0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 10:11 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Do you know the difference between murder and a mass murder?

Yes I do.
Quote:
One of the first mass murders in America was at the University of Texas at Austin. Charles Whitman killed 16 and wounded 31 in 1966.

I find it odd that you would call that a mass murder, but fail to call Jiverly Voong murdering 13 and wounding 4 using two handguns, or Mark Barton murdering 13 and wounding 13 using four handguns, or George Hennard murdering 22 and wounding 20 using two handguns, or Seung-hui Cho murdering 32 and wounding 17 using two handguns as not mass murders.
Quote:
I looked through your list. The FBI defines a mass murder as 4 or more people so some of those on the list are not mass murder.

Yes, five out of the fifty on that list were ones in which three people were murdered. And of those remaining forty-five, the majority were done with handguns. So . . .
Quote:
The weapon was only listed in a few of the smaller mass murders

It was an easy matter to google the names of the mass shooters and find out what type of gun was used. And the vast majority of them were done with handguns.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 10:02 pm
@Glennn,
Glenn
Steven Paddock 64, killed 59 and injured 851 Las Vegas fired more than 1,100 rounds Oct1, 2017 Armed with several assault weapons.

Nikolas Cruz 19, killed 17 and injured 16 at Parkland, FL AR-15 style assault weapon vest and multiple high capacity clips. Feb 14, 2018

Adam Lanza 20, killed 28 and there were no figures listed injured. AR-15 style assault weapon Dec 14, 2012. Lanza put many bullets into each victim.

Omar Mateen 29 killed 49 and wounded 58, AR-15 style assault weapon June 12, 2016.

James Eagan 24, killed 12 injured 70 AR-15 style assault weapon. July 20, 2012.

The first five on your list don’t add up to the number of kills on my first shooter. I did not have to do any research to find those. I knew them from memory. You do make a good argument for banning all hand guns. A shot gun is adequate to defend one’s home. I noticed that you didn’t list dates my oldest example is from 2012.

You have the same argument as the gun manufacturers if murder can be committed any other way we should do absolutely nothing and just let the massacres go on. The gun manufacturers have only one objective and that is sell more guns. If you are going to solve a problem you start with the biggest part of that problem first the assault weapons we’ll get to the hand guns next. Each one of the mass murders is trying to set a record for the most people killed and the AR-15 is the only way to go. These mass murders study each other the way a football team studies films of their opponents.




0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2018 08:56 pm
The most recent figures show that 60,000 people a year are killed with guns every year in the United States. The most alarming piece of information I ran across in years is that the NRA (gun manufacturers association) has used their army of crooked, paid off politicians to block any study of the murders, suicides, and accidently shootings caused by guns. When someone is killed in a car accident the CDC gathers the information and studies why the accident took place. Many improvements have been made by cars manufacturers because of the studies of car accidents.
____________________________________________________
“But getting the data has long been a challenge markedly for political reasons: a 1996 amendment to a spending bill---lobbied for by the NRA---that forbade the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using government money for research that “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

From an Internet article entitled: “The Ultimate Guide to American Gun Control Laws”

Source: CityLab.

____________________________________________________
That law needs to be repealed immediately if we cannot even gather adequate statistics about the problem we will never be able to solve the problem. If death by a gun in United States needs to be thoroughly studied and the information held in a central clearinghouse. The fact that the NRA wants to sweep 60,000 deaths a year under the rug shows they don’t want to solve the problem they want to hide it. This law was piggy backed on a spending bill so many who voted for the spending bill did not realize that they were also voting for a bill to prevent government money from being used to even study gun violence.

That is why you cannot go on the internet and search for the number of people killed with assault weapons in the last twenty years. The NRA blocked the information from being gathered.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 11:34 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The most recent figures show that 60,000 people a year are killed with guns every year in the United States.

Keep the lies coming, there were not 60k gun deaths in the US in the last few years. 33k is the highest # and over 60% of those deaths were due to suicide and not homicide. If you are so right, why lie and distort the #'s?

The rest of your screed is plain and simple anti-gun BS.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2018 09:40 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo

The gun manufacturers don’t want you to know the number of people that are killed by guns. They not only don’t want you to know they went out of their way to keep that a secret by passing a law in congress to keep statistic from being gathered about guns. When I posted a figure of 60,000-gun deaths I had a source for that figure and I listed that source in the post. The paragraph started out talking about traffic deaths but ended talking about gun “incidents” which included those injured with guns so that is mistake on my part.
____________________________________________________
“Traffic deaths slightly out number gun deaths overall but are less in 21 states. Along with suicides, injuries, accidents and defensive shootings all gun incidents come to over 60,000 in 2017.”
Source: Internet article entitled: The Ultimate Guide to American Gun Control”
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Center for Disease Control published a figure of 38,658 deaths by guns for 2016 which is 5,658 more than your claim of 33,000 and gun deaths.

Since 1968 there have been 1,516,863 guns deaths on United states territory. “Since the founding of the United States there have been 1,396,733 deaths in war.

That averages 30,337-gun deaths per year for 50 years. More gun deaths since 1968 than all the wars fought by the United States throughout history. That illustrates how big the gun problem is.

I have seen other sources that list 50,000 gun death a year. The reason the figure is all over the place is the NRA passed a law to keep stastic s from be gathered that could be used to promote gun control.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2018 09:45 pm
Florida passed their gun control law at record speed only three weeks after the high school shooting. The gun manufacturers have already filed suit hiding behind the NRA’s skirt. Why do the gun manufacturers not have the courage to file suit themselves? Why hide behind the NRA skirt? Because it would look like the gun manufacturers were suing to preserve their profit and that is exactly what is going on. They just don’t want the public to know about it. Guns are big business in America and very profitable. Businesses have one single reason to exist and that is to make as big a profit as possible. They don’t exist to preserve your second amendment rights but it looks so much better to public to say we are all about savings the public “rights.” If they told the public that they were suing to preserve their profits they would get very little sympathy from the public. The NRA is just a disguise the gun manufacturers put on when they sue someone make no doubt about it this is all about profits for the gun manufacturers.

The most important thing to take away from Florida gun control law is that it is beginning to turn the herd. They did not ban assault weapons but the vote was far closer than the gun manufacturers thought possible. The gun manufacturers are beginning to lose control of some of their politicians. The Florida governor, Rick Scott, had an A rating with the NRA and he signed the bill into law. Scott has big time ambitions and is planning to run for senate. One of Scott bigtime finical backers laid down the law and told him he would no longer contribute to any politician that didn’t support gun control. When politicians that had NRA A ratings not only support the gun control legislation but sign it into law it heralds a seismic shift in the political landscape.

If a politician with an NRA A rating is signing gun control legislation what can we expect of the politicians with an NRA B or C rating? The NRA has been outed and the public now knows that they are just the gun manufacturers in disguise.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Mar, 2018 08:44 pm
A pole done by NBC News shows that 68% of the American people want assault weapons banned. So, we have 68% of the American people who want assault weapons banned on one side and the gun manufacturers who make huge profits on assault weapons on the other side. The tail has been wagging the dog in America for too long. How is it possible that the tail is wagging the dog? There are three major factors the gun manufacturers money, political organization and the fact that the gun manufacturers have been hiding behind the NRA good will. America had an assault weapon ban in place in 1994 it had to be renewed in 2004 and the politicians that are owned by the gun manufacturers blocked it renewal. Strangely enough the 1994 assault weapon ban did not ban the AR-15 but it did ban a number of its foreign competitors’ knock offs of the AR-15. Once again you see the gun manufacturers’ money hard at work. The gun manufacturers knew as long as there was a good supply of AR-15s at your corner gun store no school shooter would be without a weapon of war.

You have to fight fire with fire. A grass roots movement can’t spend the $55 million that the gun manufacturers spent in the 2016 election to buy politicians. A grass roots organization however can get the vote out. Those opposed to assault weapons have to form a political organization that grades politicians just as the gun manufacturers give each politician a grade based on how they vote on issues such as an assault weapon ban. Each politician that votes for the gun manufacturers’ agenda should be labeled pro-school shooting and political literature should be sent to voters showing his pro-gun voting record. The gun manufacturers are hoping the outrage over the most recent mass murder will just fade away as it has in past mass murders. We have to realize that change will not happen overnight and that the fight over having America streets full of weapons a war will take time. No child should have to worry that some psychopath is going to the corner gun store and buy a weapon of war and gun them down for a thrill.

Some estimates place the percentage of psychopaths in America as high as 4% and that is who is doing the school shootings. That is 13,200,000 psychopaths in America far more than the FBI could possibly watch. Psychopaths simply enjoy killing people like you might enjoy going to amusement park. They served purpose in distant past they protected the tribe from invaders. Because they enjoyed killing they were far better at than others and were an asset. The need for efficient killers to defend every village is not as necessary as it was for our ancestors but the genetic tendency still linger in the genetic make-up of some individuals. Making weapons of war available to those who have an inborn need to kill is absurd.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  4  
Reply Mon 12 Mar, 2018 08:47 pm
Trump backed away from every-thing he proposed to do to control guns after the FL massacre. After he had a sit down with the gun manufacturers they laid the law down to him and told him what he would do about mass murders in America, absolutely nothing. Trump did promise the gun manufacturers one thing he would help them sell another 600,000 guns by arming teachers. Each one of those 600,000 gun he proposes will do exactly what guns do best, kill people. These guns will not stop anyone with an AR-15 and body armor but there will be more suicides among the armed teachers. More of the armed teacher’s children will shoot their little brother or one of neighbor kids. As disputes arise in the armed teacher’s home the fights will be more violent as psychological studies show and it will be easy to reach for the gun and blow their wife’s or husbands brains out. Next week it is unlikely they would even remember what they were fighting about. Guns are great for providing a permanent solution to temporary problem. Teenage children will be shot as they sneak back into the house. The ever more popular murder suicides will increase. But you understand no matter how many people die you can’t lose sight of the gun manufacturers’ bottom line a good profits trumps life.

Trump says there is no support for banning assault weapons but we know that is a lie because 68% of Americans want assault weapons banned. I wonder where Trump heard that? From a little birdy called the gun manufacturers. I would suspect that they are more than a little biased. In Austin TX they have a bomber killing people but he has only been able to kill two people so far. This is the same type of psychopath that commits mas murder. If the TX bomber had used an AR-15 he could have killed far more people.

The biggest mistake people make in life is to believe that everyone else is just like they are. Someone that is honest believes everyone else is honest like they are. This makes them an easy mark for a conman who will quickly exploit the mark’s honesty. We all know on one level that people are different not everyone is a truck driver, a mechanic, or a college professor but when it comes to psychopaths we underestimate how different psychopaths are from the general population. When a psychopath strikes we make excuses for them. They are mentally ill when in fact being different does not make them mentally ill. Psychopaths brains are different and studies with fMRI show their brains simply don’t react to emotionally charged words. The gun manufacturers have armed an army of psychopaths with the very best weapons of war and our children are paying the price. Psychopaths are not mentally ill and they will never be denied an AR-15 on that grounds.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 12:30 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
AR-15 assault style weapons are the tools that is needed to commit mass murder. You can dig a small ditch with a shovel but if you need to dig a ditch 10 feet deep you need a backhoe. Even that 14-year-old school shooter knew he needed an assault weapon. He just could not find his dad’s assault weapon the day of the shooting. The result he only killed one with a hand gun. If you want to commit mass murder you need an assault weapon.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns on April 16, 2007.

The shooter at the Fort Hood Army base killed 13 people with handguns on November 5, 2009.

The shooter at the immigration center in Binghamton New York killed 13 people with handguns on April 3, 2009.

The Momentum Securities shooter killed 12 people with handguns and a hammer on July 29, 1999.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 12:32 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
These guns will not stop anyone with an AR-15 and body armor

A handgun will not stop someone who is wearing body armor, regardless of what gun they have.

A handgun will stop someone who has an assault weapon but no body armor.

If you want to stop someone who is wearing soft body armor like Kevlar, use a rifle.

If you want to stop someone who is wearing hard body armor with steel plates, use a rifle loaded with armor-piercing ammunition. If you cannot get AP ammo, use a rifle and fire at their face.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 12:33 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
We know what pass as a good reason to limit the first amendment. The classic case is someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. Of course, the theater is not on fire but yelling fire might cause some people to be injured running for the door. There are also other cases that place limits on the first amendment.

Those limits are all justified with a good reason.


Zardoz wrote:
What we do know about guns is 50,000 people are killed each year in America and no other civilized country in the world has even a fraction of those deaths.

Pistol grips are not the cause of any of those deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
To believe that second amendment is unlimited is a foolish position.

Good thing that no one is arguing that then.


Zardoz wrote:
Far more people are killed in one shooting than killed in the theater.

Not because of pistol grips on a rifle.


Zardoz wrote:
Sounds like a hell of a good reason to me.

Not when you are talking of banning something that is completely unrelated to those deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
No army fights a war with hand guns.

That is incorrect. They all issue handguns to their soldiers.


Zardoz wrote:
There are some school shootings with hand gun that are personal or among gang member. If you have a personal score to settle with one-person handguns work. But if you are a professional school shooter like Nikolas Cruz, you carefully study other school shootings and study the weapons to find the one that will kill the most people. The school shooting that involve only one or two people killed are not reported nationally the story is of only local interest. What gets national attention is mass murder and those are not done with handguns they are done with weapons designed exclusively to commit mass murder.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns on April 16, 2007.

The shooter at the Fort Hood Army base killed 13 people with handguns on November 5, 2009.

The shooter at the immigration center in Binghamton New York killed 13 people with handguns on April 3, 2009.

The Momentum Securities shooter killed 12 people with handguns and a hammer on July 29, 1999.


Zardoz wrote:
Your trying to make apples look like oranges. Mass murders are not done with hand guns.

I guess no one was killed at Virginia Tech then.


Zardoz wrote:
A pistol grip does not change a thing

That is why calls to ban them have no justification.


Zardoz wrote:
It may be easy to see other people’s children as simply insignificant but if it were your children or grandchildren gunned down for no reason it would be a good reason for restrictions.

Not when pistol grips are not the cause of any harm.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t care if every gun made by the gun manufacturers has a pistol grip as long as the assault weapons are banned.

That is contradictory, as assault weapons are merely rifles with pistol grips or similar features that there is no reason to ban.


Zardoz wrote:
The times they are a changing. There is assaying in archology that it changes one funeral at a time. The old generation clings to old ideas and theories until they are buried.

The notion that future generations will reject freedom and civil rights is pretty unlikely.


Zardoz wrote:
I believe if it were your children or grandchildren it would be a good reason for restrictions

No. Pistol grips do not cause harm to anyone.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller decision is very clear that dangerous and deadly weapons can be banned.

Pistol grips do not make a gun dangerous or deadly.


Zardoz wrote:
The case was bought by someone who could not register a hand gun in Washington DC. It had nothing to do with modern weapons.

That is incorrect. The handguns in question are very much modern weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
There are 50,000 good reason each year.

Pistol grips are not responsible for even one of those deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
Until the gun nut across the road starts setting off atomic bombs the most dangerous thing he can get his hands on is his AR-15.

That doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons are far deadlier.


Zardoz wrote:
The M-16 is just a modified AR-15.

Modified pretty significantly.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 is just a machine gun in sheep’s clothing.

No it isn't. AR-15s are semi-auto-only.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heeler decision has nothing to do with civil rights

Yes it did. It was one of the most important civil rights decisions in American history.


Zardoz wrote:
If the fairy tale were true I would not want to be you. I don’t think a just god would be so forgiving.

Reality is not a fairy tale.

God does not object to civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
The tea tax would be a part of English law.

Not a part of English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
Why are the gun laws in England so restrictive?

They just don't like freedom anymore.


Zardoz wrote:
They are based on the same case law you cite.

No they aren't.


Zardoz wrote:
The early settlers of America came from several different countries. So, we could just pick and chose what laws we wanted?

Sure. We were creating our own system after all.


Zardoz wrote:
If you want to follow English law then you have to follow their current gun laws that are part of English common law. You can’t have it both ways.

Their current gun laws are not based on English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
You simply can’t say we have to follow this English law but disregard all others.

Since all the rights of English Common Law are protected by the Constitution, the government is required to respect those rights.


Zardoz wrote:
So, it would not surprise me that some judges tried to adopt some archaic laws from old England.

Not some judges. The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did so because the Founding Fathers expressly made all the rights of English Common Law part of the US Constitution.


Zardoz wrote:
The bill of rights is specific

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are pretty broad.

However, it is true that the Second Amendment specifically protects the right to keep and bear arms.


Zardoz wrote:
There were several sources for bill of rights some stretching back to ancient Greece but I don’t see any argument to base our laws on those of ancient Greece.

Which sources for which rights are you talking about?


Zardoz wrote:
You are the one that is trying to establish a right to a gun by citing ancient English law cases.

The US Supreme Court and all the legal scholars do the same thing.

It's simply a matter of recorded history.


Zardoz wrote:
The English laws are far stricter than those in America if that is were you derive your right to own a gun you would have a problem.

There is a difference between English Common Law and modern English statutes.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 12:34 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
The law is indeed alive

If you want to try to repeal the Second Amendment so that you can impose unjustifiable bans on pistol grips, you are free to try.

The NRA will stop you, of course. But if you exhaust yourself over pistol grips that'll keep you from passing other gun laws.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol have nothing to with an assault weapon ban.

That is incorrect. Such bans are only about pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips have nothing to do with an assault ban.

That is incorrect. Such bans are only about pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips were legal under the 1994 assault weapon ban.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
The freedom of speech is limited as are other rights. The good reason for limiting the freedom of speech is the possible injury or death of someone in a theater after someone yells fire! If that hold the massive amount of people killed and injured by guns would be a good reason. Just because you want to live in a war zone does not mean the rest of America’s population wants to.

Pistol grips do not cause anyone to be killed.

Pistol grips do not create war zones.


Zardoz wrote:
There has never been a pistol grip ban

That is incorrect. Assault weapons bans are all about pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
Nobody is planning to ban pistol grips

That is incorrect. Assault weapons are just a gun with pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
For somebody that pretends to know a lot about guns you can’t tell difference between the handle and the gun.

You're the one here who has a crazy focus on trying to ban pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Assault weapons are designed to commit mass murder and we have many examples of exactly that.

That is incorrect. Adding a pistol grip to a gun does not mean it is designed for mass murder.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are just a handle.

Which is why your calls to ban them are unjustifiable and therefore unconstitutional.


Zardoz wrote:
The pistol grip makes absolutely no difference it is the number of bullets fired per minute and the massive 100 round clips that make the kill rate so high.

Which is why your calls to ban pistol grips are unjustifiable and therefore unconstitutional.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips were not banned assault weapons were. It wasn’t called the 1994 pistol grip ban.

Assault weapons are just rifles with pistol grips or other harmless features that there is no reason to ban.


Zardoz wrote:
The second amendment didn’t grant you a right to a pistol grip.

You are only allowed to restrict a right if you can produce a good reason for the restriction.

You cannot produce a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
If you have rental property and you deny a black family the right to rent it you will finally understand what civil rights are. Civil Rights legislation came in 1964 not 1791.

Civil rights legislation came in 1215.


Zardoz wrote:
The same English laws you cited are part of English Common law and are binding on the English but not on America.

That is incorrect. The Founding Fathers made all the rights of English Common Law part of the Constitution.


Zardoz wrote:
The founding fathers took inspiration for our laws from countries all of the world both past and present but that does not mean the laws of those countries were binding on America.

The fact that the Founding Fathers made the Constitution include all the rights of English Common Law does mean those rights are binding on America.


Zardoz wrote:
The founding Fathers decided what rights would be enshrined to be protected.

They decided to enshrine and protect all the rights of English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
The US constitution is an original document that does not depend on any prior documents. They adopted what they wanted and rejected what they didn’t

They wanted to adopt all the rights of English Common Law.

And they did.


Zardoz wrote:
The old English cases had to do with having guns to hunt with they were afraid the guns would kill out all of the game animals.

That is incorrect. The cases were about people having the right to have guns for self defense.


Zardoz wrote:
Compelling or not all rights have common sense limits and mass murder is not one of them.

You are only allowed to limit a right if you can produce a good reason for a limitation.

Pistol grips do not cause mass murder and there is not a good reason for banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
The pistol grips are not banned either.

And any attempts to ban them will be defeated.

However, do feel free to exhaust yourself trying to ban pistol grips so you can't push any other legislation.


Zardoz wrote:
You’re right pistol grips don’t kill people assault weapons do.

Assault weapons are just rifles with pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
If a good reason to limit the freedom speech is human life then the same applies to the second amendment.

Except pistol grips do not cost any lives.


Zardoz wrote:
Oralloy do they really allow you that much computer time in your nursing home?

Snide remarks will not change the fact that there is no justification for banning pistol grips.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 12:35 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
The second amendment is never referred to as a civil right for a reason, it isn’t.

Our right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, and is referred to as a civil right.


Zardoz wrote:
The civil rights legislation came about in 1964 and does not even mention guns.

Civil rights began in 1215.

Legislation from 1689 certainly mentioned arms, a category that includes guns.


Zardoz wrote:
Hand guns are not used for mass murder though they can be used to settle a score with a couple of people.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with handguns on April 16, 2007.

The shooter at the Fort Hood Army base killed 13 people with handguns on November 5, 2009.

The shooter at the immigration center in Binghamton New York killed 13 people with handguns on April 3, 2009.

The Momentum Securities shooter killed 12 people with handguns and a hammer on July 29, 1999.


Zardoz wrote:
Assault weapons are made for mass murder.

That is incorrect. Adding pistol grips to a gun does not mean it was made for mass murder.


Zardoz wrote:
was designed to fight wars with as well as assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Adding pistol grips to a gun does not mean it was made to fight wars.


Zardoz wrote:
Semi-automatic rifles were not designed for mass murder only assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Adding pistol grips to a gun does not mean it was made for mass murder.


Zardoz wrote:
Did you hear that Remington has filed for bankruptcy? Remington was evidently the maker of the AR-15 style assault weapon used in the FL shooting they called it a Bushmaster according to one source. They are filing bankruptcy it seems the sale of assault weapons is down without the highly profitable assault weapons the gun manufacturers will go bankrupt.

Sales were down because people stopped fearing that pistol grips would be banned.

With renewed talk of banning pistol grips, sales will go back up.


Zardoz wrote:
Anything that is semi-automatic can be converted to automatic.

Anything at all can be converted to full auto.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 was a semi-automatic to start with. Chambering the shell is the hard part get the trigger to pull automatically is far easier.

Is it time to alert the hunters that you're going to try to ban their semi-auto hunting rifles?


Zardoz wrote:
The primary cause of mass casualties with an assault weapons is the ability to deliver so many rounds so quickly before people can take cover.

Being an assault weapon has nothing to do with those factors. Guns shoot just as fast without a pistol grip.


Zardoz wrote:
The number of bullets fired along with the velocity make for very effective mass murders.

True. And assault weapons have nothing to do with those factors.


Zardoz wrote:
It would be easy to design a stock that would absorb most of or all of recoil.

If you think so, go design one and sell it to the world.


Zardoz wrote:
Maybe the semi-automatic can’t chamber the bullets fast enough.

They chamber rounds at the same speed.


Zardoz wrote:
When you kill 59 at a time you have to be doing something right and that is the choice of guns specifically designed for mass murder.

Having a pistol grip on a gun does not make it designed for mass murder.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t think the shooter at Newtown would change clips until the gun stopped firing.

"Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said."

http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-06/news/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106_1_adam-lanza-nancy-lanza-yogananda-street


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller decision does not list any specific weapons

The Heller case was about modern semi-auto handguns.


Zardoz wrote:
but it does make it very clear that limits can be placed on the second amendment.
____________________________________________________
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Limitations on rights are allowed only when they can be justified with a good reason.

Bans on pistol grips have no justification.


Zardoz wrote:
There would be private ownership of atomic bombs if the second amendment right was unlimited.

Limitations on rights are allowed only when they can be justified with a good reason.

Bans on pistol grips have no justification.


Zardoz wrote:
The 1994 assault weapon ban tells you that pistol grips are completely legal only when combined with other features like folding stocks or grenade launcher is there a problem.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
Grenade launcher would cause a problem because the military can’t keep control of all their grenade.

The military doesn't even use rifle grenades anymore.

And the absence of people using grenade launchers to massacre people shows quite clearly that they cause no problem whatsoever.


Zardoz wrote:
If professional school shooter could get their hands on grenades it would be whole different ball game.

Hardly. Rifle grenades would be of no use in indoor shooting.


Zardoz wrote:
Most likely more school children are killed with AR-15s than varmints.

Nonsense. Varmint hunters kill tons of varmints.


Zardoz wrote:
It seems a number of dead people is always a good reason to limit rights.

Pistol grips do not result in any deaths at all.


Zardoz wrote:
A pistol grip is not a problem without a grenade launcher.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
Let say modern weapons of war we won’t worry about antique weapons of war.

Semi-auto handguns are modern weapons of war, and the Heller ruling confirms our right to have them.


Zardoz wrote:
You are just about to see what a good reason to ban assault weapons is.

Not when there are no such good reasons.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips don’t fire bullets but assault weapons do.

All guns fire bullets. Adding a pistol grip to a gun does not make it any more dangerous.


Zardoz wrote:
No court in America is going to mandate that our children must live in a battlefield.

Allowing pistol grips on guns does not transform a country into a battlefield.


Zardoz wrote:
That civil rights section about discrimination was part of our contract and I spent hours arguing with the city attorney about it. He was very adamant that it was limited to discrimination because of race, color creed, sex and country of origin and that might not be the whole list but I am sure there was nothing about gun ownership.

Not every civil right deals with discrimination.


Zardoz wrote:
Do you really believe there are no semi-automatics on the battlefield?

Pistols and sniper rifles, sure. But not assault rifles.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA serves one function and that is to sell death to children. The people with guns are violating the right to life.

The NRA's function is to protect our civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
The fact that the NRA was taken over by the gun manufacturers is well documented.

Baseless propaganda is not documentation. There is similar documentation proving that the World Trade Center was destroyed by space aliens.


Zardoz wrote:
The NAACP is a civil rights organization

No more so than the NRA.


Zardoz wrote:
the NRA is organization of death.

The NRA is a civil rights organization.


Zardoz wrote:
Do you really want grenade launcher on assault weapons?

There is no justification for banning them. Therefore such bans are unconstitutional.


Zardoz wrote:
You can have a pistol grip if you can do without a bayonet mount. Sorry there is no ban on pistol grips.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
If there were no such law the streets would be full of machine guns and howitzers.

People do own machine guns.

Howitzers tend to be pretty expensive. Only the very wealthy could afford one.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t care if pistol grips are banned I just want the assault weapons banned.

Assault weapons are just normal weapons with pistol grips and similar features that there is no good reason to ban.


Zardoz wrote:
You don’t need a pistol grip to kill school children.

Which is why a ban on pistol grips is unjustifiable and therefore unconstitutional.


Zardoz wrote:
The overthrow of the government was the prime driving force to justify the second amendment. When the founding fathers created a new government, they could not be sure that it would not get out of control. That justification has been used over and over to justify the existence of guns even though it is absolutely preposterous now.

The justification for the Second Amendment is that civil rights are good and should be protected.


Zardoz wrote:
Guerrilla warfare became obsolete with the advent of atomic weapons.

Human history says otherwise.


Zardoz wrote:
If the rights already existed it would have been redundant to write the bill of rights.

Not at all. The Bill of Rights protects those rights and prevents them from being harmed by statutes.

Without the Bill of Rights, statutes would supersede any right that they conflicted with.


Zardoz wrote:
The constitution grants a right to free speech it does not establish a limit like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The rights were granted but limits were established by courts and laws.

Laws are only allowed to restrict a right for a good reason. There isn't a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
It is already established that killing people allows the government to limit those rights.

Laws are only allowed to restrict a right for a good reason. There isn't a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
But then pistol grips are not banned.
The subject was guns not pistol grips.

Assault weapons bans are just a ban on pistol grips and similar features that there is no reason for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
You may need to aim a gun if you are trying to kill individual where he is the only one standing. A bullet off to one side or the other would miss. But mass murders are committed on crowds if a bullet misses and individual it will hit someone else standing on either side. A mass murderer doesn’t care who he kills he just wants to kill as many people as possible. One mass murder said he wanted to kill 150 school children.

Crowds are not known for standing still while people murder them.


Zardoz wrote:
They said it was impossible for a human being to run a four-minute mile also.

This does not change the fact that neither the NRA nor the courts will allow you to ban pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
The rest of gun is the same as an automatic it is only the trigger mechanism that is altered.

That alteration completely transforms the power of the gun.


Zardoz wrote:
both gun chambers shells at the same rate so the speed would be limited to the number of times you could pull the trigger. I was able to pull the trigger finger 106 times a minute on the first try with practice I would be much faster.

You certainly wouldn't be able to pull the trigger that fast while aiming the gun usefully.


Zardoz wrote:
This gun debate has been going on for years so there have been thousands gun owners questioned and they all agree for the most part that the guns are just good for sh*** and giggles

No they don't.


Zardoz wrote:
but we all know they are good for mass murder.

No more so that a gun that doesn't have a pistol grip.


Zardoz wrote:
The police need these guns because a pistol is useless against someone with an AR-15.

Holding an AR-15 does not make someone impervious to handgun rounds.


Zardoz wrote:
Forty years ago, policemen looked like policemen but now many policemen look and dress in full military garb with body armor. What caused this was the gun manufacturer flooded the street with military weapons.

We have the right to have military weapons like the Glock 17, so it is proper that the streets be flooded with them.


Zardoz wrote:
Policemen carried 357s after a bank robbery in Los Angles where the suspect were armed with semi-automatics and in full body armor. The police didn’t stand a chance until one of the policemen went into a local gun store and got an assault weapon. The FBI also had a shootout with bank robbers in FL where they were badly out gunned. The gun manufacturers made a fortune as the FBI and police department throughout the land had to replace their hand guns with 9 millimeters

9mm is a handgun round.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 is very special or it would not be the bases for the M-16.

It's no different from any other semi-auto rifle.


Zardoz wrote:
The only thing that really matters is how many bullets it can fire in a minute.

Which is why a ban on pistol grips is unjustifiable and therefore unconstitutional.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 was not designed as a hunting weapon it is not a hunting rifle it is an assault weapon.

That is incorrect. Lots of hunters use AR rifles for hunting.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 certainly qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction after George W Bush widen the definition after they couldn’t find any WMDs in Iraq.

The definition was not widened. Guns are not weapons of mass destruction.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are not the problem they are just a diversion created by the NRA.

The NRA is not the reason why you are clamoring for a ban on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
A converted AR-15 is still an AR-15. Ninety-nine percent of the gun is the same.

A converted AR-15 is illegal unless it was registered as a machine gun by 1986.


Zardoz wrote:
It come down to how fast you can pull the trigger.

No. If a gun was illegally converted to full auto, speed of pulling the trigger would not matter.


Zardoz wrote:
Archaic weapons of war are not a problem.

Which is why you are not allowed to ban them.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips have never been illegal.

Assault weapons bans are all about prohibiting pistol grips and other features which there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
I would not believe anything from the communists or the NRA. If they gave Trump permission why did it not receive any publicity. The NRA being for gun control would be a big deal.

It received plenty of publicity.

Associated Press Wire Service
http://apnews.com/4f93272d00d84d4aa606245200e574de/Suddenly,-White-House-and-NRA-open-to-(a-little)-gun-control

Reuters Wire Service
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-guns/nra-calls-for-more-regulation-after-vegas-shooting-idUSKBN1CA2FH

Bloomberg Wire Service
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/vegas-attack-opens-new-crack-in-washington-gun-control-stalemate

NBC News
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/nra-backs-additional-regulations-rapid-fire-gun-bump-stocks-n808121

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra-calls-federal-review-bump-stocks-vegas-shooting/story?id=50308261

CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-says-bump-stocks-devices-used-by-las-vegas-shooter-should-be-regulated/


Zardoz wrote:
Did they also give Trump permission to take the assault weapons as he said he would?

No. The government has not been given permission to ban pistol grips.

The government has been given permission to restrict bump stocks, so long as it is done via executive order.

The government has been given permission to pass the Fix-NICS/Reciprocity package into law.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are not the problem.

That is why there is no justification for banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA is only interested in one thing making absolutely sure that the next school shooter has an assault weapon. They want to protect the right of school shooters to buy assault weapons.

It's not like adding a pistol grip to a gun causes any harm.


Zardoz wrote:
No one should have to live in a war zone because 5 million people want to play soldier.

Pistol grips do not create war zones. Having a gun with a pistol grip is not playing soldier.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 and the copy-cat weapons are confirmed mass murder weapons.

Pistol grips do not make a gun any more deadly.


Zardoz wrote:
Remington filed for bankruptcy to protect itself from legal judgements.

No they didn't. Remington is not under any threat from legal judgements.

If anyone even tries to sue Remington, the case will be thrown out of court and their homes and retirement accounts will be seized by the court and used to pay Remington's legal bills.

Remington filed for bankruptcy because they were not selling many guns.


Zardoz wrote:
This is how the NRA is financed it established fact the NRA is paid so much for each gun sold by some gun manufacturers just because you don’t believe it does not make it untrue. The article I listed documents that.

I am unsure which article you mean, but the NRA is not funded by the gun manufacturers.

Rather, it is the opposite. We are the ones who tell the manufacturers what to do.


Zardoz wrote:
Since before the time the crime is committed no one knows for sure whether it will actually be committed then no one could ever be ever convicted as an accessory but yet many people are convicted as an accessory.

If they did not knowingly help with the crime, they were not convicted as an accessory.

Unless it was a miscarriage of justice.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are not illegal.

Bans on assault weapons are bans on pistol grips and similar features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
The Supreme court also says we can place limits on guns.

Only if you can justify those limits with a good reason.

There isn't a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
When is the last time you saw a school shooting done with a full automatic? The fact they have been illegal since for 32 years might have something to do with it. That kept the NRA from flooding the streets with them.

All machine guns already registered by 1986 are grandfathered and remain legal to own.


Zardoz wrote:
Most of mass murders are committed with assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Most are committed with handguns.

But if it had been correct, the cosmetics of the gun would hardly have mattered. Pistol grips do not make a gun any deadlier.


Zardoz wrote:
There was a shooting at a Michigan College last week where two people were killed likely with a hand gun.

I know.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are legal that is not a loophole.

You called it a loophole earlier.


Zardoz wrote:
If combined with certain other features there is a problem.

Banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification.


Zardoz wrote:
In an arms race atomic bombs are considered arms. The second amendment gives you a right to bear arms so therefore the second amendment gives you the right to atomic weapons? Unless there are limits.

Of course there are limits. But limits are only allowed if they can be justified with a good reason.

There isn't a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
There are laws against murder but that hasn’t stopped one mass murder yet.

That is unlikely.


Zardoz wrote:
If all semi-automatics chambered at the same speed the inventor of the AR-15 would not have needed to get a patent for the AR-15.

He needed a patent if he didn't want anyone to copy his design.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips have always been legal they were never banned.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
When you see the first howitzer that does not belong to the military let me know.

http://www.guns.com/2018/01/09/big-guns-at-the-big-sandy-shoot-video/
http://www.azfirearms.com/p-6394-azfirearms-model-m101a1-howitzer-105mm-nfa.aspx


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are not the problem.

Which is why there is no justification for banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
Constant mass murder is a great reason.

Not when pistol grips do not cause any murders.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips are legal.

You are calling to outlaw them however.


Zardoz wrote:
There are modern laws to govern modern technology just as there are laws to govern guns.

Thus your claim that our rights only applied to technology from 1791 was incorrect.


Zardoz wrote:
Mass murder is a great reason.

Not when pistol grips do not cause mass murders (or even cause any murders at all).


Zardoz wrote:
Oh yes, he did baby bush and crew changed that definition of weapons of mass destruction.

No they didn't.


Zardoz wrote:
An atomic weapon may kill more people but mass murders will catch up one day. One bomb in Hiroshima killed only 39,000 in a few years the mass murders will surpass that number.

How many billion people do you think would die in a large nuclear war?


Zardoz wrote:
You are fixated on pistol grips but it was assault weapons that were banned.
School shooters have no problem knowing what an assault weapons are they could care less about a pistol grip.

Assault weapons are just ordinary guns with pistol grips and other features that there is no justification for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
If there is no difference in semi-automatic an assault weapons why are the assault weapons the ones used in mass murders?

They aren't.


Zardoz wrote:
If machine guns are banned because they are dangerous it follows assault weapons should also be banned.

Not when pistol grips do not increase the danger of a gun in any way.


Zardoz wrote:
Mass murders are as good a reason as any other.

Not when pistol grips do not cause mass murders (or even cause any murders at all).
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 09:00 pm
@oralloy,
There are exceptions to every rule and you’re reaching for the exception not the rule. The vast majority of mass murders are committed with assault weapons. You can’t solve a problem by saying there is an exception so we will just throw our hands up and do nothing. It is not a perfect world and solutions are not perfect either. If we can save nine out of ten school children by banning assault weapons then we should do that.
____________________________________________________
The Virginia Tech shooting was on a college campus not a high school. The shooter Seung Hui Chow first killed a female freshman and a male resident assistant in a dormitory. When the police arrived, they suspected girl’s boyfriend. Meanwhile the shooter proceeded to class room building where he chained and locked several main doors. That is the reason the shooter could kill so many people with hand guns. They were locked in the building.
The Las Vegas shooter nearly doubled the Virginia Tech shooters kills.
Forty-nine killed at the Pulse nightclub.
Twenty-seven killed at Sandy Hook elementary.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Las Vegas shooter more than quadrupled the Fort Hood Army base shooter.
____________________________________________________
I am not saying guns don’t kill people but again the Las Vegas shooter more than quadrupled the shooter at the immigration center.
____________________________________________________
Again the Las Vegas shooter kills nearly five times Momentum Securities shooter.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Last year was the deadliest year in ten years and it was made possible by assault weapons. I noticed every shooting you listed was more than 10 years old. But in the last year and ½ we have had the Parkland FL shooting killing 17, the pulse nightclub shooting killing 49 and the Las Vegas shooting killing 59 and injuring 841. That is a 125 killed. The shooting you list are over the last 19 years totaling 70. If you bring it down to number of people killed per year in mass murders with handguns it would be 3.7. Killed with assault weapons per year it would be 83.3. Do you see a problem there?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2018 11:48 pm
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
There are exceptions to every rule and you’re reaching for the exception not the rule. The vast majority of mass murders are committed with assault weapons.

Even if that is true, cosmetic features like pistol grips are not the reason for the severity of the massacres.

The reason the massacres are so deadly is because of large detachable rifle magazines.


Zardoz wrote:
You can’t solve a problem by saying there is an exception so we will just throw our hands up and do nothing.

Focusing on something unrelated to the problem (like your focus on assault weapons) will not solve anything either. All it does is make it easy for the NRA to defeat you.

I doubt that you will be able to pass restrictions on large detachable rifle magazines. The NRA is certain to stop you regardless. But if you have any chance at all, it will only be by dropping the focus on assault weapons.

Your best bet is to not even try to restrict ammo capacity and instead focus on laws that allow courts to intervene if someone demonstrates that they are a danger to other people.


Zardoz wrote:
If we can save nine out of ten school children by banning assault weapons then we should do that.

Banning assault weapons will not save a single person. Cosmetic features like pistol grips do not make massacres any worse.

If you want to save children, laws that allow courts to intervene if someone demonstrates that they are a danger will prevent some massacres.

Restrictions on ammo capacity could reduce the severity of massacres that do happen.

A focus on assault weapons won't do a thing other than ensure that the NRA will defeat you.


Zardoz wrote:
The Virginia Tech shooting was on a college campus not a high school. The shooter Seung Hui Chow first killed a female freshman and a male resident assistant in a dormitory. When the police arrived, they suspected girl’s boyfriend. Meanwhile the shooter proceeded to class room building where he chained and locked several main doors. That is the reason the shooter could kill so many people with hand guns. They were locked in the building.
The Las Vegas shooter nearly doubled the Virginia Tech shooters kills.
Forty-nine killed at the Pulse nightclub.
Twenty-seven killed at Sandy Hook elementary.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The Las Vegas shooter more than quadrupled the Fort Hood Army base shooter.
____________________________________________________
I am not saying guns don’t kill people but again the Las Vegas shooter more than quadrupled the shooter at the immigration center.
____________________________________________________
Again the Las Vegas shooter kills nearly five times Momentum Securities shooter.

The Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks, which made his weapon considerably deadlier, and which will soon be illegal.


Zardoz wrote:
Last year was the deadliest year in ten years and it was made possible by assault weapons.

That is incorrect. None of the cosmetic assault weapon features made any of it possible. The only things that made it possible was large detachable rifle magazines, and a lack of intervention against people who demonstrate that they are a danger.


Zardoz wrote:
I noticed every shooting you listed was more than 10 years old. But in the last year and ½ we have had the Parkland FL shooting killing 17, the pulse nightclub shooting killing 49 and the Las Vegas shooting killing 59 and injuring 841. That is a 125 killed. The shooting you list are over the last 19 years totaling 70. If you bring it down to number of people killed per year in mass murders with handguns it would be 3.7. Killed with assault weapons per year it would be 83.3. Do you see a problem there?

Yes. But I can also see that assault weapons have nothing to do with that problem.

Bump stocks can make a shooting deadlier, but they are soon to be outlawed.

Restrictions on ammo capacity could reduce the severity of a shooting, but you're not likely to get them past the NRA.

Laws that allow courts to intervene against someone who demonstrates that they are dangerous could prevent a massacre.

Bans on pistol grips and flash suppressors, that won't do anything other than help the NRA defeat you.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2018 10:50 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The gun manufacturers don’t want you to know the number of people that are killed by guns.

No more so then Planned Parenthood really wants people to know how many abortions they do and how much of their budget goes towards those procedures.

Quote:
They not only don’t want you to know they went out of their way to keep that a secret by passing a law in congress to keep statistic from being gathered about guns.

I fail to understand why the CDC would be studying gun deaths, that should be done by the FBI, which does indeed release their information. Last time I checked the CDC stood for Centers for Disease Control and gun deaths have nothing to do with disease. Now if we want to change the CDC to Center for Death Control, we can have them study things that have nothing to do with diseases.

Quote:
When I posted a figure of 60,000-gun deaths I had a source for that figure and I listed that source in the post. The paragraph started out talking about traffic deaths but ended talking about gun “incidents” which included those injured with guns so that is mistake on my part.

We have a pretty good count on the # of gun deaths per year as most States have mandatory reporting of such things for their crime statistics since just about anything dealing with a gun is investigated by local LEO.

Quote:
The Center for Disease Control published a figure of 38,658 deaths by guns for 2016 which is 5,658 more than your claim of 33,000 and gun deaths.

Since 1968 there have been 1,516,863 guns deaths on United states territory. “Since the founding of the United States there have been 1,396,733 deaths in war.

That averages 30,337-gun deaths per year for 50 years. More gun deaths since 1968 than all the wars fought by the United States throughout history. That illustrates how big the gun problem is.

I have seen other sources that list 50,000 gun death a year. The reason the figure is all over the place is the NRA passed a law to keep stastic s from be gathered that could be used to promote gun control.

How can you and the CDC publish numbers on gun deaths and then in the same space complain that they have been blocked?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2018 01:29 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
How can you and the CDC publish numbers on gun deaths and then in the same space complain that they have been blocked?

The number of firearms deaths is compiled from the CDC's Multiple Cause of Death Database which categorizes all the death certificates in the country. But without additional funding the CDC is unable to investigate gun violence and research causes and solutions.
Quote:
It's widely supposed that Congress enacted a "ban" on federal funding for gun violence research in 1996. That isn't quite true, says Mark Rosenberg, a gun violence expert who was head of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the time. But the truth is even more demoralizing.

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center's funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds "to advocate or promote gun control." (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)

The Dickey Amendment didn't technically ban any federally funded gun violence research. The real blow was delivered by a succession of pusillanimous CDC directors, who decided that the safest course bureaucratically was simply to zero out the whole field.

Remarkably, that approach has continued to the present day [2016]: After the Newtown massacre of schoolchildren in 2012, President Obama issued an executive order instructing the CDC to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it." But the agency has refused unless it receives a specific appropriation to cover the research. Congress played its obligatory role in acting as the NRA's cat's-paw by repeatedly rejecting bills to provide $10 million for the work.

LATimes
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2018 02:01 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
But without additional funding the CDC is unable to investigate gun violence and research causes and solutions.

No one is going to allow you to use public money to concoct anti-freedom propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2018 06:53 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy

When it comes down to someone with a hand gun trying to take down someone with AR-15 with body armor or without it is like bringing a knife to gun fight. That is why they make bigger and better guns.
_____________________________________________________
If you had a clear shot at someone armed with an AR-15 back is the only way someone with a hand gun would be able to stop someone with an AR-15 otherwise the US Army would just issue handguns and not bother with the M-16. They would have a word for teachers armed with hand guns in a gun fight with someone armed with an AR-15, that word would be dead. There were two shootings in America’s schools today both by armed security guards who accidently fired their weapons one during a gun safety class. Luckily only one student was injured this time shot in the neck with a bullet fragment.
___________________________________________________________
If your armed with an AR-15 body armor is probably not necessary.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The police are trained to fire at center of mass and training becomes second nature in an emergency. The police training is so intense and repetitive that it is second nature. The police were trained how to take a gun away from a suspect and then they would hand the gun back to the training officer. One policeman in actual situation took the gun away from the suspect only to hand it back to him as he did in training. I bet you could have knocked the suspect over with a feather when the policeman gave him his gun back. Firing at someone face might be a bit tough if you have a hundred bullets a minute come your way from an AR-15. It would be bad for your aim and might make you a little unsteady.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Mar, 2018 08:24 pm
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
When it comes down to someone with a hand gun trying to take down someone with AR-15 with body armor or without it is like bringing a knife to gun fight. That is why they make bigger and better guns.

If you have to defend yourself, it is always better to do so with a rifle.

However, someone with a handgun can still defend themselves from someone who has a rifle but no body armor.


Zardoz wrote:
If you had a clear shot at someone armed with an AR-15 back is the only way someone with a hand gun would be able to stop someone with an AR-15

Not at all. Just shoot the bad guy before the bad guy shoots you.


Zardoz wrote:
otherwise the US Army would just issue handguns and not bother with the M-16.

They issue rifles because rifles are more potent.

They also issue handguns, because handguns still work despite rifles being more potent.


Zardoz wrote:
They would have a word for teachers armed with hand guns in a gun fight with someone armed with an AR-15, that word would be dead.

Not if the teacher with the handgun fired before the bad guy did (and if their aim was true).

For what it's worth, I'm fine with teachers having rifles in their classrooms. I don't know why it is being assumed that these teachers are only defending their students with handguns.


Zardoz wrote:
If your armed with an AR-15 body armor is probably not necessary.

Does this mean that it is a waste of money to equip police with body armor if they have a rifle?


Zardoz wrote:
The police are trained to fire at center of mass and training becomes second nature in an emergency. The police training is so intense and repetitive that it is second nature.

Depends on the police officer. SWAT teams train hard. But ordinary patrol officers do not receive heavy training. However, some ordinary patrol officers take it upon themselves to train hard despite the lack of department requirements.


Zardoz wrote:
Firing at someone face might be a bit tough if you have a hundred bullets a minute come your way from an AR-15. It would be bad for your aim and might make you a little unsteady.

There wouldn't be a hundred bullets a minute coming your way. Pulling the trigger that fast would make it impossible to aim.

And that works both ways. Firing at the bad guy's face might make their aim a bit unsteady.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/19/2018 at 06:52:03