Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

hundreds of thousands of cases where lawful owners stop a crime each year

:roll:

Of course THAT assertion will never be proven.

 

[Blkdirt Farmer]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

:roll:

Of course THAT assertion will never be proven.

Why would anyone report a crime that did not happen when the presence gun ended the issue?

But your not being realistic, are you... there are stats out there by the NRA that estimate this.

How often are guns used to stop crimes?

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

 

[Tennyson]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly. I believe the right to free speech and protections from law enforcements to be extremely important but it so happens that those explicit rights themselves are not causing, or at least, opening up exploitation and validating individuals the right to a weapon that is currently causing havoc and deaths throughout the nation. Reverence is show to rights that are not degrading, that are not taking peoples rights explicitly and that are practised worldwide in both domestic law, international law and ethical decision making.

To your next point. So your telling me that a document written in the 1800's over 225 years ago in a completely different context is timeless. This is a document that references slavery as an acceptable punishment, a document that doesn't address modern day issues such as gay marriage, terrorism, technological advancements or child molesting.

History is only a good teacher when you learn and become more informed, the US is yet to learn from the cyclic bipolar imbued in gun crime.

Yes, in some society they have sacrificed rights for the greater good of society, moral and ethics and the greater good of legislation and rules, not to satisfy a minority within a country.

Your next point on the UK, according to who....these people are typically racist or anti gay etc.... Could you provide some examples, instead of just stating your very vague opinion??
There is also good reason for their arrest ie..
1) Breaking legislation
2) Causing violence and fear

(No doubt however some cases do display wrongful arrest, am not denying this)

So lets just clear some facts, that you have distorted here. The right to own a firearm is extremely unpopular throughout the world, with only five countries in the past 350 years have had the "right to bear arms" maintained in legislation or taken away. The US, Mexico, Guatemala and Switzerland (related to conscription so its a slightly different situation). The UK has these removed in 1689 slowly until 1880. So the right to bear arms is hardly a universal concept.

Many countries have removed the firearm legislation or implemented stricter legislation. Can you provide some examples of outraged societies at the removal of this right outside the US??
It was for the greater good of society.

Bit of a stretch. Just because I disagree with one part of the Constitution that automatically assumes I am in denial of freedoms. I support both international and documents relating to freedoms, particularly human rights. Just to clarify as well, the right to own a gun is not a human right, this truely represents its importance (or lack of) and the nature of such a right.

To your next point. So your telling me that a document written in the 1800's over 225 years ago in a completely different context is timeless. This is a document that references slavery as an acceptable punishment, a document that doesn't address modern day issues such as gay marriage, terrorism, technological advancements or child molesting.

The context was exactly as it is today and was based on thousands of years of history.

The term "slavery" was avoided being used in the Constitution. The Constitution addresses every modern issue just as it did when written. Any type of marriage was a state's right. Terrorism is handled would be handled no different than then if not for liberalism. Child molesting is handled now as it was back then at the state level.

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Why would anyone report a crime that did not happen when the presence gun ended the issue?

But your not being realistic, are you... there are stats out there by the NRA that estimate this.

How often are guns used to stop crimes?

Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

National Self- Defense Survey which he and his colleague Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993. Though he stresses that the results of the survey are preliminary and subject to future revision, Kleck is satisfied that the survey's results confirm his analysis of previous surveys which show that American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to defend themselves against criminal attacks, and that such defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of firearms in America. The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year.

A guess from random phone calls of 4900 people.

Sure, that proves it: Jesus walked on water too.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

This author is a little bit better qualified than a screen writer.

 

[Vox]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

However you are stating that a civil war is still brewing from the late 1800's. What do you define a civil war as??

I said our Civil War is still simmering.

That should be obvious from a cursory examination of a week or two of current events in the U.S.

Competition between the various races and cultures is intense, ongoing and often violent and at a degree seen in no other nation in the world.

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I said our Civil War is still simmering.

That should be obvious from a cursory examination of a week or two of current events in the U.S.

Competition between the various races and cultures is intense, ongoing and often violent and at a degree seen in no other nation in the world.

You've missed the entire context of the Civil War; and it IS still going on.

And the AR15 is a part of it...

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

They're still wrong, and we don't want to miss a chance to let you know. Have a nice day.

Actually he's quite right.

 

[SirGareth]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

You've missed the entire context of the Civil War; and it IS still going on.

And the AR15 is a part of it...

Africans are lovely people, cheerful, singing, happy even in poverty

African-Americans are (often) angry, entitled, seething in resentment, hate whitey (and Asians) and feel cheated even when wildly wealthy.

 

[jet57]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Africans are lovely people, cheerful, singing, happy even in poverty

African-Americans are (often) angry, entitled, seething in resentment, hate whitey (and Asians) and feel cheated even when wildly wealthy.

uh; no

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

In reverse order...I dont much give a **** about 'the rest of the world'. I spent 20 years in the military and have been in 'the rest of the world'. Im pretty comfortable with them doing them and us doing us and I dont feel the need to log into some site from Sweden and post **** about how they should live their lives. At the same time, I dont much give a **** about their opinions on how we should live our lives.

Firstly. That is an assertion you make and have the right to make. However to simply state you couldn't give a damn about the rest world, shows the little care you have for the environment around you. This "rest of the world" is what supplies the US with $356 billion worth of oil, $319 billion worth of electronic equipment, $265 billion worth of vehicles, $76 billion worth of medical equipment, $72 worth of Pharmaceuticals. It is this "rest of the world" that is in over 100 treaties with the United States, including Convention on Cybercrime and New START. Its is this "rest of the world" (a small portion of) that is causing this age of terror. It is this "rest of the world" that allowed you to type that post of this forum, through technology that was not even created in the United States.

In relation to posting.....I don't know if you understand that gun crime is not just impacting individuals in the United States, its has impacted some of and continues to threaten the 54,973,043 international visitors who travel to the United States each year. The reason you are not posting on "some site from Sweden" is because they don't happen to be in the middle of an onslaught of firearm related violence. That is your loss for not at least recognising others opinion, who can and very well are speaking from an unbiased and different point of view.

To your second point. I am not your "pal", just to clear that notion up. Quite clearly you don't either, because you cannot provide me with any evidence other than your rant of your accusations. I am simply providing you with justified and reasonable responses, how is me stating that they may be "Breaking legislation or Causing violence and fear" making excuses??

To give you a clear indication, yes people have been arrested, however it is validated under Communications Act 2003. This aligns with my statement earlier and distinctively shows their speech was hateful and racist, it is not that they "might be racist" it is they are racist with damning evidence online to highlight this. I have also supplied my source to prove my point, something you are yet to do.

Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London | The Independent
https://www.dailywire.com/news/17807/british-police-just-imprisoned-man-posting-mean-joshua-yasmeh
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d

So you are stating people should not be arrested "for hate speech" online, which had been illegal under UK legislation for decades. Additionally arrest doesn't imply imprisonment. Once again it is not as simply as you state, these individuals instil violence, hatred and support some horrendous notions. No doubt mistakes are made and arrests are sometimes not justified.

Free Speech is one of the most debatable topics of the 21st century, free speech does not allow you to express opinions which instil or connote violence, hatred or anti anything. Free Speech does however allow you to voice your opinion, in a manner consistent with international and domestic laws. These people are in violation of these legislative measures.

Once again that is your opinion, supported only by your opinion. But how is a document timeless when it cannot be applied, to its fullest extent, to a modern world. Gay marriage, as much as you may disagree is part of our modern world (or at least becoming a part). How is it timeless when it doesn't address (as I stated before which you ignored) technology, terrorism and the like. A timeless document means everything contained within can be applied today, how can slavery as a punishment be applied today?? Who are you to say that marriage should be decided by individual states, does marriage change based on what state you live in??

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

a value judgement that fails for two major reasons

it ignores the hundreds of thousands of cases where lawful owners stop a crime each year and
it ignores the fact that most gun homicides are committed by those who cannot legally own guns

therefore you opinion is rejected. Suicides has no bearing on rights

1) "it ignores the hundreds of thousands of cases where lawful owners stop a crime each year"

Where might you find these statistics, no doubt there are cases. None of the 80 mass shootings between 1982 and 2017 was stopped by an armed civilian. However does the small number of armed civilians protecting society, justify the 33,000 uses of firearms to kill and the nearly 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries.

2) Statistics on this are greatly assumed, including yours and mine. I have read many articles which highlight that primarily the homicides include stolen firearms. However of mass shootings since 1999 75% involved legal gun owners, legally obtained or owned a firearm. If you can provide a sustainable and foundational source it would be nice.

To your final point. I am quite disgraced at your ill-advised, demonising and callous remark. How dare you state "Suicides has no bearing on rights" Can you elaborate further??
Suicides clearly highlight the failure of the 2nd Amendment to address or just complement with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety or the like and those who find a firearm a necessary weapon to take there life. Suicides impinge on ones right to life, ones right to a safe and risk free environment, ones right to the liberties that everyone else has.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Suicides impinge on ones right to life, ones right to a safe and risk free environment, ones right to the liberties that everyone else has.

Do you believe that no one has the right to end their own life?

If so, better start banning ropes, cords, bedsheets and belts, as suicides by hanging/suffocation account for about 12,000 lives per year and the suicide rate by that method has grown by about 80% since 1999.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I said our Civil War is still simmering.

That should be obvious from a cursory examination of a week or two of current events in the U.S.

Competition between the various races and cultures is intense, ongoing and often violent and at a degree seen in no other nation in the world.

Firstly. I will rebuke my terming of "brewing" and replace it with "simmering".

Secondly. So this "competition" is seen no where else in the world to a degree, so the racial tensions in Brazil are not at the same level as the US. What about India, Baghran, Libya and Lebanon to name a few. Syria and Afghanistan are in the middle of a war for the cultural and racial differences, that have led to different political ideologies and extremist attitudes.

Once again...what do you define a civil war as??

Because if your last point is your definition, every country at different levels is in a civil war.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Do you believe that no one has the right to end their own life?

If so, better start banning ropes, cords, bedsheets and belts, as suicides by hanging/suffocation account for about 12,000 lives per year and the suicide rate by that method has grown by about 80% since 1999.

The question you pose is a difficult one.....and I am unsure of the answer. In the general sense, morally and ethically for myself it is wrong. Even euthanasia I agree but also disagree with. However situations may arise and have arose where it is necessary.

In no way should you imply my first statement as believing no one has the right to end their own life, a far reaching implication. Rather it impinges of their rights.

To your second point. I was under the belief this was going to be a rational discussion after your first point, however it now has become irrational. I will clarify this....ropes, cords, bedsheets and belts are objects that are part of our daily lives and in some ways a necessity to our existence. Additionally they don't happen to be designed with the primary purpose of killing or inflicting harm. Thus your irrational comment highlights how you attempt to pose an absurd point that downgrades my notions. The number of bedsheet, ropes and cord owners in the USA, outweighs the number of firearm owners, to highlight this from a different perspective.

Its like posing this....water is killing thousands of people each year through drowning so lets ban water???? It is irrational and beyond the point of the issue.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Maybe we should take guns away from the left. Every chart I have seen shows the biggest gun problems to be the areas where the democrats reside and make the toughest laws.

 

[VanceMack]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly......
To give you a clear indication, yes people have been arrested, however it is validated under Communications Act 2003. This aligns with my statement earlier and distinctively shows their speech was hateful and racist, it is not that they "might be racist" it is they are racist with damning evidence online to highlight this. I have also supplied my source to prove my point, something you are yet to do.

Once again that is your opinion, supported only by your opinion. But how is a document timeless when it cannot be applied, to its fullest extent, to a modern world. Gay marriage, as much as you may disagree is part of our modern world (or at least becoming a part). How is it timeless when it doesn't address (as I stated before which you ignored) technology, terrorism and the like. A timeless document means everything contained within can be applied today, how can slavery as a punishment be applied today?? Who are you to say that marriage should be decided by individual states, does marriage change based on what state you live in??

1-Yep. STILL dont give a **** about the rest of the worlds opinions. Im not invested in telling someone else how to live their lives and Im completely uninterested in their opinion of how we should live ours. I'll be honest...I find it funny as **** the number of non-Americans that spend their time blathering on on this site about issues that have nothing to do with their lives. 2-Yep...we agree...and for all your blather all you do is affirm it to be true...the UK is arresting people for 'hate speech' because people are saying things others might find offensive. That you cant see just how ****ed up that is says everything I will ever need to know about you. and 3-The Constitution didnt address marriage...period. Not the ridiculous notion of gay marriage. Not the ridiculous notion of people pretending they are varying genders depending on the time of day. None of it. The Constitution left that for the states to resolve because its a states rights issue. Timeless. The people that ****ed it up are not the framers of the Constitution but people that insist on federal overreach. You ask who am I to say it should be decided by the states? Someone that ha sactually READ and I understand the Constitution and understand it and its intent.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

1) "it ignores the hundreds of thousands of cases where lawful owners stop a crime each year"

Where might you find these statistics, no doubt there are cases. None of the 80 mass shootings between 1982 and 2017 was stopped by an armed civilian. However does the small number of armed civilians protecting society, justify the 33,000 uses of firearms to kill and the nearly 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries.

2) Statistics on this are greatly assumed, including yours and mine. I have read many articles which highlight that primarily the homicides include stolen firearms. However of mass shootings since 1999 75% involved legal gun owners, legally obtained or owned a firearm. If you can provide a sustainable and foundational source it would be nice.

To your final point. I am quite disgraced at your ill-advised, demonising and callous remark. How dare you state "Suicides has no bearing on rights" Can you elaborate further??
Suicides clearly highlight the failure of the 2nd Amendment to address or just complement with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety or the like and those who find a firearm a necessary weapon to take there life. Suicides impinge on ones right to life, ones right to a safe and risk free environment, ones right to the liberties that everyone else has.

ALMOST ALL THE MASS SHOOTINGS TAKE PLACE IN

WAIT FOR IT





gun free zones

suicide is a freedom we all have. Someone committing suicide has no relevance to my safety nor my rights

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I was hoping to hear some actual defenses of assault rifle ownership, but all I heard was "You can't ask us anything! It's in the BoR!", like that settles the issue.

For the record, I'm fine with people owning AR-15's and whatnot. I'm even fine with people owning automatic weapons, so long as the meet the legal standards as defined by the ATF regulations.

But this guys contempt for Americans that want sensible gun laws, and to discuss the liability each class of firearm poses, is what will lead to the 2A getting wiped out eventually.

Why does a person need a Camaro SS rather than a sedan?

Why does a woman need 30 pairs of shoes rather than three?

It isn't a matter of need. It's a matter of personal choice. Any time someone tries to limit gun rights, they are attacking people's choices.

 

[jbander]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

If you honestly want the answer, take 5 minutes to watch this.

What a pile of crap

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

What a pile of crap

edify us with your brilliant counter to his argument.

 

[Cordelier]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Why does a person need a Camaro SS rather than a sedan?

Why does a woman need 30 pairs of shoes rather than three?

It isn't a matter of need. It's a matter of personal choice. Any time someone tries to limit gun rights, they are attacking people's choices.

I understand your argument... but the problem I have with it is that having access to assault-style weapons makes these mass shooting incidents significantly more deadly than they otherwise would have been. That's not the case with the 30 pairs of shoes. Maybe a Camaro is less safe than a typical sedan... but I suspect if it was shown to be significantly less safe, there would be similar calls to address their design as well.

This is what gets me about mass shootings... if one of these incidents were an airplane crash, we'd investigate the hell out of it, learn the lessons and implement changes so that air safety is improved going forward. Why can't we take this kind of approach with gun safety? Why do we have to keep re-learning the same grim lessons over and over again?

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I understand your argument... but the problem I have with it is that having access to assault-style weapons makes these mass shooting incidents significantly more deadly than they otherwise would have been. That's not the case with the 30 pairs of shoes. Maybe a Camaro is less safe than a typical sedan... but I suspect if it was shown to be significantly less safe, there would be similar calls to address their design as well.

This is what gets me about mass shootings... if one of these incidents were an airplane crash, we'd investigate the hell out of it, learn the lessons and implement changes so that air safety is improved going forward. Why can't we take this kind of approach with gun safety? Why do we have to keep re-learning the same grim lessons over and over again?

Yes. Thast's the fault of your argument.

You think that banning certain types of weapons will reduce the violence with those weapons. Guess what. It will not do squat. There are already decades of sales of those types of weapons to start with. Criminal's don't follow legal sales laws. They will buy or steal what is already out there.

Besides, anyone planning to perpetrate such a crime will still have the next best thing. You have to pass laws that go past constitutional meanings to stop all a significant number of gun problems. Why not just make it less likely someone will commit such crimes?

 

[American]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Actually he's quite right.

Sorry, but you don't add credibility to his post.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The question you pose is a difficult one.....and I am unsure of the answer. In the general sense, morally and ethically for myself it is wrong. Even euthanasia I agree but also disagree with. However situations may arise and have arose where it is necessary.

In no way should you imply my first statement as believing no one has the right to end their own life, a far reaching implication. Rather it impinges of their rights.

To your second point. I was under the belief this was going to be a rational discussion after your first point, however it now has become irrational. I will clarify this....ropes, cords, bedsheets and belts are objects that are part of our daily lives and in some ways a necessity to our existence. Additionally they don't happen to be designed with the primary purpose of killing or inflicting harm. Thus your irrational comment highlights how you attempt to pose an absurd point that downgrades my notions. The number of bedsheet, ropes and cord owners in the USA, outweighs the number of firearm owners, to highlight this from a different perspective.

Its like posing this....water is killing thousands of people each year through drowning so lets ban water???? It is irrational and beyond the point of the issue.

The point is that you make a purely value judgment on guns not having the same degree of daily utility as items commonly used for suicide, and that makes ropes good, guns bad even though both are used for suicide in significant numbers. Like ropes, guns are used most often for lawful, safe activities. It's only your bias against them that allows you to draw a line citing utility with guns on one side and other deadly items on the other side.

 

[ludin]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

No, I mean recognize the reality that this is a Democracy, and that the constitution was written a long time ago when it took close to a minute to reload a gun, and we didn't really have a full time standing army.

you need to read the federalist papers and learn why the 2nd amendment exists.
the entire point was the a check and balance against a standing army.