Posted on 09/20/2019 9:23:51 AM PDT by C19fan
As you’ll see, O’Rourke has no answer to this perfectly predictable question except to mumble something about weapons of war. But why should we focus on weapons of war, asks Columbine survivor Evan Todd, when they’re responsible for only a fraction of all gun violence? The Columbine massacre itself wasn’t carried out with assault rifles, he notes. Ed sent me a spreadsheet in which he ran through the FBI’s most recent statistics for murder by firearms and found 10,982 in total in 2017, of which exactly 403 were committed with rifles — a rate of 3.67 percent. There were many more murders committed by “unknown firearms” but even assuming (falsely) that every last one was committed with an assault rifle, that would still put the total of murders by rifle at just a third or so of all firearms murders.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Many time more people are killed by cars with semi automatic transmissions. Why do we listen to childish wisdom from kids who have difficulty finding their gender?
It’s all about incrementalism. Start with the scary (to some) looking ones and then bring the hammer down on pistols, which are much more widely used to commit murder.
The problem is crime is a BEHAVIORAL problem, not a hardware issue. There have been a number of school attacks in China and Japan where crazies have stabbed numerous kids to death with kitchen knives. Banning guns does little good, especially in a country with about 300,000,000 of them already and where it is increasingly easy to make them at home.
One of the largest school mass murders was a very creepy story. A disgruntled employee of the school built a bomb under the school and killed a ton of people. It’s a long time ago...1920’s or such? And it could have been worse if I remember, only one of the two bombs went off or something like that.
Why indeed.
Here's why:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why shouldn’t we ban liberals? Nearly all “mass” shooters are leftists.
The AR-15 is 70 year old ArmaLite platform, in another 30 years it will be ancient technology.
“Their final end goal is “no firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizen’s hands”.
They want most of us dead, the rest in chains.”
Both sides of my family have been victimized by government which insisted that they (and everyone else, except the army, police and certain reliable party members) be disarmed. My Russian great grandfather had all of his property seized by Russian Leftists, then in the mid-1930s when he was in his 70s and sick with cancer, they beat him to death in prison for the “crime” of renting out most of his home to 3 other families in order to put food on the table that he could no longer earn. My mother’s family had about 100 people murdered by German Leftists in Poland in late 1941. None of those people had the ability to tell their governments “No!” - and thus were murdered for free.
Suffice it to say that I have learned the lesson, and if it so happens that unavoidable historical forces end up murdering my family and I, it will most definitely NOT be for free. I don’t care what Beto or any other politicians say about me, nor do I care one whit about any laws or regulations that they pass - I will NOT be without the effective means of defending myself and my family.
Oh, and I have a question: given how much utter contempt that the Left has for the average, decent person in this country, and given how they ignore the law to protect or enrich themselves and pass other laws to empty our pockets and further restrict our liberties - when there are 500 million or so guns in civilian hands - JUST WHAT ARE THE BASTARDS PLANNING TO DO WHEN THEY HAVE DISARMED THE POPULACE???
Curiosity made me look this up, you were right except it happened in 1927. https://qconline.com/opinion/columnists/marlene_gantt/school-massacre-deadliest-in-history/article_1394e75c-6c79-5ba6-82bc-d305ed3e7be4.html
“Banning guns does little good, especially in a country with about 300,000,000 of them already and where it is increasingly easy to make them at home.”
Similarly, with firearms, the figure of 300 million has been bandied about for a couple of decades, as about half the years since have set records for new gun purchases (and the others are high enough that they would have ALL been records 20 years ago, by a big margin). The correct figure is probably north of 500 million, and all of this talk of banning guns has undoubtedly set the stage for this year to be yet another record.
By the way, people die on a fairly regular basis. Guns, if taken only decent care of, can last for well over a century. I know people who have many firearms from the 1800s, and there are literally millions that have rifles and handguns produced during WW1 and WW2 - almost none of the latter will cease to be functional in the next 20 years.
I don’t say this because I am a statistics Nazi, but because I want everyone to realize the power that is in the hands of the civilian population of this country - starting with those very civilians, but most definitely extending to the gun-grabbing, would-be tyrants in DC and the various state capitols. Make them realize that the task before them is SO difficult that it is literally impossible - and that’s before 3-D printing with metal really gets off the ground for the general public. Make them give up their quest for civilian disarmament for the simple reason that it is an impossible task.
Why? Why do you want to ban semi-automatics? I can see two possible reasons, neither of which are good reasons.
One, this is simply a stepping stone towards a bigger goal. Just as biting off an "assault weapons" ban is a first step, then semi-automatics, then maybe handguns, then maybe rifles and shotguns that hold more than 3 rounds... When there's no good reason for something, it's probably not the ultimate goal.
Two, you believe semi-automatics are too lethal, too good at their job. To that I say bravo! That's exactly what I want! One of the primary reasons I own firearms is for self defense. In that regard I want the most effective weapon I can find. If my G19 with 15+1 rounds of 9mm is a better option than my 5 shot .38spl S&W revolver then why wouldn't I want the G19? Who are you (you as in anyone) to tell me what is "good enough" or "too good" for me to defend myself and my family with? Would anyone accept someone telling them "hey, we're restricting smoke detectors, we've determined every household only gets two, so put one in your master bedroom and the other one in the bedroom of your favorite child." Or how about "we've decided to restrict your car's seatbelts and airbags." Or "No-one needs a fire-extinguisher bigger than..." Ridiculous, right? So h**l yes I want the most effective weapon I can afford and use. "Military style?" Sure, why not? The design and operation of military style weapons are influenced by many of the same considerations and priorities I have for a self defense weapon. Sure, some needs/priorities are different, but in general if it is effective in that role, it'll be effective in the one I may need it in too. I will not accept some political hack trying to tell me how well (or not) I'm allowed to defend my family. Molon Labe!
No guns needed.... though the perp was using a gun as the authorities arrived.
The criminal mind, sick mind, will MAKE/FIND a weapon. The weapon isn’t the problem.
And Biden, he doesn’t even want “non violent” criminals to be in jail! Heck, most violent criminals commit non violent crimes too.
Do all of your relatives share conservative values, or has that eroded over time?
We need laws against murder.
Semi-automatic firearms have also been commonly referred to as "self-loading" firearms - when a cartridge is fired, part of the energy from that cartridge is used to load a new cartridge in the chamber (i.e., the firearm essentially reloads itself). That is not true of most revolvers; the energy for rotating the cylinder generally comes from the operator, not the cartridge. Historically, there has been a similar distinction between "automatic" weapons and hand-cranked rapid-fire weapons like the Gatling gun.
None of which should suggest to anyone with even a trace of common sense, that the Democrats won't ban revolvers as soon as they get a chance...
I would love to throw Beto and this ignorant punk into an arena and turn loose lions on them and have a locked cage with a couple of loaded ARs and handguns in it. I can’t think of any other way to get these people to change their minds.
Irish Bob would answer that question, but A) he's a dumb ****, and B) he *may* be just smart enough to realize that it will end his campaign if he does, no matter what his answer is. Thanks C19fan.
All education should be optional, But you can be a full US citizen, with the right to vote and guns unless you are a high school (GED included) graduate.
No, I’m serious, ban the student.
Let them be educated in the safety of their own home on the internet where they cannot be shot to death en mass by some bullied, disaffected, maladjusted classmate, and the rest of us do not have to have our freedom attacked, because no one has bothered to secure or defend them.
We need a lot less sitting ducks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.