
If that’s not the case....then, since facts showing how these specific types of guns do kill more people than even I originally thought caused a no response from you on that question....what would change your mind?
Please answer that question and not one that you make up to answer.
Again the question is simple......what would change your mind Tim?
Gunter,
You are welcome to our conversation anytime and don’t consider it butting in. This is a forum...it’s open to everyone.
So what would change YOUR mind Gunter?
To show you that this is not some sort of unfair question designed to win an argument or trick you I will answer that same question myself.
metmike: metmike, what would change your mind about the need to ban high powered weapons in mass shootings?
metmike: You asked Tim, Gunter and cutworm(and anybody else that wants to comment) first what would change their minds, and cause them to think that we should ban high powered weapons used in mass shootings. Out of respect for them, let's give them an opportunity to answer..................then, I will tell you exactly what would change my mind for me to think that we should NOT ban high powered weapons.
I am very well aware of the statistics behind shootings. Quite possibly, more so than you.
Above, you argue that the AR15 is too dangerous to be allowed in pubic. Did I misunderstand?
You stated that it is used in 26% of mass shootings. But both hand guns and shotguns are used more. So, that argument doesn't work.
You stated that it's designed for a high kill rate, but so are all semi-automatic rifles and several of them have far more lethal ammunition. So that argument doesn't work.
You are trying to make a case that banning AR-15's will save lives, but so far, you've missed the mark, IMO. There is nothing that makes the AR15 a unique "killing machine" , certainly nothing you've presented here.
So, show me a some data that sets the AR-15 apart in capcaity or lethality and you'll have a case. But I have never seen a number, and I've studied them in depth for years, that would support your case.
I can see arguments against full automatic for the general public, I can even see arguments against bump stocks. I think background checks should be thorough, unfortunatly, assorted state and fed regulations seal some data that would be invaluable, making background checks less effective. And in the final analysis, excluding suicide, 95+% of gun violence involves guns that were illegally obtained, limiting the effectiveness of background checks even further and making any bans effectively useless.
Add in the fact that if you exclude 3 or 4 cities, which happen to be dem controlled and have some of the tightest gun regulations in this country, our gun violance numbers plummet. Last I checked, St Louis was at the very top of that heap. Batlimore,Detroit and New Orleans right up there too. Surprisingly, last I checked, Chicago didn't make the top 20, despite popular belief.
But you want to know what would cut our gun violence by at least half, and probably much more? Legalize drugs. The assorted turf wars and gang violence accounts for a huge chunk of the numbers. Another of the many "benefits" of our hopelessy failed and flawed "War on Drugs"..
The problem of violence in this country has very little to do with guns and restricting them accomplishes little to nothing.
Thank much Tim,
You said that I stated all those things. I showed you the data. Take it up with the data sources, those were not opinions. I would be happy to show you the same thing from half a dozen other sources if it would make a difference............but it obviously won't.
So I assume then from your long response with no answer that nothing will change your mind?
If the others agree that nothing will change their minds too, then I will tell you what would change my mind, then we can go on to something more productive because all the points have been made repeatedly and I am getting extremely tired of repeating the exact same thing to correct your constant mischaracterization of what I said in order for you to attack it.
Do you even realize that's what you do in debates?
In just this thread, you've done it over half a dozen times now. It started here, when you chastised me and told me that I had the problem when you did it.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68659/#68793
Then, after I crystal clearly pointed out what you did..........you just picked up where you left off as if nothing had happened.............ignoring every point I made then and afterwards and making up my points so you could attack them the entire time.
I told you specifically what would change my mind. Show data that uniquily identifies the AR15 as a uniquely dangerous weapon.
You've said it's used in 26% of mass shootings. Individually, shotguns are used more often and handguns far more often in mass shootings. And if you go to overall gun violence, handguns dwarf AR-15s in percentages, so that argument does not make your case.
You said it's deadly. I pointed out that several other weapons are far more deadly. So that does not make your case.
You went on to talk about gun violence in general, but that does not make a case specifially against the AR-15.
Have I missed something?
I have acknowledged and refuted your points. You appear to have ignored mine.
"Have I missed something?
I have acknowledged and refuted your points. You appear to have ignored mine."
Yes Tim you have missed something. You have missed the data. All you did is tell us that you don't believe the data.
If I provide even more data, will you continue to not believe that data? What's the point, if you can just not believe the objective data and mischaracterize many of my statements?
OK, I'm listening loud and clear. I'll provide more data since this is what you say will change your mind.
Let's see if you are true to your word.
The thing thats the most unfortunate for all of us in situations like this........... which can help us in the future, is that when I suggested that we go on to a topic that would be more productive around 25 posts ago, you insisted that I was bailing because I was wrong and wouldn't admit it and you were basically insisting that I either admit I was wrong or defend the position..........so I followed your intentions.
What has been accomplished since then do you think?
Tim,
Just to repeat MY position on this, not yours. I am saying that other guns are used by far more often in shootings of all kinds. I showed the stats on this. Other guns kill far more people than high powered weapons by a wide margin.
However, the extra power, in high powered weapons don't add any additional benefit in protecting us compared to handguns, for instance.
However, they do maximize killing power during mass murders. Because of this rock solid fact and the statisic to back it up, banning high powered weapons would reduce and limit the maximum number of people that a mass murderer could kill at one time.
This would save at least several lives in these situations.
The deadliest mass shootings in recent history have had one thing in common: the perpetrator used an assault rifle.
https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html
Why it matters: These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle.
Tim,
Do I need to bombard you with 10 more sources saying the exact same thing?
Data is data. Facts are facts.
Well, first off, an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon, which the AR15 is not.
Some eager for gun regulations coined the phrase "assault weapon" which refers to a semi-auto weapon like the AR-15 or the remington .222. But of course, they never refer to the .222 as an assault weapon, ecause the phrase was coined t use against scarey looking guns like the AR-15, but there is really no difference, other than the .222 is more lethal.
So, if you are using sources that refer to an AR15 as an "assault rifle", you may want to question it's validity because the author is not familiar with the terms he's using.
Your source.
"Why it matters: These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle."
Now, shooting 36 people in 32 seconds with a semi quto of any kind would be just about impossible. One squeeze of the trigger= 1 shot.
I think they are, for some reason, trying to compare an AR15 to a machine gun. I wonder why they would do that?
I guess you actually do need 10 more sources saying the exact same thing and I’m betting that even that won’t be enough for you.
I think I can get 20 but will 10 more sources be enough Tim?
Just give me the number and what they must say to meet your requirements.
Personally, I thought that last one was pretty impressive to make the case.
Those were REAL people that got killed REALLY fast.
BTW, showing us that you know more about guns than me or the authors of all these articles doesn’t change any of the facts on them getting killed really fast by some sort of rapid shooting device. Disputing what it was does not make them less dead.
How about a credible source that knows the meaning of the phrase "assault rifle"?
When I see an article by an author who has no idea what he's talking about, I get skeptical. I would think you would too.
The above reference used another weapon to advocate the banning of AR15's. "AR15 Style assault rifle"? There is no such thing. An M16 looks kinda like an AR15, but they are completely different weapons.
Ordinarily, I would have long ago went on to another topic and will suggest that we do that.......once again here.
I promised to state what would change my mind on this issue.
1. If reliable statistics came out that showed rapid fire or high powered guns were not being used in mass shootings.....did not cause the death tolls to be much higher when they were used. Too late for that because it’s now a fact and part of history.....for us to learn from to save lives.
2. If civilization and society as we know it completely broke down and we had large numbers of huge gangs running loose and attacking innocent people or breaking into homes and I needed to defend against them.
3. If these type of devices were designed to only fire rubber bullets.
BTW, this is not me telling you we must drop it. Like before, I’m just suggesting it.
I am here to discuss whatever it is YOU want to discuss as well as topics that I introduce.
ok, metmike, since you invited me to jump back into this debate....
as you pointed out to me earlier, this discussion is not about "banning guns", but about assault rifles vs hand guns.
As we now know, peaceful BLM protests about "justice for Breyonna Taylor" now apparently require the participants to bring their assault rifles. It is quite obvious that these protests are now intended to terrorize the public (can somebody please stand up and say "domestic terrorists"!!)
If a mob started bothering my house, and I decided to come outside and tell them "dont mess with me", I would want to carry the most menacing looking AR-15 I could find, to intimidate them. A tiny hand gun (as displayed by that diner in Kentucky) will barely scare away an unarmed mob.
I read your statistics about most mass shootings being carried out by assault rifles. However, I do believe, if these mass shooters had only hand guns available to them, they would have carried out their mass shootings just as well with their handguns. Maybe more victims would have survived their bullet wounds, but I don’t believe the number of mass shootings would have gone done.
I believe, proposing a ban on assault rifles is strictly a political move, that shows the People "hey, look at me, I am doing something about all this shooting".
Criminals wouldn't care about a ban anyway. As was said before, law-abiding citizens don’t kill people, not with assault rifles and not with hand guns. Such a law would then actually address criminals only:.”I know you are a criminal, and you want to kill people. But, from now on, you are only allowed a hand gun to do what you want to do”. Somehow, this doesn’t sound right.
However, I would be in favor for a law that disallows any form of firearm being carried by people on so-called “peaceful” protest marches, provided it applies to all races (not just “white” militias, as Biden has insinuated)…
but that’s a matter of state law,not federal law.
OK, Thanks Gunter,
Then when there is a desire of continuing the discussion, we should continue it.
You always have the right to say whatever your opinion here is, which I know is something that you all and metmike place an extremely high value on.
Many of my favorite posts are those that challenge my opinion. I can either defend the position with authentic facts............or learn something.
Most other people don't see it that way, so please don't take it personal in discussions that YOU want to have if I disagree with you.
This will never be an echo chamber. If it was..................I would be gone.
I'll be gone for several hours and respond to you when I return.
Mike
Gunter,
I appreciate your attempts to be objective here and especially your sincerely sharing of opinions.
This helps me to try to understand where you are coming from.
"I believe, proposing a ban on assault rifles is strictly a political move, that shows the People "hey, look at me, I am doing something about all this shooting".
You hit on a very significant point..............the politics. We all know that the 2 sides are incredibly divided. There are a dozen or more issues that each side has polar opposite views on. This one is right at the top.
It's the left pushing hard to ban assault weapons and impose stricter background checks and the right wants no restrictions because it infringes on their freedom and Constitutional right to have fun with high powered guns.
What happens with this and the other issues that define each party is that people no longer look at facts and decide for themselves using critical thinking.
Your political affiliation decides for you. Every right leaning media site or entity states and repeats the same things for the exact same reasons why no guns should be banned for any reason. They also fill our heads with reasons why the left's thinking is flawed and why they are right.
The left does the exact same thing...........except that their side has it all right with the legit reasons and the right is just being political.
This is how it goes down/is sold for over a dozen other issues.
The right and left characterize the flawed position of the other side and pound in/condition their side to assume this is the position of everybody that disagrees with them on this issue.
This is why I've been having the darndest time getting you guys to pay attention to metmike's position and statements. You mischaracterized me 10 different times, often the same things over and over after I pointed them out because you've got it pounded in your heads that somebody who wants to ban these particular weapons, thinks and believes certain things....which you've been taught are wrong.
You won't even look at the actual data(Tim blows it off, saying the sources are not credible but as you'll see in a moment, I can show you dozens of sources that all same the exact same thing.).
You've already decided that the data does not support doing this and why the left is doing this............for political reasons as you just said and to take away Constitution rights and freedoms as Tim thinks.
And nobody here can tell me what would need to happen in order for them to change their mind because in your world, it would NEVER be a good idea to ban these weapons. Your world/mind only sees reasons to have them and the tragedy of banning them because it would take away a freedom.
I read your statistics about most mass shootings being carried out by assault rifles. However, I do believe, if these mass shooters had only hand guns available to them, they would have carried out their mass shootings just as well with their handguns. Maybe more victims would have survived their bullet wounds, but I don’t believe the number of mass shootings would have gone done.
1. I showed that most mass shooting were NOT carried out by assault rifles actually, not what you just said about me.
2. What I did show, was the ones that killed the most people, the fastest, used these kinds of gun.
3. One of them, killed 9 people and injured 26 others in just 32 seconds. You think that if they had handguns they could have done the same thing?? Please explain how that could be possible?
4. I've never said this will cause the mass shootings to go down, just that there were be many less people killed. It's like no brainer science backed up by all the evidence and data.
"If a mob started bothering my house, and I decided to come outside and tell them "dont mess with me", I would want to carry the most menacing looking AR-15 I could find, to intimidate them. A tiny hand gun (as displayed by that diner in Kentucky) will barely scare away an unarmed mob."
5. So now, you have found a way to claim this type of gun is needed to defend yourself because there could be a mob threatening your house at some point in your life and they would only respond, leave you alone if you had a menacing looking AR-15 to accomplish that. Another gun just would not do it to scare them away. Calling the cops just wouldn't be enough. So now we need the AR-15 for theatrical affects to scare menacing mops threatening your house? Go buy a fake one Gunter. It's cheaper, doesn't kill people and they can't tell the difference and I guarantee you with certainty, if you actually use the full power of an AR-15 against a threatening mob, you'll be spending the rest of your life in prison. This one is actually silly. There are plenty of guns that can effectively defend you against 99.999% of threats.
Not big mobs or small armies and I actually mentioned as reason #3 for what would change my mind, that if society broke down and we did have threats of mobs attacking our houses, I would be all for owning an AR-15 type gun............but guess what? That is not the case so this in NO reason to have one today.
Also, why is it that you think a mass murderer would carry out the killing just as well with handguns but you will not be able to defend your house with those same handguns.
It all boils down to the politics, as you yourself honestly acknowledged.
You are suspicious of the left for wanting to do this for political reasons........because...........its the left. You refuse to look objectively at the data/facts because you guys have already decided based on YOUR politics, that the left is being political on their position here so you are obligated, because thats what people on the right do to the left.......... fight it anyway possible.
Never acknowledge anything they do is good. Never look at the authentic empirical data. Make up characterizations to define anybody that has this position so you can attack it. Make up reasons, some pretty irrational for why you need to have an AR-15 gun.
But the bottom line is, you are only hurting yourselves by letting the propaganda and false narratives of your side define a position base on completely wrong facts.
Blinded from the truth by your blatant political bias.
Here are a few more sources of data that clearly show you guys are way off on what you think that you know.
Tim,
Do you know more than ALL these sources? Are they all just making this stuff up for the political agenda of the left. Either that or.......IT'S ACTUALLY THE TRUTH!
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 47 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.
Are America’s police outgunned by criminals, particularly mass shooters?
There is little question that an officer with a handgun is outgunned against someone with an AR-15.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings
The survey findings indicate that mass shootings compose a small share of the total number of U.S. firearm homicides, constituting less than one percent of gun murders recorded by the FBI in 2010. The survey also found that assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in at least 13 (23 percent) of the incidents. These incidents resulted in an average of 14.8 people shot. A total of 135 percent more people were shot in mass killings than in other gun incidents, and 57 percent more deaths resulted from mass shootings than in other gun-related incidents
The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/16-126_f03b33c6-5698-41d2-8b8e-2f98120e3dbc.pdf
Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings.
"Thank God they don't know any better because if they did they would use much more effective weapons," Hazen said.
Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-laws-were-enacted/
metmike: You can scroll up for the previous articles. There are obviously an almost infinite number of articles on this very controversial topic with many of them providing powerful stats that show how many lives were taken BECAUSE of the rapid fire ability of the guns that were being used.
You can continue to maintain ignorance on these solid facts because of an extreme political ideology that won't allow for saving lives..... if it takes away a freedom and right to own a fun toy(or absurdly, a needed tool to defend against big mobs that threaten your house).
The majority of Americans, however, as I showed before, care more about fellow Americans and are willing to give up a minuscule freedom in order to save dozens of lives.......REAL human lives that only somebody unable to acknowledge the crystal clear evidence would definitely be saved.
Try to forget that this is an issue that defines democrats.
It's ok for being for something that helps human beings, even if it gives democrats something they are asking for.
I do appreciate you guys on the views. It helps me to research, learn and collect/express my thoughts better.
Several years ago and previously, I actually had a position similar to yours but not as vehement.
It's only since taking over as moderator that I even became more politically connected/enlightened.
In the last couple of years, I started leaning the other way but just on these type of weapons, though still being very much for gun rights.
That has been slowing morphing to more and more of a lean in that direction but not a very strong position....until this conversation.
After actually looking at much more of the data the last few days(which defines everything that I know/believe) it's solidified the reasoning for having this position.
For a long time, half of what I knew about climate change, was learned from investigating peoples attacks on my beliefs/statements to see if they were right and I was wrong........or not.
A similar thing has played out on this topic..
Thanks again!!
metmike
Just so I am clear.. Are we talking about assault rifle bans or AR 15 bans. The two keep getting mingled in this discussion and MM's sources, but tney are 2 completely different types of weapon..
I've already conceded I would understand an argument to ban full auto (assault rifles) weapons.
What I won't concede is a ban on all semi autos, which includes the AR15 and a wide range of weapons. A law that bans only AR-15's while ignoring all other semi-auto weapons is a joke. A law that bans all semi-autos is an infringment.
BTW, an excerpt from one of the many links above. Did you read them?
"
Dean Hazen, owner of The Gun Experts in Mahomet, Ill., and a master firearms instructor, said the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle.
"It’s really just a perception thing," Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used."
Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings.
"Thank God they don't know any better because if they did they would use much more effective weapons," Hazen said.
Thank much Tim!
"BTW, an excerpt from one of the many links above. Did you read them?"
Not only did I read it Tim, I was the one that cut and pasted only that from the article you copied my stuff on, so that YOU and everybody else would read it.
I am not the liberal enemy in a political battle between the R's and D's.
I've made a couple of posts with items/graphs to show your points and do understand your sides position(including Gunter and cutworm) but focused on what I thought you were missing as time went on because of our discussion.
"I've already conceded I would understand an argument to ban full auto (assault rifles) weapons.
What I won't concede is a ban on all semi autos, which includes the AR15 and a wide range of weapons. A law that bans only AR-15's while ignoring all other semi-auto weapons is a joke. A law that bans all semi-autos is an infringement."
Let's leave it there and end on a high note.
I continue to acknowledge that you know far more about guns than me...................which makes sense because it's people that are more "into" guns that consider it their right to own them with no restrictions.
People that don't care much about guns or don't own one...............have nothing to lose.
As mentioned, I have 2 pistols and a rifle and a life long permit to carry, so I'm not one of those.
While I was a local tv celeb(1983/84). I was stalked for a year by a pscho with 7 different police reports filed from incidents damaging my property/breaking into my apartment and other incidents.........then, him finishing off by burning down my apartment and almost killing the 2 people that lived upstairs. Thank God I came home at 3am to wake them up and get them out. The guy was never caught.
That's what introduced me to the world of guns as I bought a little 22 pistol and carried it around with me everywhere(with no permit), including at my side in bed. Previously, I had not even held a gun before.
A year after that event, somebody took a shot at me on my way home and missed my head in the car by 6 inches. No suspects.
I totally embrace the absolute need and right to own guns for self protection.
Not big mobs or small armies and I actually mentioned as reason #3 for what would change my mind, that if society broke down and we did have threats of mobs attacking our houses, I would be all for owning an AR-15 type gun............but guess what? That is not the case so this in NO reason to have one today.
When society brakes down and we have threats of mobs attacking our houses, it will be too late to get these.
And nobody here can tell me what would need to happen in order for them to change their mind because in your world, it would NEVER be a good idea to ban these weapons. Your world/mind only sees reasons to have them and the tragedy of banning them because it would take away a freedom.
You're correct I don't know what you could say to change my mind. So I Guess we will need to agree to disagree.
Appreciate and respect your honesty cutworm!
Same for Tim and Gunter after giving them a hard time!
you guys spoke of society breaking down
Please take a look at these videos from Portland. Society has already broker down. This is worse than the Wild West. This is war.
What would you do???
Ya know.. Every time I hear about the "Wild West" I feel compelled to mention.. it was not that wild.
Everyone was armed. If a bunch of cow pokes showed up shootin up the town, all the businessmen sitting in their offices would put their shotguns and rifles out the window and shut them up right quick. So, the cowpokes didn't do that very often.
Yeah, there were gun fights once in a while and when there were no sherrifs in town, things could get rough. (That's why we need government. Not to raise crops, but to keep the peace) But everyone took confrontations very seriously. They could get you killed, and everyone knew it. The image we have of the "Wild West" is largely a Hollywood creation.
Manners were much better then than they are today. Especially on the internet :-)
"What would you do???"
The 100% opposite of what this nut did. He got out of his car with his gun and was threatening to shoot people with it.....and refusing to leave.
Too funny that info wars has a headline that 100% mischaracterizes what we see on their video.
They state that the protesters beat up this older man and stole his gun.
Let's look at the actual videos to see what really happened. The guy, when there was nothing blocking his path, stopped his vehicle, got well out and confronted everybody, pointing his gun at them.
What were they doing, while he did this? screaming at him to "leave!" "leave!" "leave!" "leave!" but he did the opposite. With no cars blocking his path, he would not leave, putting his car in park in the middle of the street, getting out and confronting them with his gun pointed at them because he was ticked off.
Their attacking him at that point, was actually to "get the gun" "get the gun"in order to disarm him and stop the threat to everyones lives that he was posing. They were very justified in doing this.
Let's look at the other video, where they break out the back window of the car.
That person, actually hits a person that was on the street and knocks them flying off their feet, you can see that happening as they were the ones shooting the video that we initially see. After doing that, they attempted to continue on, when they legally MUST STOP after they caused an accident, especially hitting a person. This is called hit and run.
Whether they hit the person intentionally or not does not matter, they must stop but they refused to stop. Thats when we see the protesters attempting to stop the vehicle and we hear several of them saying to write the license plate number down to report the hit and run.
It was only at that point that this vehicle got attacked as the protesters attempted to get them to stop, as the law requires. You can't just run over people that you don't like and take off because they are blocking your path on the street. It was wrong for them to damage the vehicle after this crime, however.
Though the protesters are causing traffic issues and using fowl, aggressive language, all the video's exonerate them and show the 2 people in the cars committing the crimes and being the ones that triggered the illegal part of the confrontations.
Infowars is so caught up with their hate for these people that they totally missed the fact that they show videos that prove the protesters were the VICTIMS, while Infowars attempts to use verbiage describing the incidents to get people to think that the ones committing the crimes were really the victims.
Things are getting really messed up when we determine crimes and victims based on political affiliations and ignore stone cold facts and evidence that we can see visually, right in front of us but its not connecting to our rational brains.......instead, it's being processed thru a cognitive political filter.
Of course the sources of the news are telling it to us that way....... so all we need to do is believe them.
I reckin we ought to start a new thread on this, since this is obviously one of your favorite topics.
Metmike, I don’t quite see this first video clip as you see it.
The movie starts out, with the camera pointing at the front of the guy’s truck. There is another vehicle that looks like it could be blocking the truck’s path (or maybe not)
Most importantly, in front of the guy’s truck, 2 men seem to be pointing rifles at the guy . The guy seems to have just opened his door and is halfways out.
By no means can this scene be called a “protest”. It looks more like an ambush. Rifles are being pointed at the guy. There is no way for him to drive forward and leave, at this point.
At this moment, the guy’s life is in danger. He is under attack by men pointing rifles at him. Could he have jumped back into the truck, stepped on the gas, and ran these 2 gunmen down, and claim self-defense?
In stead (or maybe because of the other car blocking him in), he got out of the car and started arguing with mob.
In the next scene, the car in front of his truck is gone. I agree, at that point he could have left, hoping that nobody would shoot him on the way out.
He didn’t do that. It looked to me like first he came out of the truck without his gun, Then he ran back to the truck to get his gun and pointed it at the mob.
I agree with you, he shouldn’t have done that. He is lucky they didn’t kill him.
However, I didn’t show this link to defend this guy’s actions.
I wanted to make a point that our society has already broken down, if we accept the mob to rule our streets, carrying assault rifles and terrorizing the People… and police is nowhere in sight
Only a few months ago, we saw plenty of videos showing Antifa attacking others with sticks. Now, it’s no longer sticks… now it’s AR15s. Shall we guess what is next?
As far as infowars is concerned, their headline stated:
“Heavily armed Antifa militants block streets, attack drivers while pointing guns at them”
And this is exactly what this brief video showed. Infowars did not post a misleading headline.
Unfortunately, few sites nowadays show such events.
Again, I agree with your comment... you would have left, once the path was open And that would have been the best approach to this dangerous situation. The guy is lucky, he didn't get shot.
However, your reply makes that truck driver the "attacker", No, he clearly was not. The mob pointed their rifles at him first
