• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The idiocy of 'assault weapon' bans

The Striking Relationship Between Gun Safety Laws and Firearm Deaths - CityLab

The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect. Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, controlling for other factors thought to be associated with gun deaths including age, sex, race and ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, other violence-related deaths, and firearm ownership.

The map below, from the study, charts the mortality rate per 100,000 and legislative strength score. Louisiana had the highest rate of gun-related fatalities at 17.9 per 100,000, and Hawaii had the lowest at 2.9. Utah had the lowest legislative strength score of 0 and Massachusetts had the highest at 24.

States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).
Click to expand...


I found this poster quote on another thread and thought it humorously ironic and very appropriate here:

They wonder why they're having these attacks in France and Belgium. Maybe it's because they're so obsessed with the supposed "rights" of terrorists.
What about the rights of citizens to live in peace and not be violently attacked by cavemen?
Click to expand...
 
beerftw said:
I thought you said in an earlier post you worked with navy seals, now it's army sf, so which is it?

Fyi you do not stop to do a pivot unless you are an army private fresh out of basic with zero combat experience, a pivot is used to switch directions rapidly, not to stand in the center of a room and play one man army.
Click to expand...


I see your reading comprehension is about as good as your knowledge of CQB. No one who is in SF would say they worked with SF. They are a member of SF. Not working with them. As a member of Special Forces I have worked with SEALs, MARSOC Rangers and several other SOF units. The various units within SOF not only train together from time to time but also conduct combat operations together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe you should try and understand the things you read instead of putting words in people's mouths.That is unless you just prefer to be dishonest.

A perfect example is you claiming I said anything about being in the middle of the room or playing one man army. Not only did I mention shooting faster to protect your team mate and I never said anything about the center of a room as that is the very last place an assaulter should ever be.

Sorry man but no one who knows what they are doing does CQB the way you are talking about. No one is changing their direction of travel just because there are targets in the room. The moment you start changing direction to engage a target you are moving into someone else's sector of fire.

I have to ask because your knowledge of CQB seems horribly lacking, exactly what your job was in the military and what unit you were with.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
Yes as a member of Special Forces I have worked with SEALs, MARSOC Rangers and several other SOF units. Maybe you should try and understand the things you read instead of putting words in people's mouths. That is unless you just prefer to be dishonest.
A perfect example is you claiming I said anything about being in the middle of the room or playing one man army. Not only did I mention shooting faster to protect your team mate and I never said anything about the center of a room as that is the very last place an assaulter should ever be.

Sorry man but no one who knows what they are doing does CQB the way you are talking about. No one is changing their direction of travel just because there are targets in the room. The moment you start changing direction to engage a target you are moving into someone else's sector of fire.

I have to ask because your knowledge of CQB seems horribly lacking, exactly what your job was in the military and what unit you were with.
Click to expand...

In the entire time I was in the military, I have never seen an army ranger and a navy seal work together, and extremely rare an army sf and navy seal work together. All special forces work under sf command, but work in seperate divisions, and are generally under seperate command from the units they are attached to. The army rangers are not sf, even though they fall under us sf command, they are used for entirely different tasks than sf. The rangers are more like elite infantry, while sf focus more on covert operations and stealth missions.

Also I was a heavy wheeled vehicle mechanic, formerly 63b, later 91b. I also worked alot in the sf compound in afghanistan, and practically none carried m-4's with suppressors, all carried stock ak-47 rifles, grew beards, and dressed like the locals, and most of the time never carried military id instead only carrying their isaf badge.


Also a zero pivot charge into a room only works in a simple square room, in a building with various hallways, turns, and rooms charging in without doing a pivot is next to impossible, unless your only experience is in training connexes and not real buildings, like they had there, that they painted pink because man love thursday.


lso you claimed to be in afghanistan, what posts and regional commands were you assigned to?
 
beerftw said:
In the entire time I was in the military, I have never seen an army ranger and a navy seal work together, and extremely rare an army sf and navy seal work together. All special forces work under sf command, but work in seperate divisions, and are generally under seperate command from the units they are attached to. The army rangers are not sf, even though they fall under us sf command, they are used for entirely different tasks than sf. The rangers are more like elite infantry, while sf focus more on covert operations and stealth missions.

Also I was a heavy wheeled vehicle mechanic, formerly 63b, later 91b. I also worked alot in the sf compound in afghanistan, and practically none carried m-4's with suppressors, all carried stock ak-47 rifles, grew beards, and dressed like the locals, and most of the time never carried military id instead only carrying their isaf badge.


Also a zero pivot charge into a room only works in a simple square room, in a building with various hallways, turns, and rooms charging in without doing a pivot is next to impossible, unless your only experience is in training connexes and not real buildings, like they had there, that they painted pink because man love thursday.


lso you claimed to be in afghanistan, what posts and regional commands were you assigned to?
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't spend to much time around SOF then. I have been to more then a couple schools, including SFSC, where they were multiple SOF units. Taken part in multiple large exercises with the same. Conducted multiple raids in Iraq with SEALs, My first trip in Afghanistan my ODA was underneath a SEAL SOTF and we did multiple Ops with the SEAL platoon that was running the Afghani Commandos for that SOTF and MARSOC teams conducting VSO.

You probably don't need to try and explain SF organization to someone who has 10 years in Group. Yes all Special Forces fall under USASOC then USASFC. But from there it's not different divisions it's different Groups. 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and the 2 Guard Groups 19 and 20. Furthermore Rangers do not fall under Special Forces Command they fall under USASOC. And while you are right that us and Rangers are tasked with different mission sets there is a decent amount of support task that go between the two. I.e. SF from there local forces gather Intel for Ranger BN to conduct a hit that we do work together from time to time though not as often as we work with SEALs or MARSOC. My last trip to Afganistan our closest neighbor to my VSO site was a SEAL platoon and we did a large number of clearing Ops together.

That's nice that you worked a bit inside a SF compound. I have lived on them and while some guys do carry AKs that's pretty few and far between anymore. I have almost 2.5 years in Afganistan and have never once even seen an ISAF if card. All we had was our SOTF badge and CAC card. We don't really have much to do with ISAF. Not saying all teams are that way but we never did. Depends on the mission you are doing. Furthermore I really don't see what this has to do with anything.

Once again no one is doing any type of pivot in a room. You continue walking to your point of domination while twisting your upper body to engage targets. This works in every room. It is how CQB is done. This is how everyone who knows how to properly conduct CQB is doing it.
The problem we are having is a non combat arms guy trying to tell a 18 series guy who has been to both SFSC and SFARTAETC and works in one of the few SF companies that devote themselves entirely to Direct Action how to conduct CQB. It's rather silly. I would not dream of trying to tell you how to fix a heavy wheeled vehicle but then I also know my area of expertise. Some folks simply can't admit that some areas their knowledge is lacking.

While I was in Afganistan I fell under SOTF SE and SOTF E.
 
jet57 said:
The Striking Relationship Between Gun Safety Laws and Firearm Deaths - CityLab




I found this poster quote on another thread and thought it humorously ironic and very appropriate here:
Click to expand...

Bu your know it is disingenuous and fraudulent to make claims which are an obvious fraud Are you deliberately baiting because there is no doubt you have been informed why this is a fraud. It is idiotic and fraudulent to claim the causation is guns when removing guns reduces gun deaths. Nor is this the first time you have made this known false claim.
 
Crimefree said:
Bu your know it is disingenuous and fraudulent to make claims which are an obvious fraud Are you deliberately baiting because there is no doubt you have been informed why this is a fraud. It is idiotic and fraudulent to claim the causation is guns when removing guns reduces gun deaths. Nor is this the first time you have made this known false claim.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what yourbolded[/b] sentence is trying to say. You're also putting thoughts in my head that are just not there. The study clearly shows that gun control means less gun violence. It is incumbent upon you to credibly refute the study rather than just labeling it "fraud" and say that I'm baiting. You're just avoiding the whole thing. Particulalry this statement:
they wonder why they're having these attacks in France and Belgium. Maybe it's because they're so obsessed with the supposed "rights" of terrorists.
What about the rights of citizens to live in peace and not be violently attacked by cavemen?
Click to expand...
 
jet57 said:
I have no idea what yourbolded[/b] sentence is trying to say. You're also putting thoughts in my head that are just not there. The study clearly shows that gun control means less gun violence.
Click to expand...

The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect.
 
TOG 6 said:
The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides, though it notes that these findings are limited to associations and could not determine precise cause-and-effect.
Click to expand...

That doesn't refute the end result however.
 
jet57 said:
I have no idea what yourbolded[/b] sentence is trying to say. You're also putting thoughts in my head that are just not there. The study clearly shows that gun control means less gun violence. It is incumbent upon you to credibly refute the study rather than just labeling it "fraud" and say that I'm baiting. You're just avoiding the whole thing. Particulalry this statement:
Click to expand...


The study does not claim causality. You do.

Did you try reading the rest? What was your mind doing when you got to this

Are you deliberately baiting because there is no doubt you have been informed why this is a fraud. It is idiotic and fraudulent to claim the causation is guns when removing guns reduces gun deaths. Nor is this the first time you have made this known false claim.

Nowhere have you or any study claimed or proven causality. You know this for a fact. If you can show causality go ahead and get it published and accepted now. You have been informed a number of times of this lack of proof and still you continue to repeat this claim. That is baiting

The statement you quoted does not deserve a response it is pure hyperbole and shows the incredible lack of professionalism or credibility of the study. It is gun control junk science. Citizens have no right to live in peace. The only people who need protection are citizen who have to listen to the constant barrage of lies from gun control. What about them falsely accusing gun owners of causing violence and generating hatred and fear to promote oppression.

What in that "study" refutes this that deals directly with the subject.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Consider your claim and the trash research refuted.
 
Last edited:
TOG 6 said:
Which is that there is a correlation.
If true: So...?
Click to expand...

The results are the results: less guns less gun violence. Though they have no exact record of why, they have an exact record of IS.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
The results are the results: less guns less gun violence. Though they have no exact record of why, they have an exact record od IS.
Click to expand...

what gun banners like you never seem to get is that when guns are taken away from criminals, crime sometimes goes down

when guns are taken away from those who can own them legally, crime doesn't go down-it often goes up

gun banners don't seem to see the difference but since their main view is that gun ownership is bad-legal or illegal, they don't tend to distinguish between the two
 
Crimefree said:
The study does not claim causality. You do.

Did you try reading the rest? What was your mind doing when you got to this

Are you deliberately baiting because there is no doubt you have been informed why this is a fraud. It is idiotic and fraudulent to claim the causation is guns when removing guns reduces gun deaths. Nor is this the first time you have made this known false claim.

Nowhere have you or any study claimed or proven causality. You know this for a fact. If you can show causality go ahead and get it published and accepted now. You have been informed a number of times of this lack of proof and still you continue to repeat this claim. That is baiting

The statement you quoted does not deserve a response it is pure hyperbole and shows the incredible lack of professionalism or credibility of the study. It is gun control junk science. Citizens have no right to live in peace. The only people who need protection are citizen who have to listen to the constant barrage of lies from gun control. What about them falsely accusing gun owners of causing violence and generating hatred and fear to promote oppression.

What in that "study" refutes this that deals directly with the subject.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Consider your claim and the trash research refuted.
Click to expand...

It's this simple: in England, there are very few guns, so is there is very little gun violence. And all we're talking about here is - gun violence, nothing more.
That kind of a result, which the study shows is as obvious as the nose on your face. You're going way around the bush trying to deny an obvious fact.
 
jet57 said:
It's this simple: in England, there are very few guns, so is there is very little gun violence. And all we're talking about here is - gun violence, nothing more.
That kind of a result, which the study shows is as obvious as the nose on your face. You're going way around the bush trying to deny an obvious fact.
Click to expand...

England had very low rates of gun violence before the government actually started preventing people from owning firearms. and England is a silly argument for US policies since we have at least 300 million firearms here
 
jet57 said:
The results are the results: less guns less gun violence.
Click to expand...
That's not what it said.
It said:
The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides,
I wonder if they looked at VT and CA.
 
TOG 6 said:
That's not what it said.
It said:
The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides,
I wonder if they looked at VT and CA.
Click to expand...

or better yet, Dem run cities with idiotic gun laws that are cesspools of violent crime. DC, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore all come to mind
 
jet57 said:
The results are the results: less guns less gun violence. Though they have no exact record of why, they have an exact record of IS.
Click to expand...

The postulation that if there are X apples in a bowl some will go bad. If we remove y apples less will go bad. It's obvious to gun control advocates that guns make the apples go bad. There is no exact record of why.

:doh:spin::screwy
 
Last edited:
TOG 6 said:
That's not what it said.
It said:
The study found that states with the strictest gun control laws had lower rates of gun-related homicides and suicides,
I wonder if they looked at VT and CA.
Click to expand...

It like examining Japan and coming to the remarkable conclusion less guns less gun crime. Only we are going to dress it up to confuse people and put lots of bling in there so smoke and mirrors can work. This is what is called cherry picking and using the obvious fraud to prove your point.

Gun control lies it has no choice but to lie all one has to do is find the lie as it is guaranteed to be there. Jet57 knows as well as anyone here that there is no evidence existing that can even show the vaguest hint or promise of a causal relationship yet persists in fraudulently claiming it exists in order to bait firearm owners.
 
Crimefree said:
It like examining Japan and coming to the remarkable conclusion less guns less gun crime. Only we are going to dress it up to confuse people and put lots of bling in there so smoke and mirrors can work. This is what is called cherry picking and using the obvious fraud to prove your point.

Gun control lies it has no choice but to lie all one has to do is find the lie as it is guaranteed to be there. Jet57 knows as well as anyone here that there is no evidence existing that can even show the vaguest hint or promise of a causal relationship yet persists in fraudulently claiming it exists in order to bait firearm owners.
Click to expand...
Long story short:
Anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/oh dishonesty.
 
TOG 6 said:
Long story short:
Anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/oh dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Fear does funny things to people, it even makes them turn on their own family. What we see today are the path to destruction. No atrocity ever committed did not have the same elements of hatred and fear propagated by gun control advocates. Gun control uses the same methods and techniques that have been used to gain the ability to kill millions without fear of opposition or reprisal.

I say this without fear of contradiction because we each know it is true. WWII may be a distant past but the NAZI left an indelible record and legacy. Best we learn what propaganda can do. Or we can repeat it, the choice is ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom