Gun lovers in denial

Leave the hyperbole, nonsense, and diversionary tactics by the side of the road where they belong, and answer the question as it was presented to you.

Stop repeating the same, tired nonsense, ad nauseum. There is no indication of this event constituting practice for anything. That is how you choose to interpret an event you have zero understanding of. Simply repeating it does nothing to make your point anymore valid than it was the last time you asked it.

Unless you have something new to contribute, stop wasting the time of others with nonsense.

 

This is an amusing thread. For those that think our firearm violence is getting worse, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and are completely ignorant to the world around you. I give you the numbers that the FBI, ya, that's right, our own government, the big gun haters... Here are actual factual murder numbers by year that firearms played a part in starting with 2006: 2006 - 10,177, 2007 - 10,086, 2008 - 9484, 2009 - 9146, 2010 - 8775, 2011 - 8583, 2012 - 8855, 2013 - 8454. The link, and how to navigate the FBI's page will be at the bottom of this post. Anyway, what those numbers tell you, is that the amount of murders where firearms are being used, are, and have been going down. They HAVE been going down since the mid 90's where firearm violence peaked. Of course you didn't know this because all you follow is the news that is apparently unable to lie... Why any of you that keep arguing about large massive numbers bla bla bla won't actually educate yourself using your governments own website is beyond me. If you are not smart enough to realize that a firearm is just an inanimate object, please stop driving cars, as those are involved in many more deaths and accidents, and someone not smart enough to see a firearm for what it is, probably isn't smart enough to understand, and follow the rules of the road, or operate a vehicle safely. IF you are a doctor and have some unbiased fear of firearms, put your badge and white coat down, and get the hell out of the office and quit being a doctor, you'll probably save a life or two that way. Malpractice suits are one of the leading causes of death in the USA with 440,000 (that's a lot bigger number than 8454 from firearms) deaths in 2013. It's an estimate as not all records are in quite yet, or tallied. That's over 1000 people a day! Yet you complain about an inanimate object? There are 400 million legally owned firearms of which only a very very small fraction of are involved in shootings. Most of the firearms used in shootings are illegally obtained and are not from the 400 million. Yet you think that if the law abiding citizens hand in their guns (because you're stupid if you think the criminals will), the crime rate will fall.....?

A lot of people like to say how nice the UK has become, and those people are absolutely ignorant as to what actually happened after the ban of 1997... Violence and crime didn't go away in the UK. Yes deaths from firearms went way down to almost nothing, but the crime in the UK went up as a whole. After the ban in 1997, the murder rate actually went up 50% till 2008 when the numbers of law enforcement actually had to skyrocket to combat the rising crime. Even after the large amount of new police, the number of murders didn't actually fall under the 1997 number till 2010. Even now, the numbers of homicides is still not far from the numbers seen before the ban. Just so you nonbelievers can see the numbers for yourself, you can go to the link below. From there, open up the first excel spread sheet, and go to table 2.01. The facts for your country are laid out for you. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...micide.html#tab-Offences-Recorded-as-Homicide

If you want to know what the problem is in this country, it's not an inanimate object, it's our system of punishment. There isn't any other country in the world where its citizens actually commit crimes to go back to jail on purpose. I was actually talking to someone from Singapore about this who said they have the lowest crime rates there is, and they don't have guns... What they didn't know is that our prisons are like little hotels where the inmate gets 3 decent meals a day, a comfy bed, flat screen color TV's, weight rooms, outdoors time to socialize under the clouds, and giant library's to do their studying in. Hell, our prisoners get to get a college credits on our dime! Prisoners have a better life than some families in the low to medium income range. He couldn't believe it. You see, in Singapore, if you do something wrong, you get the (*)(*)(*)(*) kicked out of you by the police, hell, they enjoy beating you, and you don't get to sue them, or get them in trouble in any way. I mean for stealing groceries from a store you get the crap kicked out of you, and it gets worse from there. They know how to make it so people don't want to commit crimes! He thought I was lying when I told him about our prison system till he looked it up. Why can't you guys that live here on our soil do your homework if a guy who live thousands of miles away will? Maybe, just maybe if our punishments actually made people NOT want to go back to prison, we wouldn't have so many criminals? That's just a thought. Instead, the same people who argue against firearms like they have some mystical property that takes over their hosts, also argue that prisons were too tough, and we were too hard on prisoners. Did you ever think that we have the crime rate that we do because people don't care about doing the time for the crime because it's not that bad to them? Ever wonder why most crimes are made by people in low income, or poverty? Hmmmm.... you mean to tell me that they can "get even" and get a better living situation out of it? You don't say? You want to know what our problem is with criminals? They aren't afraid of going to jail. Guns have not a damn thing to do with it. Maybe if we made prison a place that criminals avidly didn't want to be, it might help? Society has a problem, and it's not an inanimate object. There will always be an inanimate object for those that want to use one on another human being. The problem is WHY they don't care about doing the crime. I say this because I have a brother that has been to prison four times now, and the last two times he did the crime, and just sat there waiting to go in. The last one was knocking out a police officer.

I have a simple question for you to ponder if you made it this far... IF the government somehow passed a law saying that we all needed to turn our guns in... what makes you think the criminals are going to do it? The ONLY people who will, will be the law abiding citizens, and a good number of those are going to say "screw you" and hide a few of their own. Now, knowing that, what makes you think that a government that can't find 20 million illegal immigrants (full size human beings), can find something the size of a firearm? That's laughable. This kind of thought only exists where the bunny rabbits, butterflies, and unicorns live. You can't uninvent something, guns are here to stay legally, or illegally and that's just a fact any way you look at it. It's just who's hands the guns are in that *might* change; everyone's, or just the criminals...

The sad part is, I can prove to you that you don't know what you're talking about all day long and kill every argument you have ever had against firearms, but you most likely have blinders on. You don't care about facts, you don't care about the truth. The fact is, you are afraid of an inanimate object for whichever reason is in your little head. You have an unbiased opinion about it, and won't be swayed. You don't care that humans have been killing humans since the human race has existed. You don't care that evil has, and always will be a part of our society. You simply think that an inanimate object is responsible for a person wanting to kill another person like the inanimate object has mind control over them. The second leading cause of violent deaths is knives, and then hands and feet. What do you do about the hands and feet? Ban those too? Knife violence in the UK was so bad that they actually wanted to call for a ban on long pointy knives, is that what you think is better?

If for whatever reason you want to actually look up the numbers that I posted at the beginning from the FBI's own page, the link at the bottom will take you to the FBI's crime statistics front page, from there you can click on the year you want to look at. After that, go to the expanded data for homicides. After that, table 9 is the one you should look at, and in the older years starting at 2008, maybe sooner, you want to look at table 8. So, please please Liberals and Democrats, educate yourself on the truth for once. https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

 

What weapon are you talking about when you say "military issue assault weapon"?
Civilian firearms are not military issued. They do make look alikes, but they function differently.

 

>>>MOD EDIT, Rule 8<<<

On to your question theferret! You ask that like it actually means anything... you obviously don't know anything about what firearms are actually used in crimes... Rifles of all kinds, that includes semi autos, full autos, bolt actions "hunting rifles", ect are the least used type of firearm in crimes. I know... I hate to burst that bubble of yours, but handguns are the most commonly used by a long shot. In 2013 (that's the latest year the FBI has recorded), of all 8454 murders committed with firearms, only 285 of those were with ANY TYPE of rifle. Actually, shotguns were involved in more murders than rifles at 308. Handguns came in at 5782... If you care to look, there were twice as many people killed by hands and feet than there were with rifles of any kind. Knives are at 1490. Hammers, clubs, and sticks were at 428... Here are the FACTS from the *governments* own webpage: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
^ See that, I did your homework for ya.

So... why do I want people to have a semi automatic rifles like AR15's, and AK47's? Simple, they're the safest type of firearm, AND OR weapon to own apparently. Your neighbor is more likely to kill you if he owns a bat than an AR15.

 

If you noticed I called him out on that. such an ignorant term pretty much guarantees that he is clueless

 

Do you come here only to test the patience of everyone in the thread?
I provided you with the excerpted sentence, about the Glock 18 being developed at the request of an Austrian counter terrorist branch, and linked to the whole story. Obviously, you failed to read. You may want to sit on a towel before you read on.
The Glock 18 is indeed a sub machine gun! It fires the very same round as the Uzi, but more of them in each magazine. Because it is a modified model 17, it can be worn covertly, under a jacket, rather than having to be carried in the open, with a sling. Since it's selective fire, it can also be used as a conventional service weapon. It can also easily accept a shoulder stock.
Other than that, you're very confused about who said what here. Carry on. We're having pretty good fun with you.

 

Your thread addresses two issues: 1 you don't like "modern" military arms. 2 you don't like the idea of child soldiers.

You inane question, "what is the kid with Uzi practicing for?" --- is just a silly strawman for your above issues with child soldiers.

So, if child soldiers are the real issue, as they should be, then I ask you: Where have all the child soldiers been for the last 50 years?

[So, as I have no seen any armies of white 12 and 13 year old White suburban children fighting with Uzis and AK's---then the child soldiers must be elsewhere.

Child soldiers are typically found in Africa, the Middle East and South India. Almost always they are Black, Arab and/or Muslim. In fact 10% of all fighting in Africa is done by child soldiers. But modern guns did not cause child soldiers, they have been around for eons. Child soldiers exsist in in savage, backwards cultures populated by morally-debased people.

In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq brutally invaded Iran. Both sides used boy soldiers. Iran, to clear minefields for the more mature soldiers to advance, actually send young boys in waves to “martyr” themselves. In many attacks waves of young children and women were sent in advance of the regular troops. The Iraqis however, did not have the reluctance of the Israelis to use heavy weapons against the unarmed children. Machine guns, artillery, hand grenades, and rockets mowed the women and children down but used up ammunition.

In Africa boys had traditionally been used as soldiers but Shaka, the great Zulu warrior king, organized the practice. At the age of 6, boys joined Shaka’s army as apprentice soldiers. Initially they carried spare weapons and did other chores but as their skills developed they took their places as regular soldiers whenever they merited promotion.

Probably the most terrible use of child soldiers was made by the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia in the late 1970’s. They used child soldiers, both boys and girls, Their genocide executed about 1 million people, but perhaps the worst thing about their crimes was the fact that they used children as executioners, often of their own parents as well as others the adults decided were not fit to live.

https://scriptamus.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/child-soldiers-are-unfortunately-nothing-new/

Again, if the "evil guns" and the "evil gun culture" you do not care for in America was SO corrupting---then where are the child soldiers in America outside urban ganglands???

Where are they at???

 

You need to check yourself before typing....the chronology of the posts clearly shows that SOMEONE ELSE introduced the video of the African child with the AK-47, NOT I. So I merely pointed out the absurdity of that comparison, as I did in my opening post.

You claim "propaganda"...I suggest you look up the definition of the word, and then present EXACTLY what I stated or presented that fits that definition....and if you can't please spare me more attempts to substitute your opinion, supposition & conjecture as fact.

But let me speed things along.....since you recognize that a dysfunctional society results in a child soldier using a fully automatic assault weapon, then why the hell should an American child who is NOT living in a similar condition be allowed to handle a similar weapon in any capacity? THAT seems to be the question that YOU and most others have trouble honestly answering. I'll wait. Carry on.

 

You're the king of moot points, son. Pity it just waste your time and mine, because you STILL can't justify this nonsense other than parrot long disproved mantras from 1980's survivalists. But you're persistent, I'll give ya that. Carry on.

 

What a collection of bumper sticker BS! All you've done is just avoid the questions, the FACTS of the tragedy and display a gross ignorance of the 2nd Amendment and how it applies to various state laws, etc. Try reading the responses I gave to your like minded compadres, maybe that will clue you in.

Come back when you've developed the intellectual honesty/capacity to actual debate the issue.

 

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guess you figured out that guns don't grow tiny sneaker feet and chase people around like a Warner Bros. cartoon. So now that you've discovered this amazing fact, perhaps it will dawn on you that the discussion was about the TYPE of gun and WHO was handling it that led to a tragedy. The conclusion was that had NOT the people involved given a CHILD a MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPON to essentially play target shooting with, this tragedy wouldn't have happened. All YOU'VE done in your screed here is an attempt to justify such attitudes and practices with the usual gunner rhetoric, juxtapositions of facts and collection of supposition and conjecture. Are you in favor of giving military issue weapons to kids? For fun? Target practice? Training? Why? Because you're crime armaggedon stats and stories was the EXACT same blather given by survivalist 35 years ago to justify their gunner fetish. Guess what? Didn't happen.

You want to play the stat game, let's play:

And while the number of firearm homicides dropped dramatically over a 20-year period ending in 2011, the percentage of violent crimes involving firearms has stayed fairly constant, according to the 2013 survey. In other words, even when fewer people die from gun violence, violent crimes involving guns are still happening at the same rate. It's also true that as the gun homicide rate has declined in the United States, suicides now account for the majority of gun deaths, according to Pew.


America's Top Killing Machine

Gun deaths are poised to surpass automobile deaths in the United States this year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

A: This &#8216;Gun History Lesson&#8217; is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

And when all is said and done, you STILL cannot justify giving an Uzi to a child under any circumstances. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OWNING A WEAPON FOR HOME OR PERSONAL DEFENSE, GIVEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS ABIDING BY. My problem is with this insane notion that people should be armed to the teeth with the latest military/para-military guns with little or no gov't oversight or regulation. (state or otherwise) Such an attitude can only lead to tragedies such as seen in the opening post of this thread.

 

See above responses and then do your homework without the subconscious racial bias. Your willful ignorance is appalling.

 

We already did this dance, Chuck. Repeating your failed attempts to justify giving a child in America an Uzi under any circumstances is just the failed rhetoric of a survivalist folly past.

 

If I confused you and another poster then I apologize.

Propaganda is information used to promote a political or biased point of view. The information does not have to be false, just misused.

That question has already been answered. I see nothing wrong with any person handling an automatic firearm if they are capable of handling an automatic firearm, has the proper training, and necessary supervision.

The difference is that you seem to think that automatic firearms are "bad" in some way.

 

I already laid waste to your screed, Ethos. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=418990&p=1065239137#post1065239137

the sheer stupidity of your argument is comparing what one person can do with semi-automatic weapons, etc. can do to INDIVIDUAL acts of violence via hand to hand or with basic staff or knife weapons. Perhaps you should do your homework regarding the last ten years with MASS KILLINGS by individuals using semi-automatics. Would the tally be same if those perpetrators used knives? Or their fists?

If you're going to take a condescending attitude, Ethos, at least put up a logical argument that isn't wrought with silly NRA talking points.

 

The Glock 18 fires 3 round bursts per trigger squeeze, is NOT described as a submachine gun by it's official designation. The Uzi fires it's clip continuously as long as the trigger is held squeezed...a submachine gun by it's official designation.

Once again, to justify any and all NRA blather, you think you are winning the debate by delving into gun type minutia. But clearly, YOU don't even understand your own information, and subsequently try to substitute your belief over fact. Do your homework properly. To date, the claim by you and your cohorts that the Glock 18 replaced the Uzi in Israel has been proven false.

Bottom line: a child in America does not need to be familiar with a military issued weapon as the Uzi. Deal with it.

 

I NEVER stated or alluded to such. I have stated time and again that automatic, military issue weapons put in the hands of children under any circumstances is a BAD thing. Got it now?

 

The man died, not because of attitudes like the earlier poster, but because he didn't do due diligence in his job as safety instructor for the little girl who was doing a touristy thing (aka "making memories"), not practicing for future armed conflict. Yes, it was a silly thing to do, but the parents thought that the instructor was there to keep things safe. The instructor failed at that, and it cost him his life. The instructor was the expert here. His death is on no one but himself.

 

/thread

 

And people who pompously claim they have won an argument, almost always say so because they have lost. The true winner of an argument doesn't need to crow his victory.

 

It's completely dependent upon the weapons system, an Uzi is not a good choice for a child due to its rate of climb.

A G11? No problem. Recoil, virtually non-existent.

A P90? No problem. Minimum Recoil.

Kriss Vector? No Problem, Minimum recoil.

A MG42? No Problem, Minimum recoil and it's to be fired from the ground or a secure platform.

AK? Problem. Why? The rate of climb is ridiculous, similar to a child with an Uzi.

 

And that's the difference. You make a blanket statement that a child shooting an automatic firearm is not to be allowed no matter the capability of the child or the circumstances. I disagree.

I fired a M-60 (a belt fed military machine gun) mounted on a tripod when I was 11 years old. There was a US Marine kneeling on either side of me just in case. Many other children did the same. I have absolutely no problem with children having fun shooting a machine gun under the proper circumstances. In fact, I encourage it. Experience with firearms helps dispel the fear due to ignorance.

 

Have you not yet learned that opposition to handing out Bazookas in a mental health institution means that you must be a 'gun grabber'

 

Yea, guns should probably stay out of the hands of kids.....

[video=youtube_share;ThZLk6MS_0Y]http://youtu.be/ThZLk6MS_0Y[/video]

Guess what one of the fastest growing demographics in the world of shooting sports is?
Yep.

The growth of kids in shooting sports guarantees a healthy outlook for the future of firearm owners.

 

An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon.