Gun lovers in denial

an UZI is not a fully automatic assault weapon. Its a submachine gun and the child was shooting the gun for the experience of doing so

1) not to train for war

2) not to ready herself for the zombie apocalypse

3) and not even to be ready in case the control freaks try to confiscate our firearms and thus create another civil war

your constant weasel words that people cannot answer your inane dishonest STUPID question is getting tiring. We won't fall for your baiting nonsense and you are getting mad that we are too smart to play your silly game

 

this sort of dishonest nonsense is clearly the sign of a sociopathic anger. You hate the NRA. WHY? most likely because you are a far left extremist and you hate the NRA thwarting some of your candidates. . Your idiotic arguments are all over the place. There hasn't been any crimes committed in years with legal machine guns which is what you started your blood clot crying about on this thread. Now your are caterwauling about semis automatics. so what action of firearm do you NOT want to ban-YET? Give it up, this sort of pathological anger at gun owners is the sign of some really serious issues

 

Po

Yes let's talk fact. Less than 300. Do you know what that number signifies? It's the number of times all rifles and I mean every single type of rifle is used to commit murder each year. You want to attack firearms in the name of safety? At least have the facts right and go after the right type of firearm. Here is another fact for you. 60 percent. 60 percent of all murders are done in large urban centers in predominately poor neighborhoods. The mass area where more than half the murders that occur in our country is no bigger then the state of Delaware. 33%. 33% is the drop in homicdes that Australia saw since its gun ban. You know who else saw a 33% drop in homecide over the same time frame? Yep America. You know what Australia did see though? A rise in violent crime. 2. The number of times in the last 15 years that the Supreme Court has sent gun banners running for trying to violate Americans second amendment rights. So if you want to talk facts with me you better step up big time because you aren't even on the same playing field as me. At least you and Obama have one thing in common you both called someone the jv team and didn't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you were talking about.

 

LOL, the GLOCK 18 is a MACHINE PISTOL., The UZI is a SMG. slightly different weapons but are designed for the same use. and its NOT A CLIP but a magazine. NEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO POST THIS NONSENSE ON THIS BOARD. The UZI is an obsolete weapon BTW. and you constantly are having garment voiding episodes over the NRA-why is that. It is because you hate the NRA because it supports conservative candidates

- - - Updated - - -

PGTWCTWGP

Right you are

 

OK, Mr. Amazing; I'll feel "schooled" when you can show me a 3 round burst anywhere in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw-o3p4ZMtE
Now, you claim that I claim that ISRAEL is replacing the Uzi with the 18. I made no such claim. I said that the 18 is replacing the Uzi in general, like among security and Spec. Ops. forces.
There's really no point in trying to teach you how debate works, but if you ever get serious, it helps a whole bunch to keep the facts straight.
Another bottom line: It is NONE -- ZERO -- ZIP -- NADA of your business to tell me or anyone what a child needs or does not need. Not your children means not your business. Get over it.

 

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

Apparently you like to play way out in left field... lol I posted facts, common sense, anyone with any type of normal reasoning skills could understand "facts". Then you post the article from the Atlantic roping in suicides with murders? Lets set the numbers straight about that, suicide IS NOT A VIOLENT CRIME. It's suicide. Roping those two in is a pathetic try to up the numbers of firearm deaths at best. People who will commit suicide are going to do it no matter what. There were 42,000 suicides last year, and only 21,000 of them used firearms. That kinda shows that people are going to still kill themselves even when they don't have a gun... at least someone with common sense would see that. So no, the hyped up article from the Atlantic doesn't do squat for an argument but shot how pathetic the arguments for gun control have become.

Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?
A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.
^ Now this I think is actually funny... I give you current facts, you post up a 6 year old report. The answer to the question is actually yes, yes homicides did go up for quite a bit after the gun control laws. It did then go down, but just like in the UK, they had to add a crap load more police officers and to actually operate the gun grab, it cost them a crap load of money. Another interesting thing about the government in Australia, is that Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs said that licensed gun owners ARE NOT responsible for firearm homicides. Hey, at least they get it. Now, something else you can't forget, Australia IS NOT the USA, and you can't compare the two mainly because of the way they handle crime and punishment. In Australia, people don't want to go back to prison. The prison systems are very different which play a huge role in why criminals in the USA don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about doing a crime. I hope you can understand that. So, who cares about Australia! They are NOT us, and can't be related. Till the USA ups it punishments, or they drop theirs, the two are very different. http://web.archive.org/web/20090614120413/http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2000/20000726.html

"And when all is said and done, you STILL cannot justify giving an Uzi to a child under any circumstances."
Now, the argument of the child with the UZI... if someone is dumb enough to give a child that can't handle a firearm an UZI, and then they get their stupid asses shot with it, they get a Darwin award. Should that particular child have had a gun like that? Apparently not. My kids have had guns since they were 3 ish, little Cricket 22's, and even a 22 pistol. They're older now, and my 6 year old can shoot my VP9 just fine. I'm still not going to let any of them handle a full auto though unless it's stuck to a solid mount, that would just be stupid. No amount of laws is going to prevent stupidity though so coming out with more crap to try to save stupid people is just dumb. There is absolutely no common sense to make laws for stupid people, it doesn't work, and never will.

 

You didn't do anything but give a very biased report that had suicides roped in with murders. That makes absolutely no sense for anyone to say the two are the same since one is self inflicted..... it is kinda funny though that people can't see that violent murders where someone kills someone else are very much different than someone taking their own life. There is absolutely no rationality in the thought of making the two out to be the same. You also compared us to another country which has a very different set of laws and way of handling criminals. If the USA handled crime and punishment the way Australia does, or Singapore for that matter (a much better place to argue since it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and very strict gun control), I would guarantee that the crime rate would go down. So... you can't compare the USA because NONE of the baselines are the same. It's apples to oranges, a Ferrari to a Jeep if you will. Ya, their both vehicles, but they handle the terrain completely different.

My arguments are only stupid to people who don't have the rationality to see past false opinions. That's the black and white truth. I also didn't argue that semi automatics were not at fault, I said that semi auto RIFLES were the safest option to have. You apparently spoke about how stupid my argument was, without reading it correctly. The two most used guns are semi auto handguns, and shotguns if you must know. I am up to date, and know what I'm talking about. I keep posting facts that are based on actual numbers that are up to date, and very reasonable to use in a discussion, and you post no facts for the USA, old information, and opinion. This is pretty much normal though for the gun control side. You have no real argument. How about another number based mainly on self inflicted wounds? Or.. lets compare the USA to Madagascar, and the crime rate there? How about the moon? I mean, it has absolutely no firearms, and the murder rate there is absolutely 0. Heck, that's the best argument ever because it's absolutely and undeniably right! These are the kind of arguments I expect from people that don't have common sense enough to see that gun control will not work in the USA. The USA is way too different from other countries, and to make us like those other countries, a lot of our freedoms have to go bye bye. Of course none of the gun grabbers will ever acknowledge that, mainly because they're not reasonable enough to actually take that into account. We are the only country like us, there is no other. We are the only country that has its particular set of problems, no other does. This means, we CANNOT be compared with our gun laws and crime, at least a rational person with common sense wouldn't compare us anyway.

So, I'm still waiting on a fact based argument that actually works for having more gun control in the USA. To the other side, let me say again, suicides are a moot point that only an irrational person would argue, and comparing crime rates against another country that handles crime and punishment a lot better than the USA does is also an incredibly stupid argument that shows complete ignorance to the way the world works, and a supreme lack of common sense - Ferrari to Jeep. So does anyone have anything other than opinion, or horrible comparisons that in the end don't mean squat? Lets keep it to facts people, in the USA....

 

First off, you have no idea what an UZI is or what it can or cannot do.
You want my guns. Be a the first through the door to come take it. Tell your friends to watch out for the barrel. It will be hot.

 

And again, if this absurd attitude that it's okay to put automatic weapons within the hands of children UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES wasn't present in the first place, this tragedy would not have happened. THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE A CHILD AN UZI UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OR PREMISE in the U.S.A. We are not in a state of civil war or occupied by a brutal army or are survivors after some sort of apocalypse.

 

Back track the chronology of the posts and you'll see that in my exchanges with Turtle I did EXACTLY what I stated. I don't "claim" anything, but point to the FACTS. Sorry if you don't like it, but no one said life was fair. If you want to pick up the gauntlet for him, then try to argue his points instead of just spewing sour grapes.

 

For generations kids who lived in rural areas or who's family supplemented their diet with fresh kill were trained to use hunting rifles. For generations kids who families NEVER HAD A GUN grew up, joined the military or police and learned how to handle weapons. There is no need to a child to have an Uzi unless the adults surrounding that child have a need to prove some sort of personal philosophy. Since there is NO NEED in our society for an Uzi or M-60 in the civilian population, what you are purporting is the same failed philosophy of the survivalist of the 1980's...and essentially they just wasted time, money and effort as the rest of the world carried on and ignored them. But hey, if the possibilities of more fatalities resulting from kids using submachine guns and such acceptable to you, then that's your problem. Fortunately, the majority of the country doesn't share that sentiment.

 

I've already addressed this Chuck. You seem to enjoy reiterating a moot point. You can have a "healthy" attitude about guns without practicing with one, don't cha know. Generations of folk from families who NEVER OWNED GUNS grew up, joined the military or law enforcement, and became excellent handlers of weapons. My father's a ret. NYC homicide detective, and like many other cops, he'll tell you that a good career is keeping the peace, making arrests and SELDOM having to use your weapon. I grew up with a gun in the house, but never fired one. I have a "healthy" outlook, as many others do. Part of that mental health is knowing how insane it is to keep acclimating kids to use military weapons when THEY DON'T HAVE TO. And FYI, you have to "train" to be good at a sport, so all the ballyhoo by you and like minded posters about training be a separate issue is to bunk...as YOU'RE video shows.

So and so is a good shot at 11 yrs. old. So what? If it's just target practice, then only one type of gun is needed. Using various (more powerful) weapons is over-kill, UNLESS you're preparing them for something. And we did that dance already, Chuck. So unless you've got something new to add to the discussion, I'd say we're done.

- - - Updated - - -

No kidding? WTF do you think this thread is discussing? Moot points are a waste of your time and mine.

 

Obviously you either haven't learn to read carefully and comprehensively, or you don't read information offered to you at all, or you just like to disregard FACTS for your own personal supposition and conjecture.

You essentially throw in a hodge podge of claims that are distortions of actual history. Here's how I schooled a compadre of yours, who tried to be more intellectually sounding in a similar rant. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=418990&p=1065239137#post1065239137

 

FYI:

The original G18 was a standard Glock 17 with a few "slight" modifications. These included a select-fire lever on the left rear of the slide that switched between semi-auto and full auto. The switch actuated the modified sear and trigger to allow the firearm to achieve full auto cyclic fire

http://www.glockforum.com/The-Glock-18-Machinepistol.html

As for the 3 round bursts:


http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/Glock-18


Now go back and READ CAREFULLY what I wrote regarding the Israel statement http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=418990&p=1065236456#post1065236456. If I'm so inclined, I'll find the post of the culprit and link it.

And all one has to do is look at the mass murders in the last 10 years done by young people using guns to tell you that yeah, what ideas and tools you raise your kid on can become public business under certain circumstances. Deal with it.

 

And all you've done is display how intellectually dishonest you are. The information I provided is FACT BASED USING VALID DOCUMENTATION SOURCES THAT ARE REFERENCED. Faced with that, you IGNORE that information in favor of your own revisionist supposition and conjecture. Case in point, you dare not directly discuss the Atlantic article, but instead take out of context the following: CDC data on firearms offers a more complicated picture, in part because of how the agency categorizes causes of death. Gun deaths can include suicides, homicides, accidental firearms discharges, and even legal killings—but the overall data picture is incomplete. Since 2008, some county-level deaths have been left out to avoid inadvertent privacy breaches. And the number of police shootings—including arrest-related deaths, which are recorded but not made public, according to The Washington Post—are notoriously evasive.........The record of firearm deaths in the United States is murkier still because of how much is at stake politically. Firearm safety remains one of the most divisive issues in the country, with advocates on both sides cherry-picking data to support arguments about the extent to which gun regulation is necessary.

Then you ignore the rest of the article, with passages like this: 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.

Gives us all a break with this lame tactic of yours.

With regards to Australia: your link predates mine, as mine has more recent information. And since my link shows that the myth of increase of murders regarding gun control, that means that folk who made the claim to defend anti-gun law mentality were WRONG to use Australia as an example! Period. From YOUR link: "Clearly this ai paper confirms that the Federal Government was correct in introducing tougher penalties to deter people from importing prohibited goods such as firearms."

"The licensing, registration, and storage requirements imposed by the new firearms regulations have significantly restricted the availability and access to certain firearms."


So another gunner point thrown into the garbage bin.

Now as to the kid with an Uzi thing.....the basis for this thread....seems we are in agreement. So there should be no more debate.

 

Funny how you take out of context one part of an article to build your case....but out-of-context referrals coupled with your personal opinions are irrelevant regarding historical reality. In the last 10 years alone, we've seen murders that would not have occurred if some states had better gun laws (or the entire country had a more uniformity with those laws). Any with common sense can see that....if not, all they have to do is speak to the family's of the victims.

 

I do not require your permission, and I do not have to justify to you a "need", to use a firearm.

If you don't like a firearm, then don't use it.

As to society in general, the data and real world experience overwhelmingly shows that people can handle firearms just fine without your babysitting, and that more guns equals less crime.

 

Calm down, my friend. You should read through the thread, as I demonstrate over and over two things: 1. I know what an Uzi is. 2. I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns. I am against the idiotic arming to the teeth of civilians with military grade weapons....especially putting them into the hands of children under any circumstances.

 

the last 20 years of mass murders would beg to differ.

 

Obvious you don't know how to interpret data at all. Semi automatic rifles with military style features are not even close to the problem in this country. They are involved in so few homicides is practically absurd that anyone wants to ban them. Should a 9 year old start her gun training on an Uzi? No not at all. But to sit here and advocate banning semi automatic rifles is absolutely silly. But go on believing what you want. It's great living in a country where you can exercise your 1st amendment t rights while being protected by your second isn't it? Furthermore most of the mass murders of 4 or more people have not even been executed by people wielding semi automatic rifles. For example, the worst mass murder in us history was done by a guy wielding a pair of pistols. Your arguments are illogical, silly, fact less, and childish at best.

 

Australia implemented its gun ban in 1996. In the 20 years before the ban, Australia had 8 mass killings. In the 20 years after the ban, it had 6 mass killings, plus 2 more incidents that did not qualify because the shooter did not kill enough, they only wounded a lot of people.

By population, the US has a far lower rate of mass killings than Australia.

You lose.

Try again.

 

Define "military grade". You cant. Every firearm is derived from the military.
You want my AR15s. Come and get them. Or my 1911s.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!!

Honesty 101 - do not disguise what you are saying - mass killings is not the same as mass shootings

So let us look at facts not allegations about Australian mass murders - and note I am playing your game with MURDERS not just shootings

1976 - 1996 we have 9 mass murders

2000 - 2015 we have 8

So Australia has a Mass murder, including family murder suicides roughly once every two years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Many of which do not fit the FBI definition of mass murder where they only count more than four deaths

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/p...ting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
Now Australia has a population of around 23 million America around 321 million which makes America roughly 13 times as populated as our little desert Island

Funny that somehow that still does not equate to Australia having more mass murders than America

 

So Australia has roughly 8 mass killings in 20 years, basically unchanged before and after the gun ban, the difference is the killers switched weapons.

With a population 13 times that of Australia, the US should have 8*13=104 mass killings over 20 years.

Mother Jones is a rabid anti-gun outlet the tracks USA mass killings including killings by terrorists (which are not really mass shootings by the popular definition, but being anti-gun Mother Jones will exaggerate the numbers). http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Mother Jones lists 52 mass shootings in the USA in the past 20 years - half the rate of Australia.

Sorry (not really), you lose again.

 

Apples and oranges - you are comparing mass shootings to mass killings - and the Mother Jones site you linked to seems only to be listing the mass shootings with large fatality inclusions whereas your previous post was listing all injuries for a mass murders (not just shootings) in the Australian data

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/you-dont-hear-about-most-mass-shootings-2015-7

The very fact that some are trying, desperately to hide and obfuscate the true data means that at some level it is disturbing