Well, it looks like the street aren't running red with blood.

It seems that all those deadly assault weapons that are only designed for killing massive quantities of people as quickly as possible, and that the average citizen is way under-qualified to even consider owning...

...really aren't causing mass slaughter after all.





In this chart I made, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we can see what percentage of homicide incidents include one, two, three, four, or five-and-over victims.

And it appears that all those "deadly assault weapons" with the pistol grips and high-capacity magazines and folding buttstocks aren't leading to mass slaughter after all.

The 3, 4, and 5+ catagories are essentially intertwined and bumping along at the bottom there on the graph. The super-duper majority of all killing, as usual, only have one victim.

Here's the raw data if you're interested.

a mass killing, does it still make it ok for them to own it? also I still havnt heard a good argument for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.

NOT to be able to own one.

explosives? automatic weapons? gasses? i mean im getting a bit melodramatic but if your gonna say whats the problem with having law abiding citizens able to have whatever dangerous material is out their then you can't really draw any line with your argument.

Of course your flaw in that argument is that just because a citizen has not been caught by the law does not make them a law abiding citizen or that if you only sell these weapons to law abiding citizins then people who do not obey the law will not get them.

material objects in society are either their or they are not, either almost anyone can get it or no one can get to them. if semi or fully automatic weapons are availble to law abidding citizens they will be availible to citizens who do no abide by the law.

We're talking about people owning military-styled rifles. That's all "assault rifles" are. I don't see what the big deal is. People use them for target shooting and hunting. What they DON'T seem to use them for is the commission of crimes...as a general rule.

I don't know why some people find them so frightening.

For some reason "gun grabbers" seem to be after anything that does not have wood on it.

I still haven't been able to figure out that "gun as a penis" argument but as I understand it, all guns symbolize "wood". It is funny as hell when I try to pee using this theory.

"if semi or fully automatic weapons are availble to law abidding citizens they will be availible to citizens who do no abide by the law."

"if semi or fully automatic weapons are not available to law abiding citizens they will still be available to citizens who do not abide by the law.

Sorry I missed that.

What you point is in that post. Suffice it to say that life IS risk. As Thomas Jefferson said "It is every gentleman's duty to at all times go armed."

Too bad you weren't around to give input to all those silly people that wrote our constitution. Boy, did they screw up that document.

"The right of self-defense" by the least means necessary to ensure safety and security shall not be abridged.

The only folks that claim it is not clear have either an agenda or a pre-conceived idea of how things SHOULD be. In either case the obfuscation of the clear intent of our founders is to their benefit. Of course this is at the expense of the civil rights of all citizens of these united states.

Most of the argument seems to revolve around the placement of a comma.

To me it means people have the right to defend themselves. Period.

I have read that DC in the Heller appeal had Four (4) commas in their quote of the 2A.

Their are TWO definitions... One is the classic selective fire automatic rifle, that the military uses..

The second was thought up by Josh Sugarman and the Violence Policy Center, and it was used to define a medium caliber semi-automatic rifle, that LOOKED like a selective fire automatic rifle.



Before we can debate, I must KNOW, which definition you are using.

but im tired so ill give you my point flat out. I do not live in a world where a weapon, even a handgun is needed thank god. Dont get me wrong, I'm a vet of this war but i don't feel the need to own a handgun. I don't think private citizens need weapons that fire more then one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. Either for hunting uses or for personal protection. Anything else is either extravagent or overkill.

Weapons that fire, more than one round per trigger pull, are by legal definition, MACHINE GUNS, and they have been tightly regulated since the 1930's

I think most pro-gunners have no problem with that restriction, it is when elected idiots, start calling SEMI automatic rifles, "assault weapons" that cause all the problems. and get our danders up!

That is why I asked you how you defined "assault weapons" but please do us fellow pro 2nd Amendment Democrats a favor, don't voice support for these "assault weapon" bans, because, like you pointed out, you disagree with guns that fire more than one shot per trigger pull...

And ALL, the guns that these "assault weapon" ban purport to ban, are all, semi automatic...that is, one shot, for ONE trigger pull..

This is not what you support....The law you support the (more than one shot per trigger pull) has been on the books for nearly 75 years

Nowhere in my post did I metion a fully-automatic weapon, such as the M-16 you doubtless carried in your military service. Such weapons, medium-powered rifles with selectable full- and semi-auto modes of fire, are called "assault rifles".

An "assault weapon", on the other hand, have a very loose definition. The term "assault weapon" as defined now-expired 1993 Assault Weapons Ban included semi-automatic-only rifles, pistols, and shotguns that had certain combinations of cosmetic features.

However, civilian-legal versions of M-16s and AK-47s look the same as their military cousins, except that the full-auto capability is removed. And the anti-gun people take this cosmetic similarity to deliberately mislead the public.

The 1993 AWB did not regulate one single piece of full-auto hardware. Those are already regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

You are easy to knock down...

I am finding the best way to debate with the "general public" about the Assault Weapon bans, is to do as I did here...

Ask which definition they are using....and 9 times out of 10, they THINK they are talking about long banned fully automatics...and then point out that our two views are really not that far apart, and point out the misleading definitions that are used by that vile Ruthug Sara Brady, and her minions over at the VPC..

By shedding light on their blatantly misleading statements,(such as the assault weapon definitions) and by pointing out the "facts on the ground", you can suddenly turn someone who was for the AW ban, to someone who is at least neutral, if not against it...

every time the trigger is pulled.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for the vast majority of citizens to own for a LONG time.

Assault Weapons, are what the military use, they have the capability of firing both FULLY automatically, or Semi Automatically...

The rest of us own Semi-Automatic rifles....

The issue is muddy enough as it is, let us be a point of clarity and fact, after all when one side lies, and misleads, all we really need to do expose them for what they are. :hi:

To reiterate...the military, uses Assault weapons, we civilians own Semi-Autos...

"Automatic weapons have been illegal for the vast majority of citizens to own for a LONG time."

$200 and some paperwork is generally all a law-abiding citizen needs to own a full-auto weapon. In other words, they are not "illegal".

Certain states, localities excepted etc etc etc YMMV...

In my world there was a home invasion two blocks down from my home. A rape/kidnapping one mile down the road from where I live and an assault at the gas station three blocks down from where I live. All this has occurred in the last 1.5 years.

Don't know what utopia you live in but most of us are forced to live in a real world. The world I live in (despite the rhetoric) is NOT civilized. There are people that will kill for you shoes or just because you "dissed" them. No, I think I'll keep my handgun (legally) tucked into my waist-ban.

and yes I am familier with the "real world" as you put it.

from post number 4 and post number 20 appear to conflict. Care to clarify?

In post 20 you state "yes I am familier with the "real world" as you put it. "

Yet in post 4 you state "I do not live in a world where a weapon, even a handgun is needed thank god."


And here is the link that I posted earlier discussing a woman that lives in the real world that did need a handgun.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x154053


Now, as you can see your two statements from posts 4 and 20 conflict with one another. Would you care to clarify?

well in post 4 i should have been clearer, "my world" meaning the world that in inhabit (work, home and socializing places) do not require or make me feel the need for a gun

however since i have not always lived in my current situation and because of the places i have been and things i have seen I am familier with the "real world" hope that clears it up.

and I never stated that people do not need guns and i understand people need personal protection if their lives are threatened either spur of the moment or planned

in post 4 you state "I do not live in a world where a weapon, even a handgun is needed thank god." That is a direct quote on what you said.

Now in post 31 you say "and I never stated that people do not need guns and i understand people need personal protection" Would you like to restate your opinion for clarification?

and i am sorry i was not more clear in my original post. I do realize that at face value the phrase that i typed make it seem like I am stating that no one in the entire world needs a gun. But if you need a full explanation then i will extrapolate my answer for you

the phrase "world i live in" refers to my world, now i am not narcicistic or "way out their" put i do believe personal perception is a big part of reality. My personal reality, or "world i live in" is one that i deal with on a day to day basis does not require anyone to have a gun, i do not live in a violent city nor is anyone i know a hunting fan.

I do not have anything against guns, I have personal issues with the reasons why we need, or feel the need to be armed.

You're in California, me in Texas. No need for your wishes to be used to shackle me, they also shouldn't be used to shackle your fellow citizens but that's just my opinion.

Take the representative from Long Island for example, McCarthy, her husband was killed so she wants her agenda to apply to the whole country. Don't go "McCarthy" on us and we'll get along just fine :)

"I do not have anything against guns, I have personal issues with the reasons why we need, or feel the need to be armed"

If that is the case, keep them personal, and don't make them law for the rest of us.

I own an "ought-three" .22, a short semi-automatic rifle made by Winchester. This weapon was exempt from the various "assault weapons bans" over the years because it did not have a muzzle shroud, extended grips, extra-capacity magazines, bayonet lugs, etc. It is fitted with nice walnut and characterized by exquisite let-in and hand-finishing; in short, it is neither "scary" or "black."

It was made in 1905.

One of my friends owns a Remington 742 in .30-06. It has hand-checkering on good furniture and is mounted with a hoary old Weaver scope. The power of this rifle makes an AR or AK platform inadequate in comparison; yet no ban of this rifle has been sought.

These have been made since the 1950s.

Why the fuss over the AWB? Because those seeking the ban are scared of its appearance and its portrayal in the cinema and endless T.V. cop shows. It's possible more civilians have been "killed" in these dramas than have been killed in reality. Certainly, more have been killed by FULL-AUTO weapons on screen than on the streets.

My question is: What good reason do you have for banning AR, AK and other similar platformed semi-auto rifles?

I disagree and I believe that the woman that is the subject of this thread would agree with you either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x154053

We live in a dangerous world and as the saying goes, God made some men big and some men small, but Sam Colt made all men equal.

I was about 19, she was somewhere around 30...a nice, pretty, and petite older woman I met at a California mall. We got to talking about gun control and she looked up at me and said "how could you begrudge me the right to defend myself? Against someone your size, I'd be defenseless."

That one conversation stuck with me for years. It's absolutely true and I'd NEVER begrudge her or anyone like her the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary.

That term is the basis for the arbitrary term "assault weapon", which by the 1993 federal definition includes semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

You could also use the term "automatic rifle", of which "assault rifles" are a subset.

Look it up, it's in there.

People don't need a "good argument" to exercise civil rights.

Government needs a DAMNED GOOD ARGUMENT to ban something.

But I'll try again:

What do you think an "assault weapon" is?

The Amendment is to protect the people from a tyrant govt
Jefferson wanted a counter balance to a government who might confiscate weapons to disarm a citizen---so we have to live with the good and bad
An Assault weapon can also be used to harvest wild animals for protein

Three dozen posts in it, but only one reply to my OP... I thought it was sinking fast!!!

:rofl:

that represents the incidents involving those "things that go up".

Everyone knows those are the evilest culprit of all, what are you trying to hide?



;)

Well, those thing are pretty evil...

:rofl:

Note that things were lower before the 1968 Gun Control Act.


Oh, did you get my PM from last week?