![[Image: Infographic_HowWillYouDie1.jpg]](https://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Infographic_HowWillYouDie1.jpg)
Gun crime isn't even on this list. Violence is, and it is number 19 at 19,000 deaths. That's violence in general, not just gun crime.
Can Europeans not tell me what problems Americans are having if they have no clue?
Therefore, guns are not the issue. Liberals love to claim that there are 300 million guns in households, but how in the hell does that compare to 8,454 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2013?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...9-2013.xls
Let's break this one down.
Those 'high-powered' 'assault rifle variant' 'killing machines', which in actuality is an 'ArmaLite Rifle' (hence 'AR' in 'AR-15') civilian rifle built from the ground up to maintain the asthetics of a military rifle and nothing more, account for 285 of those 8,454 deaths. That's what, 3%?
428 murders in 2013 are contributed to blunt objects, at 428. Are we to ban inanimate tools because criminals found out that the hard end can kill?
687 murders in 2013 are contributed to criminal's own hands. Are we to ban the usage of our hands instead of AR-15s?
If AR-15's are so high-powered, why do criminals not use them as much as handguns? Sorta confused.
(Jul 11, 2016, 04:50 PM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 04:10 PM)Mr.Sir Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get it why Americans love their precious guns so much that they ignore the fact that they are the main reason of all these shootings
Americans are paying a big price for the right to own a firearm. I just wonder if it's worth all the lives that have been lost and will be lost in the future.
You both are right , guns should be illegal and driver license should be +18
Topics and discussions like these never get anywhere amirite.
(Jul 11, 2016, 09:12 PM)Preditor Wrote: [ -> ]Topics and discussions like these never get anywhere amirite.
Welcome to the US Gun Control thre....I mean Gun Control discussion.
(Jul 11, 2016, 09:38 AM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 05:05 AM)George Wrote: [ -> ]If you can provide more examples of when a gun has stopped a mass shooting compared the the number of mass shootings there have been then I'll start to reconsider my stance on the matter.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/06/29/con...nightclub/
Happened 2 weeks ago.
Oh, that happened only two weeks ago?
Ok, well this happened two weeks ago:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/589488
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/587755
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/587769
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/589159
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/590233
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/588918
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/589165
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/588867
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/591294
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/591975
And this:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/592207
So that's one potential shooting stopped but look how many shootings have actually happened. Since the Dallas attack on Police Officers on the 7th July there has been FOUR mass shootings. But, at least one potential shooting was stopped right?
Source:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repor...s-shooting
(Jul 11, 2016, 09:40 AM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 06:13 AM)George Wrote: [ -> ]Having a police officer in schools might be beneficial, but they don't need to be armed.
It's a cop. Cops have guns.
SRO's (School Resource Officers) get calls just like all other officers during their time on duty.
Then they're not "School Resource Officers" if they're not at the school.
(Jul 11, 2016, 10:53 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 09:12 PM)Preditor Wrote: [ -> ]Topics and discussions like these never get anywhere amirite.
Welcome to the US Gun Control thre....I mean Gun Control discussion.
As a Jim Jefferies once said "Your first amendment means I can say your second amendment sucks dicks". Don't moan about not being able to exercise your 2nd amendment right if at the same time that blocks people from being able to express their first amendment right.
(Jul 11, 2016, 07:28 PM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ]
Gun crime isn't even on this list. Violence is, and it is number 19 at 19,000 deaths. That's violence in general, not just gun crime.
Can Europeans not tell me what problems Americans are having if they have no clue?
Therefore, guns are not the issue. Liberals love to claim that there are 300 million guns in households, but how in the hell does that compare to 8,454 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2013?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...9-2013.xls
Let's break this one down.
Those 'high-powered' 'assault rifle variant' 'killing machines', which in actuality is an 'ArmaLite Rifle' (hence 'AR' in 'AR-15') civilian rifle built from the ground up to maintain the asthetics of a military rifle and nothing more, account for 285 of those 8,454 deaths. That's what, 3%?
428 murders in 2013 are contributed to blunt objects, at 428. Are we to ban inanimate tools because criminals found out that the hard end can kill?
687 murders in 2013 are contributed to criminal's own hands. Are we to ban the usage of our hands instead of AR-15s?
If AR-15's are so high-powered, why do criminals not use them as much as handguns? Sorta confused.
Where to start...
First of all, gun violence doesn't always end in death so that chart means jack shit. So far, according to
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repor...s-shooting, 64 people have been injured as the result of a mass shooting. These are people whose lives will have been changed for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. Also, please stop assuming that gun violence is only perpetrated by a criminal when a percentage of mass shootings are carried out by those with little or no criminal record.
Why do you assume that those reporting the number of guns in American homes must be liberals? Is the number so high that you just assume it is wrong and post no source that can counter that claim?
Now, on to your bit about the AR-15? So ONLY 285 people have been killed by them, no biggie. I mean, these guns hold no actual use for the standard civilian. Home protection doesn't require a rifle capable of shooting 25 rounds in a couple of seconds.
Criminals don't use AR's because they're not cheap and they're not easy to conceal. Criminals don't want to get caught so they don't carry big guns. However, those who go and shoot up a school, park, shopping mall don't care about being caught or even killed. That's why "criminals" don't carry around AR-15 rifles.
'peaceful members of society'
If you're gonna shoot someone with intent to kill/seriously harm them because they're on your property I wouldn't call that peaceful, just saying.
Refer to my previous post for my stance on all this, I can't be fiddled to start quoting and replying.
(Jul 12, 2016, 06:33 AM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]'peaceful members of society'
If you're gonna shoot someone with intent to kill/seriously harm them because they're on your property I wouldn't call that peaceful, just saying.
Refer to my previous post for my stance on all this, I can't be fiddled to start quoting and replying.
You can't just shoot someone because they're on your property. Under the Castle Doctrine, there are a couple things that have to be in place to shoot someone.
-An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
-The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
-The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
-The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doc...ons_of_use
(Jul 12, 2016, 06:33 AM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]'peaceful members of society'
If you're gonna shoot someone with intent to kill/seriously harm them because they're on your property I wouldn't call that peaceful, just saying.
Refer to my previous post for my stance on all this, I can't be fiddled to start quoting and replying.
Are you to greet an intruder kindly at your door? What if you need to defend yourself from an intruder? Is it too mean to defend yourself now a days?
(Jul 12, 2016, 06:33 AM)Safira Wrote: [ -> ]'peaceful members of society'
If you're gonna shoot someone with intent to kill/seriously harm them because they're on your property I wouldn't call that peaceful, just saying.
Refer to my previous post for my stance on all this, I can't be fiddled to start quoting and replying.
Peace and love,
but I will shoot a person that invades my home intent on attacking me. I couldn't care less if they're leaving with some of my belongings. If I can chase them off, great; after that point I let the police deal with it. However, I'm not left with much choice if my life or well-being is put at risk.
Hello! Should guns be allowed at schools? Certainly, no! Despite it is dangerous, children shouldn't be accustomed to violence and aggression, if you're anxious about this problem as well, follow this source to read more
https://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/gun-cont...and-leaves
(Aug 22, 2016, 09:57 AM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 22, 2016, 08:36 AM)margo25 Wrote: [ -> ]Hello! Should guns be allowed at schools? Certainly, no! Despite it is dangerous, children shouldn't be accustomed to violence and aggression, if you're anxious about this problem as well, follow this source to read more https://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/gun-cont...and-leaves
Not sure if bot... or...
1 post, joined this month, probs
:P
(Jul 12, 2016, 05:32 AM)George Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 09:40 AM)jarz Wrote: [ -> ] (Jul 11, 2016, 06:13 AM)George Wrote: [ -> ]Having a police officer in schools might be beneficial, but they don't need to be armed.
It's a cop. Cops have guns.
SRO's (School Resource Officers) get calls just like all other officers during their time on duty.
Then they're not "School Resource Officers" if they're not at the school.
Yes, yes they are. Police patrol "sectors" or "precincts" typically further subdivided into zones. Individual officers (depending on the agency) are assigned a zone. A SRO is just an officer with a much smaller zone, which will be the school + the surrounding area.
<snipped quote>
Now, on to your bit about the AR-15? So ONLY 285 people have been killed by them, no biggie. I mean, these guns hold no actual use for the standard civilian. Home protection doesn't require a rifle capable of shooting 25 rounds in a couple of seconds.
Any random homeowner with an AR15 is not going to be shooting 25 rounds in "a couple of seconds." That's total hyperbole. The big advantage for having a large magazine is that most homeowners will not be in stressful situations where they will need to use the gun often enough for them to be used to those situations. Not having to reload is a huge advantage for them there, as they
will struggle reloading.
[quote pid='132325' dateline='1474989738']
[quote pid='116382' dateline='1468294364']
SNIP
[/quote]
Any random homeowner with an AR15 is not going to be shooting 25 rounds in "a couple of seconds." That's total hyperbole. The big advantage for having a large magazine is that most homeowners will not be in stressful situations where they will need to use the gun often enough for them to be used to those situations. Not having to reload is a huge advantage for them there, as they will struggle reloading.
[/quote]
Having a larger magazine as stated reduces the chance of needing to reload, as said. Although a 5.56 or 7.62 could over penetrate, it has a lot of stopping power, much more than a standard 9mm. If someone has broken in, and they are armed, are you going to want to hit them with a large calibre bullet with lots of energy behind it or a small calibre bullet with less power? Furthermore, the idea of 25 rounds in seconds is not very truthful. Most civilian rifles I have seen don't go further than semi-auto. If you are nervous, shaking, and scared, you won't be able to fire 25 rounds on semi auto in seconds. If a weapon is fully automatic, it is classed as an assault rifle (by military terms not politicians ideas) which is not only dangerous for home defense, but also heavily restricted. If you start shooting in full auto while shaking, your shoulder is taking a beating and over penetration is likely going to happen. Finally, during a break in, you won't be thinking about controlling kick from a pistol, just about stopping an attacker. If you fire too quick on an attacker, you could hurt your wrists taking you out of the fight. If you shoot from one shoulder, and you hurt it, you have another one and quite possibly a bed or dresser to lay a rifle on where you are hiding.
One last thing, before someone goes off telling me just say call the cops and hide, no, just no. When seconds count, you can't guarantee your safety by calling the cops. If you are in a crowded city with tons of traffic or in the country, cops can be far away, so having a firearm is beneficial
Sorry about spelling mistakes, typed on my phone with autocorrect messing things up