Republicans lose their mind: Ping-Pong kills more people than guns

It's relatively easy to win a counterinsurgency but you will by definition be considered a war criminal. All it takes is complete ruthlessness.

 

Al Qaeda is spreading and opening up new branches throughout the Arab world and the Sahel. Al Qaeda is on the march. They even have recruits in the US. Anwar al Awlaki was a great threat to the US according to obama. That's why obama killed al Awlaki by drone in Yemen a couple of years ago or so. But Anwar al Awlaki was the all American boy...born and raised in the good ole USA.

 

Hi there. If one calls the Mongol Approach to war a counterinsurgency you would be correct.

During the twentieth century the average counterinsurgency lasted about twelve years. The classic example is the British in Malaya after WWII.

 

Point is guns aren't the only way people die. It's just one way and if guns were gone people would still die other ways. There is an underlying issue here, yet people choose to focus on a method rather then the reason.
We waste time and money, and get nowhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Lots of sources out there I'm sure you can answer your own question.
When you find it let me know.

 

Yes, but the US isn't serious about exterminating al Qaeda. Going into Iraq showed us that. OTOH, if the government were serious about coming after YOU, all of your assault rifles and 50-round clips wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.

 

Point is guns aren't the only way people die. It's just one way and if guns were gone people would still die other ways. There is an underlying issue here, yet people choose to focus on a method rather then the reason.
We waste time and money, and get nowhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Lots of sources out there I'm sure you can answer your own question.
When you find it let me know.

I can tell you more then 3000 people died in 2001.

 

I'm a taxpayer. The govt. loves me. Everything I do is within the limits of ethics, morality, law, and good taste.

The way to take down a govt. is by overwhelming it in the manner of a figurative denial of service attack on a site. This was the approach of Saul Alinsky. Are you familiar with Cloward and Piven?

 

contrary to popular belief most guns that are illegally obtained are not stolen, they are in fact bought.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/11/u...ort-all-too-easily.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

hmmmm really now, is that why Cho who used handguns to kill over 30 people and James Holmes, who used an "aasault" rifle , was only about to get like 15 or 16????

these wanna be assault weapons are only responsible for 2% of all guns crimes.

 

I don't think Jebediah should have been allowed to create a new account and post threads on PF. He was banned permanently for posting pornographic pictures.

 

why, because you're involved in criminal activity?

what a joke

 

Sure as anything somebody will sink several oil tankers....and the (*)(*)(*)(*) lib'ruls will claim we need to stop people from having their God-given right to own an attack submarine....

instead of putting the blame where it belongs....on kids playing "Silent Hunter-IV: Wolves of the Pacific".

 

more handguns were used than assault rifles by a good bit.


n the 62 mass shootings we analyzed, 54 of the killers packed handguns—including in all 15 of the mass shootings since the surge of pro-gun laws began in 2009.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation



if you can find a better link id like to see it. nobody really gives me what im looking for as far as percentages when i google "type of guns used in mass murders" .

 

but the thing is an hand gun was present 68 times, and an assault rifle was only present at half those instances. and the fact that assault rifles account for merely 2% of all gun crimes in the country makes the case that assault rifles being more dangerous very very moot. in both the hand gun and assault rifle instances the killings were about the same amount, which only proves further that a semi auto assault rifle has no clear advantage over a semi auto hand gun.

now if the assault rifles were actually assault rifles, meaning fully automatic or has a burst fire option, then yeah im sure the body count would be a hell of alot higher in the case of the Colorado movie theater shooting, thats obvious. but out of all those hundreds of people the shooter was only able to kill like 12 people.

the problem isnt the type of gun is what im trying to say, because hand guns are just as easily as lethal as any semi auto long gun in a crowded area. the problem i believe is our lax laws on those who carry guns illegally or to be honest our weak ass laws in general.

we should start off with harsh punishments first and foremost on those who sell and buy guns illegally, as well as carrying them illegally. and i mean a serious serious punishment that calls for a LOOOONNNNGGGG time in prison.

other legislations need to be made and strictly enforced as well, but first thing we need to do is put the fear into those who want to obtain or sell guns illegally. a ban wont do crap honestly.

 

He's been told numerous times but I guess looking at the numbers without that kind of spin destroys his argument.

 

well from the best source on the matter we could find semi-auto rifles are present about half the time, while handguns seem to be present either as the main weapon used or as a secondary when the primary semi auto rifle runs out of ammo. I mean both handguns and semi auto rifles do in fact have their pro's and cons as they both obviously have a different purpose. handguns are mainly a close quarter weapon, and like you said better concealed and quicker to aim and shoot and much better time when it comes to reloading. but you would have to be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed good marksman to hit something with some real distance.semi auto rifles, unless you have a classroom of defenseless children and teachers bunched together, are basically useless in close quarter situations because it takes too much time to lift up and aim. Even hip firing a semi auto rifle is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed near hopeless. Now if the rifle was fully automatic and you hip fire, yeah you dont need to aim so much because spray and pray in close quarters is gonna do a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of damage no matter how fast your victims run.

which of course is why i am against civilians owning fully automatic rifles, because if thats what James Holmes had instead of a semi auto im pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed sure he would have killed atleast 3 to 4 times more people than he initially did.

yes i have no problem with limiting the amount of bullets that are allowed to go into a magazine. James Holmes i think had a 100 bullet drum in his AR-15, just think how many people he wouldnt have been able to kill and wound had he just had regular mags consisting of 20 rounds, which also would have given people the time to run farther from him while he tried to reload. yes i say limit the magazines than can be sold, for rifles nothing over 20-30 round mags and for handguns nothing higher than 15 should be both efficient enough for the gun owner and much safer in general. the more you have to reload the less time you have to kill people basically.

well one thing that could be required for buying a gun could be to have a psychological evaluation done??? i mean that sounds pretty reasonable to me, whether or not you have had a psychological disorder or not make that a requirement and part of the application. Also, but in a way i feel this next proposal may be a little bit too intrusive on ones life, perhaps disqualify those who have children or anyone living with them who have psychological disorders that have to do with violence and/or depression???? like i said that may be a little too intrusive but its a matter i feel that should be looked into considering the obvious. A lot can be done to keep gun out of the hands of the mentally ill, but that is one hell of a discussion because there is so much to cover.

also i say make it mandatory if you buy any gun that you have to buy a gun safe, no if's and's or but's.

yep, and making harsher laws involving these issues would go a long way as long as they are strictly enforced. Because lets be honest, its not scary for a criminal to spend a year in prison. hell most people get off with a fine and a finger wagging in their face, and thats for almost any crime.25 years hard time minimum should be applied to owning,carrying, or selling a gun illegally.

tracking system is a bit intrusive but at the same time would be beneficial. I actually have a great idea in mind that could be a good compromise and have people meet in the middle, but i got to think about it more because there would have to be a sure fire way that the module could not be tampered with or modified. so give me a bit of time to think of a way to better explain it .

agreed. I would like an AR15, and im not gonna lie i dont hunt or anything like that. the only gun i have right now is my 40.cal DE which my father bought for me on my 21st birthday. I dont carry it as its basically only for home defense and just something to collect. I collect knives, swords and machetes as well. Id honestly just like to have a AR15 for the same purpose, but i would go shoot it at the range like i do with my DE, and i cant think of any reason i would need a 50 round mag or anything like that, thats what our military is for lol.

there are many guns and things id like to collect, hell is still collect sports cards if that tells you anything about me lol,as well as a good amount of rims from different car models. so im not just wanting guns to prepare for an attack or anything, just to have to put into a nice display case and maybe enjoy them at the range every once and awhile. so to me guns like an AR15 or M16 are basically just a collectors item, and to be honest the way things are going i might have to hurry up and jump on the chance just in case they are banned from being sold lol.

 

shhhhhh, adults are having a conversation and not a partisan discussion.