Assualt weapons

[_RockSlider]

You can't control everything, of course, but I'm a big fan of controlling what I can.

And you have the freedom to choose this. Just don't enforce laws that take away my right to also make that choice for myself. That is what my forefathers died in wars for to supposedly protect.

[_RockSlider]

Interesting thread.

What struck me while reading it was how similar the views might be between those defending the need to own military-styled weapons to safe-guard their freedoms from an oppressive or even evil government/society and those that apparently acted on a similar belief.

It's also striking that actions aimed at reducing the availability and legal status of such weapons would fuel the underlying angst that the government was the enemy that needs to be violently opposed...as evidenced by their trying to take away one's weapons. If radicalized individuals in every sense of that term are intent on conflict with the broader society and the government it represents, it leads me to wonder if the root problem isn't domestic radicalism of various stripes. The weapons are a symbol as much as a tool of the radical.

Most of the time (like in this case) I doubt I'm understanding you. By the bolded I read you are suggesting maybe we fear the symbol, as much as the use of the tool?

My intended point with my list of guns was intended along these lines. We emotionally (and irrationally) fear the symbol and so jump to restricting freedoms in exchange for a feeling of being safer now that symbol has been taken care of. And yet its a false sense of security, with lost freedoms, as it's only a symbol and there are hundreds of other, even better tools.

For the initialized highlight, are you suggesting like others have that people/social problems is the root of all the evil, not the symbols/tools?

[_RockSlider]

To add to my thought, it seems there is an underlying issue with the gun debate that has drifted away from the tradition of weapon ownership and use in the US while redefining itself around the radical idea of the armed individual standing up to an oppressive society or government. The rhetoric starts to blend together even if the various details about why one might be opposed to western pluralism and the governments it embodies are varied.

In that context, discussions about the characterisics of weapon use, function, "knock-down" power, how none of the three witnesses denied the Book of Mormon, or whatever other detail one wishes to use to defend Joseph Smith against the broad issues with...sorry, wrong example of getting into the weeds to divert from the big picture. Bottom line, the ideologies being presented to defend military-styled weapons sound similar to those presented to justify attacking targets of opportunity in western society. I'd hope some people making them would step back and think about that for a moment.

Dumb guy here, I don't understand what you are saying.

[_maklelan]

I have not bothered to respond to this line of thinking as with Kevin's conspiracy theory arguments, any one can counter every google search you are using to claim as true. It's a waste of time.

Nope. I've read dozens and dozens of studies on this. You can only go find something published by John Lott or one of his cronies, and his findings have been repeatedly and roundly refuted by others. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming on this issue, you're just not very educated on it, but assume your strong feelings have empirical support. They don't.

Note that Tator has already disproved your figures on the French and that America is currently at 3.6 per 100k and dropping not the 10 you fielded as the truth.

Nope, that's just homicide. 10 per 100,000 is homicide + suicide + accidental death. That's what I mean when I say gun-related deaths. When I mean homicide, I say homicide. Pay better attention if you intend to be taken at all seriously.

All I know is that the education and experience that came through 4 generations, and now being passed to a 5th of two lines of my family, there are zero instances of harm that has resulted.

I'm also unfamiliar with any gun owners that I have associated with over the years that have either.

Which is what is called anecdotal evidence. If you want to rely on anecdotal evidence, fine, but acknowledge it and don't pretend it's informed or intelligent or has any bearing whatsoever on the demonstrable facts.

Once again, there will always be those competing for Darwin Awards, It is not my business to try and legislate laws to try and keep them from winning one.

An absolutely asinine and childish rationalization for your refusal to support laws that would save thousands of innocent lives a year.

[_Kevin Graham]

I wonder what the numbers are for cell phone owners per household that cause car deaths per 100k?

Not sure how this matters. While we're just guessing, I suspect cell phones have been more involved in SAVING lives than AR-15s. And cell phones aren't designed for the purpose if killing anyone, accidentally or intentionally.

Having said that, I would have no problem whatsoever if the entire industry decided to get on board with what AT&T has done to prevent people from texting and driving.

See? Not all solutions involve "confiscation." Though I guess you could complain that your freedom to text while driving has been taken away.

[_maklelan]

So cowering underneath a desk, helpless waiting for you turn is a better choice?

In more than four generations here in the US, and from all the relationships I've had or currently have, that's never happened to anyone I've known. That's my anecdotal evidence, but I can also point to study after study that shows that is phenomenally rare across the country. In fact, it's so rare that a gun owner is more likely to be killed by a gun (their own or someone else's) than to ever find themselves in an active shooter situation. You don't care of course, because you have strong feelings, and that's what counts.

[_Kevin Graham]

I have not bothered to respond to this line of thinking as with Kevin's conspiracy theory arguments

Huh?

You are the one who brought up the conspiracy of an intentional government buyout of small firearms ammunition. All I did was google a refutation that explained how this wasn't so. I assume you're accepting the refutation since you're no longer defending it.

[_maklelan]

Not from the quick look I did earlier today --- 20 car deaths per 100k

Nope.

2005 - 14.674
2006 - 14.265
2007 - 13.701
2008 - 12.317
2009 - 11.048
2010 - 10.668
2011 - 10.424
2012 - 10.691
2013 - 10.345

I bet you can guess what is causing them to drop since peaking in the 60's and 70s.

[_maklelan]

And you have the freedom to choose this. Just don't enforce laws that take away my right to also make that choice for myself. That is what my forefathers died in wars for to supposedly protect.

That's just a laughably emotive attempt to rhetorically flank an evidence-based argument.

[_Kevin Graham]

In more than four generations here in the US, and from all the relationships I've had or currently have, that's never happened to anyone I've known.

Good point. I've never been in that situation either, and I think if most people on this forum were honest, they'd say the same thing. The only time I was assaulted with a weapon was when I was living in Brazil.

The way some of these fanatics stress the necessity for owning a gun, reminds me of a salesman trying to sell you flood insurance in Arizona.