Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[thegreekdog]

1) is incorrect- the definition was based on the one you gave me, and it was from wiki, I merely quote the source it's from. I've apolagised for not looking into the background of your quote earlier- I do consider it a mistake.

2) I agree that I did not quote the ATF website, although it's also true that I never claimed to have done so. I'm not sure why you think I did that.

3) I've given you sources that describe the AR-15 Bushmaster as an assault rifle both in law and in common parlance,

4) Bullshit

(5) Apologies for the decrease in decorum, but you're really getting rather tiresome.

Are you drunk or something?

(2) I never thought that you quoted the ATF website. What led you to believe that I thought that? I want you to read the ATF websites.

(3) You've given me no sources that describe the Bushmaster as an assault rifle under the law. If there was a source that defined the Bushmaster as an assault rifle under the law, IT WOULD BE FUCKING BANNED! I don't know what you mean by common parlance, but if we're talking about the LA Times and The Nation, then fine... common parlance it is. Except that any law that bans "assault rifles" is not going to be using common parlance. It's going to be using legal definitions.

(4) Okay. Find me where I changed my definition of "assault rifle" in this thread. Answer - It's never changed.

(5) Yeah, you tend to do that when you know you're wrong. So no worries on my end.

(6) Did you even read the last paragraph of my last post?

[crispybits]

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

Let's level set here a little bit.

I don't think the advancement of military technology has rendered civilian gun ownership obsolete. There are various historic events where professional militaries have been able to put down civilian rebellions with little trouble without foreign intervention on the rebels' behalf. The question is, therefore, whether civilian weapon ownership was effective ever. And that determination is made based on what you believe "effective" means.

For example, I would think effective means being able to secure foreign intervention to help win (e.g. the American Revolution or the Libyan war). You may think effective means being able to win on its own. If that's your definition of effective, then I agree with you (although, again, I think it's been that way throughout history, with some few exceptions).

Can you provide an argument why the rebels guns in Lybia (because it's the easiest example to hand, though you are welcoome to pick another) was the means to securing foreign intervention?

I would argue that the guns were irrelevant, and it was the close social and economic ties with developed countries with up to date military capacity that were the reason for the intervention. It is no coincidence that France, with a huge Lybian immigrant population (relative to other immigrant populations, not to the native French), was at the forefront of galvanising western involvement in that conflict.

If it was the simple fact that the rebels had guns, why didn't the western block get involved in other rebellions, such as the one that very nearly got going in Saudi Arabia before being crushed by police and military forces (Saudi Arabia is the country with the 6th highest gun ownership per capita according to wikipedia, well over double Lybia)?

Edit - also worth asking why the rebellion in Saudi Arabia, with the highest gun ownership in that area, was also one of the least long-lived or successful. If civilian guns are a significant relevant factor that should have been one of the most successful.

[Symmetry]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

[thegreekdog]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

[Symmetry]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

Thanks, but the clue is in the ATF's description: "AK47 Asault Rifle".

[thegreekdog]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

Thanks, but the clue is in the ATF's description: "AK47 Asault Rifle".

Right, right. What's the legal definition of assault rifle that you provided?

[Symmetry]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

Thanks, but the clue is in the ATF's description: "AK47 Asault Rifle".

Right, right. What's the legal definition of assault rifle that you provided?

Ah, you are master baiter, did you not see it? are are you simply jerking around now?

[thegreekdog]

Ah, you are master baiter, did you not see it? are are you simply jerking around now?

No. I'm trying to get to common ground with you where we can debate the merits of gun legislation in the United States. Right now we're not on common ground. You seem to think that banning assault rifles would be advisable. Assault rifles are already banned. What I think you mean, based on your definition (i.e. common parlance) is that you want to ban semi-automatic weapons (like the one used in the Newtown killings). The question therefore is which of these do you want to ban to make the law effective? I like Lootifer's idea. Do you?

[crispybits]

Now you're not exchanging rapid fire arguments with symmetry I'd like to hear what you think about the below if you get a chance please TGD

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

Let's level set here a little bit.

I don't think the advancement of military technology has rendered civilian gun ownership obsolete. There are various historic events where professional militaries have been able to put down civilian rebellions with little trouble without foreign intervention on the rebels' behalf. The question is, therefore, whether civilian weapon ownership was effective ever. And that determination is made based on what you believe "effective" means.

For example, I would think effective means being able to secure foreign intervention to help win (e.g. the American Revolution or the Libyan war). You may think effective means being able to win on its own. If that's your definition of effective, then I agree with you (although, again, I think it's been that way throughout history, with some few exceptions).

Can you provide an argument why the rebels guns in Lybia (because it's the easiest example to hand, though you are welcoome to pick another) was the means to securing foreign intervention?

I would argue that the guns were irrelevant, and it was the close social and economic ties with developed countries with up to date military capacity that were the reason for the intervention. It is no coincidence that France, with a huge Lybian immigrant population (relative to other immigrant populations, not to the native French), was at the forefront of galvanising western involvement in that conflict.

If it was the simple fact that the rebels had guns, why didn't the western block get involved in other rebellions, such as the one that very nearly got going in Saudi Arabia before being crushed by police and military forces (Saudi Arabia is the country with the 6th highest gun ownership per capita according to wikipedia, well over double Lybia)?

Edit - also worth asking why the rebellion in Saudi Arabia, with the highest gun ownership in that area, was also one of the least long-lived or successful. If civilian guns are a significant relevant factor that should have been one of the most successful.

[thegreekdog]

Now you're not exchanging rapid fire arguments with symmetry I'd like to hear what you think about the below if you get a chance please TGD

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

Let's level set here a little bit.

I don't think the advancement of military technology has rendered civilian gun ownership obsolete. There are various historic events where professional militaries have been able to put down civilian rebellions with little trouble without foreign intervention on the rebels' behalf. The question is, therefore, whether civilian weapon ownership was effective ever. And that determination is made based on what you believe "effective" means.

For example, I would think effective means being able to secure foreign intervention to help win (e.g. the American Revolution or the Libyan war). You may think effective means being able to win on its own. If that's your definition of effective, then I agree with you (although, again, I think it's been that way throughout history, with some few exceptions).

Can you provide an argument why the rebels guns in Lybia (because it's the easiest example to hand, though you are welcoome to pick another) was the means to securing foreign intervention?

I would argue that the guns were irrelevant, and it was the close social and economic ties with developed countries with up to date military capacity that were the reason for the intervention. It is no coincidence that France, with a huge Lybian immigrant population (relative to other immigrant populations, not to the native French), was at the forefront of galvanising western involvement in that conflict.

If it was the simple fact that the rebels had guns, why didn't the western block get involved in other rebellions, such as the one that very nearly got going in Saudi Arabia before being crushed by police and military forces (Saudi Arabia is the country with the 6th highest gun ownership per capita according to wikipedia, well over double Lybia)?

Edit - also worth asking why the rebellion in Saudi Arabia, with the highest gun ownership in that area, was also one of the least long-lived or successful. If civilian guns are a significant relevant factor that should have been one of the most successful.

I agree with you that foreign intervention is probably the most important factor in determining victory in a rebellion. I just don't think it's the only factor or one that is a new factor because of technology. I'll explain each.

(1) Not the only factor - With the exception of spurgistan's example (which I am completely not familiar with), in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., the militia (for lack of a better term) is able to initially fight against the government because it has weapons. If the militia did not have weapons, it could not begin the fight. In Saudi Arabia, I suspect the rebellion was unsuccessful because the Saudi government had the backing of a whole lot of countries. So, foreign intervention (or lack thereof) is the trump card.

(2) Not new - As indicated above, nation-states with professional armies have been able, throughout history, to put down militias (generally). I'll use two U.S. wars. The American Civil War, fought in the 19th century was really a rebellion by southern militias. The U.S. won the war with great cost, etc., but the south continually sought out foreign intervention. Effectively the U.S. (the government) beat the south (the militia). The American Revolution, fought in the 18th century was also a rebellion. The British were effective in beating the colonials until the French intervened. There are probably all kinds of other examples (on both sides) and you may be right that foreign intervention is a lot more important now, but I would contend that foreign intervention happens prior to the rebellion. Like, I'm pretty sure U.S. weapons and training was provided to the Saudi army in the past, before the rebellion occurred.

Bottom line though is that you're right. If the western countries don't get involved, the militia (for lack of a better term) was going to lose, even though it had guns. But would the militia have risen up in the first place if it didn't have guns?

[Phatscotty]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

[AAFitz]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

[Phatscotty]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

It's not the guns. I'm not blaming blacks and hispanics, I'm quoting statistics and acknowledging reality. You did not deal at all with the issue I brought up, but that is okay.

If you want to prove it is the guns, take a shot at proving your point, show how less production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

[thegreekdog]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

Let's talk about that for a second. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons (which seems to be where the politicians want to go), what would that do?

Well, for one that would certainly work towards solving the killing spree issues.

But what about "normal" homicides (includes suicides, murders, accidents).

In 2004, there were approximately 8,000 homicides committed with the use of handguns.
In 2004, there were approximately 3,000 homicides committed by other methods (defined as not guns, knives, and blunt objects).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,500 homicides commited by guns other than handguns. So a ban on semi-automatics would solve this partially (since reload rifles and shotguns would still be legal).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,000 homicides committed with knives.
In 2004, there were approximately 1,000 homicides committed with blunt objects.

So, that's 16,500 violent deaths of which guns other than handguns accounted for 2,500. Assuming that banning semi-automatics would prevent homicide committers from using those weapons, we would account for something less than 2,500 homicides each year (something less because semi-automatics excludes single-shot rifles and shotguns, which may account for some of that 2,500 number).

So... I guess my question is why not handguns?

[crispybits]

But would the militia have risen up in the first place if it didn't have guns?

I don't see why not, plenty have:

Colour revolutions

These are revolutions in post-communist authoritarian Europe and other new countries that were part of the former Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. Each of these had massive street protests and/or followed disputed elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Almost all of them used a particular colour or a flower to be their symbol of unity.

2000 – The Bulldozer Revolution, which led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. These demonstrations are considered by many to be the first example of the peaceful revolutions that followed in Georgia and Ukraine; however, the Serbs adopted an approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Slovakia and Croatia in 1998 and 2000, respectively, characterized by civic mobilization through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of the political opposition. The protesters in Serbia didn't adopt a colour or specific symbol (the most recognizable symbol of the revolution was a stylized fist), and despite the commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of "colour revolutions." The demonstrations were supported by youth movement Otpor.

2003 – The Rose Revolution in Georgia, following the disputed Georgia legislative election, 2003, led to the overthrow of Eduard Shevardnadze and his replacement by Mikhail Saakashvili after new elections were held in March 2004. The Rose Revolution was supported by the civic resistance movement, Kmara.

2004 – The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, followed the disputed second round of the 2004 presidential election and led to the annulment of the result and the repeat of the round—the leader of the opposition Viktor Yushchenko was declared President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. The Orange Revolution was supported by Pora.

Revolutions in the Middle East

The media attention given to the color revolutions has inspired movements in the Middle East, and their supporters, to adopt similar symbology.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon followed the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Chiefly, the movement demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, ending a de facto occupation. Unlike the revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, this movement did not seek to overturn disputed election results, but did cause the pro-Syrian government of Lebanon to fall. Due to similarities in motivation and organization strategies, it is widely considered[by whom?] a cousin of the color revolutions.

Revolutions in Latin America and Asia

Drawing inspiration from the People Power Revolution of 1986 in the Philippines, as well as other succeeding color revolution movements, several South American countries experienced what were effectively non-violent revolutions.

Dominican Republic- "The Butterflies" or "Las Mariposas". The Mirabel sisters fought to change their government, by underground movements. Also by rejecting sexual advances from the president himself. Three sisters were ordered to be killed by the president at the time, Rafael Trujillo, and only one survived to tell the story. There is also a movie made about their ordeal.

Ecuador – The impeachment of President Lucio Gutierrez, by the Congress of that country after days of increasing demonstrations and protests by citizens led by the citizens of Quito, the capital. Thousands of demonstrators were present in the Plaza of Independence. Flags were waved in celebration shortly after Congress voted out Gutierrez 62-0. Airport runways were blocked by demonstrators to prevent Gutierrez from leaving the country. The former president was later given asylum by Brazil and was transported out of the country on April 24. Protesters also intended to depose the Congress after accusing the body of alleged corruption as well.

The Philippines – EDSA Revolution of 2001 (EDSA II), a four-day popular revolt that peacefully overthrew Philippine president Joseph Estrada in January 2001, self-organized through SMS messaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

[AAFitz]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

Let's talk about that for a second. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons (which seems to be where the politicians want to go), what would that do?

Well, for one that would certainly work towards solving the killing spree issues.

But what about "normal" homicides (includes suicides, murders, accidents).

In 2004, there were approximately 8,000 homicides committed with the use of handguns.
In 2004, there were approximately 3,000 homicides committed by other methods (defined as not guns, knives, and blunt objects).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,500 homicides commited by guns other than handguns. So a ban on semi-automatics would solve this partially (since reload rifles and shotguns would still be legal).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,000 homicides committed with knives.
In 2004, there were approximately 1,000 homicides committed with blunt objects.

So, that's 16,500 violent deaths of which guns other than handguns accounted for 2,500. Assuming that banning semi-automatics would prevent homicide committers from using those weapons, we would account for something less than 2,500 homicides each year (something less because semi-automatics excludes single-shot rifles and shotguns, which may account for some of that 2,500 number).

So... I guess my question is why not handguns?

Ok, you had me at "thousands of murders". Ban em all like you suggest is necessary.

[AAFitz]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

It's not the guns. I'm not blaming blacks and hispanics, I'm quoting statistics and acknowledging reality. You did not deal at all with the issue I brought up, but that is okay.

If you want to prove it is the guns, take a shot at proving your point, show how less production/consumption of arms and ammunition will reduce crime.

So now Australia does matter?

[thegreekdog]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

Let's talk about that for a second. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons (which seems to be where the politicians want to go), what would that do?

Well, for one that would certainly work towards solving the killing spree issues.

But what about "normal" homicides (includes suicides, murders, accidents).

In 2004, there were approximately 8,000 homicides committed with the use of handguns.
In 2004, there were approximately 3,000 homicides committed by other methods (defined as not guns, knives, and blunt objects).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,500 homicides commited by guns other than handguns. So a ban on semi-automatics would solve this partially (since reload rifles and shotguns would still be legal).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,000 homicides committed with knives.
In 2004, there were approximately 1,000 homicides committed with blunt objects.

So, that's 16,500 violent deaths of which guns other than handguns accounted for 2,500. Assuming that banning semi-automatics would prevent homicide committers from using those weapons, we would account for something less than 2,500 homicides each year (something less because semi-automatics excludes single-shot rifles and shotguns, which may account for some of that 2,500 number).

So... I guess my question is why not handguns?

Ok, you had me at "thousands of murders". Ban em all like you suggest is necessary.

Okay, well, they are homicides, not murders. So, if we ban all guns, that takes out 10,500 homicides, leaving 6,000 left. Should we also ban knives, blunt objects, and "other?"

[crispybits]

PS, would those Australia stats that the NRA wheeled out about 10 years ago and were thoroughly discredited to the point where the Attorney General got involved and ordered them to remove all references to Australia from their website I wonder?

[Night Strike]

What is the name of the gun that you think was used in the Newtown killings?

According to my evidence, the gun used was the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. That particular firearm is a semi-automatic weapon, and thus, by definition, not an assault rifle. The overview page for wiki states, specifically:

Wasn't that the gun that was actually left in the car and not used?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle is the source given for the wiki definition.

Quoting what it actually says is slightly different:

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

I should have checked out your claims more thoroughly, but yes, you're clearly wrong here.

I'm confused as to how that is different than what I provided.

Since I always check your support, here is the full definition from Britannica. I've highlighted some relevant portions for your reference.

assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 300–500 m (1,000–1,600 feet), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic riflesmof the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3. (See also AK-47; M16 rifle.)

Assault rifles operate by using either propellant gases or blowback forces generated by a fired round to force back the bolt, eject the spent cartridge case, and cock the firing mechanism. A spring then pushes the bolt forward as a fresh cartridge is fed into the chamber, and the gun is fired again. Cartridges are fed into the guns from magazines holding as many as 30 rounds. Many assault rifles have attachments for grenade launchers, sniperscopes, and bayonets.

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

So, if you want to ban the types of weapons that were used in the Newtown killings... would you like to ban all semi-automatic weapons, some semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons that look like assault rifles, or something else?

I think banning assault rifles is a good idea. If you feel like actually talking about that, I'm open. You have my evidence, and you won't provide or reply to evidence showing that assault rifles are both manufactured, and purchasable in the US. i don't get why you're doing this, but I've given you what you asked for.

That has ALREADY been banned, so what ELSE do you want banned?

[thegreekdog]

But would the militia have risen up in the first place if it didn't have guns?

I don't see why not, plenty have:

Colour revolutions

These are revolutions in post-communist authoritarian Europe and other new countries that were part of the former Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. Each of these had massive street protests and/or followed disputed elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Almost all of them used a particular colour or a flower to be their symbol of unity.

2000 – The Bulldozer Revolution, which led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. These demonstrations are considered by many to be the first example of the peaceful revolutions that followed in Georgia and Ukraine; however, the Serbs adopted an approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Slovakia and Croatia in 1998 and 2000, respectively, characterized by civic mobilization through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of the political opposition. The protesters in Serbia didn't adopt a colour or specific symbol (the most recognizable symbol of the revolution was a stylized fist), and despite the commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of "colour revolutions." The demonstrations were supported by youth movement Otpor.

2003 – The Rose Revolution in Georgia, following the disputed Georgia legislative election, 2003, led to the overthrow of Eduard Shevardnadze and his replacement by Mikhail Saakashvili after new elections were held in March 2004. The Rose Revolution was supported by the civic resistance movement, Kmara.

2004 – The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, followed the disputed second round of the 2004 presidential election and led to the annulment of the result and the repeat of the round—the leader of the opposition Viktor Yushchenko was declared President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. The Orange Revolution was supported by Pora.

Revolutions in the Middle East

The media attention given to the color revolutions has inspired movements in the Middle East, and their supporters, to adopt similar symbology.

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon followed the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Chiefly, the movement demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, ending a de facto occupation. Unlike the revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, this movement did not seek to overturn disputed election results, but did cause the pro-Syrian government of Lebanon to fall. Due to similarities in motivation and organization strategies, it is widely considered[by whom?] a cousin of the color revolutions.

Revolutions in Latin America and Asia

Drawing inspiration from the People Power Revolution of 1986 in the Philippines, as well as other succeeding color revolution movements, several South American countries experienced what were effectively non-violent revolutions.

Dominican Republic- "The Butterflies" or "Las Mariposas". The Mirabel sisters fought to change their government, by underground movements. Also by rejecting sexual advances from the president himself. Three sisters were ordered to be killed by the president at the time, Rafael Trujillo, and only one survived to tell the story. There is also a movie made about their ordeal.

Ecuador – The impeachment of President Lucio Gutierrez, by the Congress of that country after days of increasing demonstrations and protests by citizens led by the citizens of Quito, the capital. Thousands of demonstrators were present in the Plaza of Independence. Flags were waved in celebration shortly after Congress voted out Gutierrez 62-0. Airport runways were blocked by demonstrators to prevent Gutierrez from leaving the country. The former president was later given asylum by Brazil and was transported out of the country on April 24. Protesters also intended to depose the Congress after accusing the body of alleged corruption as well.

The Philippines – EDSA Revolution of 2001 (EDSA II), a four-day popular revolt that peacefully overthrew Philippine president Joseph Estrada in January 2001, self-organized through SMS messaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

I think you've beaten me with this (with the caveat that I would need to learn more about each of these, like, for example, whether there were international pressures associated with the leader/government being overthrown or whether the military would be behind the overthrow).

[crispybits]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

Let's talk about that for a second. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons (which seems to be where the politicians want to go), what would that do?

Well, for one that would certainly work towards solving the killing spree issues.

But what about "normal" homicides (includes suicides, murders, accidents).

In 2004, there were approximately 8,000 homicides committed with the use of handguns.
In 2004, there were approximately 3,000 homicides committed by other methods (defined as not guns, knives, and blunt objects).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,500 homicides commited by guns other than handguns. So a ban on semi-automatics would solve this partially (since reload rifles and shotguns would still be legal).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,000 homicides committed with knives.
In 2004, there were approximately 1,000 homicides committed with blunt objects.

So, that's 16,500 violent deaths of which guns other than handguns accounted for 2,500. Assuming that banning semi-automatics would prevent homicide committers from using those weapons, we would account for something less than 2,500 homicides each year (something less because semi-automatics excludes single-shot rifles and shotguns, which may account for some of that 2,500 number).

So... I guess my question is why not handguns?

Ok, you had me at "thousands of murders". Ban em all like you suggest is necessary.

Okay, well, they are homicides, not murders. So, if we ban all guns, that takes out 10,500 homicides, leaving 6,000 left. Should we also ban knives, blunt objects, and "other?"

And I really don't get this logic. "We can make a huge dent in the problem, but not 100% solve it, so unless we can 100% solve it let's just not bother trying to do anything at all"

[Phatscotty]

Worry about your own stinkin countries. Foreigners opinions here are worth the equivalent of a sack o' assholes

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Also, your countries are much more homogeneous than ours is. It's a lot easier when there is a predominant culture and people. Our problems with murder rates are in the minority populations. Mainly, blacks and hispanics.

Could it be possible that multi-culturalism and diversity is the problem?

Actually, by what you just said, no. Obviously its the guns. We have less violent crime but more murders, so without guns, even with the blacks and hispanics you seem to blame, with no guns we'd have less murders too.

By the way, the mass murderers and serial killers are almost always white.

Let's talk about that for a second. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons (which seems to be where the politicians want to go), what would that do?

Well, for one that would certainly work towards solving the killing spree issues.

But what about "normal" homicides (includes suicides, murders, accidents).

In 2004, there were approximately 8,000 homicides committed with the use of handguns.
In 2004, there were approximately 3,000 homicides committed by other methods (defined as not guns, knives, and blunt objects).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,500 homicides commited by guns other than handguns. So a ban on semi-automatics would solve this partially (since reload rifles and shotguns would still be legal).
In 2004, there were approximately 2,000 homicides committed with knives.
In 2004, there were approximately 1,000 homicides committed with blunt objects.

So, that's 16,500 violent deaths of which guns other than handguns accounted for 2,500. Assuming that banning semi-automatics would prevent homicide committers from using those weapons, we would account for something less than 2,500 homicides each year (something less because semi-automatics excludes single-shot rifles and shotguns, which may account for some of that 2,500 number).

So... I guess my question is why not handguns?

Ok, you had me at "thousands of murders". Ban em all like you suggest is necessary.

Okay, well, they are homicides, not murders. So, if we ban all guns, that takes out 10,500 homicides, leaving 6,000 left. Should we also ban knives, blunt objects, and "other?"

and what % of our population is 2,500?

6 times more people die from the flu. 50 times more people die from accidents. If you include total death in the USA, death from a gun shot accounts for less than 1%.

Yet, this is what they would surrender our second amendment for?

[crispybits]

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Which would you rather be the victim of PS, a violent crime that leaves you alive or a murder?

[Phatscotty]

Yall like to point out our murder rate is higher, but you never want to talk about how your violent crime rate is higher.

Which would you rather be the victim of PS, a violent crime that leaves you alive or a murder?

Would you rather take a shot thru the head, or be in a wheel chair with permanent brain damage for the rest of your life, knowing that some stranger did that to you for the 17$ in your pocket?

If the potential victimhas a gun with them, odds are they will be able to defend themself in both cases.