re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]
Knife. Pipe bomb. Hand crossbow. Just depends on the situation huh?
Actually more people are killed in cars than there are people killed with guns. And guns are a fundamental element of society if you believe in securing ones Rights and in self defense.
If you're reporting the FBI statistic there is something you should know about it. It does not include all instances of self defense with a gun. As you say, the first step to self defense is threatening to use. Many cases involve just that, and such cases are not always reported to the police, which is what the FBI went off of. Kleck, whose research was cited in Heller did a study that showed that number to be much higher.
Do you really think that the federal government would use nukes in its own territory against its own people? And do you really think that everyone that signed up for the military would side with the federal government if it became dictatorial? Trust me when I say if such an event were to happen it wouldn't be near as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
Yeah? Tell that to all the people that have been arrested for simply speaking their mind.
Firstly. So you are informing me that a firearm does not have the same or more inherent risk than a knife, pipe bomb and crossbows. The simple facts are individuals are needlessly dying due to the needless killing by individuals with a gun....you remove a dangerous object you reduce the risk. So according to your view removing the firearm wont have any effect? For example if your child was hitting children with a stick, would you take it off them or allow them to have it. If by taking the stick (in this case firearm) off society would spare the precious lives being lost, it is well worth it. Each life is no less or no greater than another, why should these individuals be deprived of their right to life under the 14th Amendment?? However don't get me wrong firearms are not ultimate element of these tragedies rather mental health and education are.
To your next point. That is a true fact, however do you plan on banning cars?? You completely skimmed over my explanation as to why they cannot be banned. So according to you guns are a fundamental part of society, I pose this....do you need them to survive, if you cannot have a certain gun is death imminent and if you were to not have a gun over not having a gun what is the percentage increase of your chances of surviving. To further disprove your point, only 25-29% of Americans own a gun, thus to highlight firearms as fundamental to society is purely a point of view from one sect of society with not real statistics or proof to support your notions. Additionally the notions you pose highlights how firearms have been conditioned into being a normality, when in fact an object that is taking lives throughout the US needlessly should not be an object of normality.
I will correct myself on that statistic as I misconstrued its premise slightly. So of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. Despite what statistics state......other countries have found the notion of strict gun legislation advantageous, with Australia for example not having a mass shooting since 1996, a reduction in homicide rates, youth suicides and gun crime. There are other means of protection other than guns, every other country seems to be to utilise these other means or even not ever have to utilise any means.
Lets expand it to various bombs and nukes. So you are saying that if their was an uprise by US society against this dictatorship, the government would do nothing because its its own territory. You can keep living in a 1930's Soviet Union era, where Josep Stalin becomes the dictator of Russia. To stretch a statement out that far would allude to stretching other statements out such as banning guns will lead to other countries believing we are vulnerable, a military coup will occur. So quite clearly you cannot provide me with a clear example of any country??
Such as??? Legislation is in place to do its job, mistakes will be made. Much of time free speech is interpreted as an open slather to be racist, bigotry and crude when in fact that is not the case. Additionally differing countries have differences in policies and legislation, each citizen in those countries should and most likely would understand the ramifications of their actions.
