Why "Assault Rifles" need to be banned?

We all hear how "Assault Rifles" are so deadly and most of America thinks there is no legitimate civilian use for them, but few know what "they" are and I think most will be surprised.


An "Assault Rifle", is any SEMI-automatic rifle that uses removable ammunition magazines and has other attributes like a pistol grip, thumb hole, flash suppressor, folding stock, or barrel shroud.  Guns that fit that definition are involved in less than 2% of the homicides where a gun is used.  "Assault Rifles" are not the prefered guns used by criminals.  


Strangely most are not very deadly, and NONE are used by the military.  The military uses FULLY-automatic guns like the M-16 and the civilian version, (the AR-15), looks a lot like it but is only SEMI-Automatic.  An AR-15 is not "deadly" enough to be used for hunting deer in most states and most serious large game hunters would not consider using one.  There are pistols that shoot more powerful bullets.   In the North Hollywood shooting criminals fired over 2,000 bullets from fully-automatic weapons, that use assault rifle ammunition, wounded 18 police and civilians, and none died.  If they had used common hunting rifles, many would have died.


So if they are not more deadly, why do so many people want to own them?  Many ex-military like owning  guns that look a lot like the ones they used in the military, deadly has nothing to do with it.  I like Western style guns so that is what I own more of and prefer, deadly has nothing to do with it.


Do pistol grips, thumb holes, flash suppressors, folding stocks, or barrel shrouds make them more deadly, NO...  Those attributes are cool looking to people who want to have guns that resemble military rifles, but none of them make the guns more deadly, and you or any criminal can put them on or remove them from any legal semi-automatic gun in a few minutes.  Having the components is not illegal, only assembling them is and nothing that makes the gun deadly changes when you put them on or take them off.  A folding stock could make the gun more concealable, but a take apart gun is just as small and pistols that are just as deadly are also legal and more concealable.


Lots of much more deadly rifles, including the M1 Garand, are not banned.  The M1 Garand is semi-automatic, a real military gun used in WW2, that shoots bullets which are twice as powerful and loaded via clips in seconds.  The most popular 22 rifles, commonly given to kids, are semi automatic 22's, which are not much good for hunting large game but can easily kill people especially at close range.  There are kits that make many of the look like "Assault Rifles", but none make the guns more deadly.


The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 26, 2018 - 12:18pm
Guns, like autos, in all of their various makes and models are only as dangerous as the individual that uses them. Maybe we should be having a discussion about banning ignorance instead. Thanks for doing your part :)
Rusty Smith Added Mar 26, 2018 - 12:45pm
The Burghal Hidage I tend to think of civilian Assault Rifles similarly to how I regard fantasy knives, a lot of visual appeal to some people with very little if any real world practical advantages.
The real military ones which are all fully automatic, give people kicking down doors a real advantage by being almost as small a pistol but with ability to spray a room with bullets before they have time to aim.  Because they are close combat weapons accuracy and even real knock down power are sacrificed so they can be tiny and more maneuverable.  
The civilian versions all lack the most vital component, they are not fully automatic, so even though they look deadly and cool, they don't give someone who wants to kick down doors and spray the room with bullets any real advantage over many very common and legal guns like semi automatic pistols and shotguns.
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 26, 2018 - 12:51pm
There are many species of bats, most of them quite non-threatening in their appearance. If a person's only mental image of a bat is the sinister visage of say the vampire or mastiff bat, their conclusion is that all bats are scary looking. Same dynamic at work here
Pardero Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:15pm
Rusty Smith,
That is one thing about my Mini 14. The wood stock makes it look more like a carbine type hunting rifle. The skeletonized folding stock probably looks more menacing, but the rifle shoots exactly the same. 
My Bulgarian AK has numerous American made parts to comply with the moronic 922R, I believe. It shoots just the same as it would with original parts. A meaningless silly law. Inconvenience and expense for no added safety 
A lot of good rifles were banned years ago. All it did was raise prices or knocked some out of the market.
You can't get a Finn Valmet B76 or a Beretta AR70 anymore, and it is just stupiditity from anti-gun pinheads that don't comprehend firearms.
We already have way too many silly laws against scary looking guns.
A lot of these lawmakers have never shot a bb gun. They have no business deciding that a gun is too dangerous looking.
Most of them are style over substance, just like most of their other posturing.
We need to roll back some of the idiotic bans, not add to them. 
We need to resist all attempts to meddle in our choice of defense, hunting, or target gun.
Tubularsock Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:22pm
You know Rusty, when someone is firing a “gun” AT Tubularsock the last thing on Tubularsock’s mind is the type of armament it happens to be.
Tubularsock is not opposed to guns in general and if former military types want to have and hold their past military weapons as a remembrance of their “glory-days” as a trained murderer for the state, more power to them.
Which might help explain the huge numbers of suicides by PTSD soldiers. Oh well, guess they just aren’t “tough” enough!
And Tubularsock can not think of a more deranged cowardly thing to do than to kill an animal with a scope and rifle. All that show is for the need for some very intrusive therapy.
But to sell guns to children or to people with no background checks and to sell guns that only intended use is to kill people is just rather insane.
You have to admit that training and continued training in the use of firearms is a necessity and should be a basic requirement for ownership. Anyone that has a “gun” and not know which ends up is a person dangerous to himself and to his family and friends.
But then on the other hand, maybe we should follow Rick Santorum advice and have our kids learn CPR instead of changing the gun laws. Hell, that would do it!
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:28pm
Don't worry sock, you lovable old spooge rag! There are still enough of us who know which end the round comes out of. You can thank us later. Or we'll render your corpse into soap. I'm good either way
opher goodwin Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:45pm
Perhaps hunters should be man enough to take on bears with just a bowie knife like Davy Crockett? That would be fairer. Doesn't seem fair to shoot things from half a mile away. Equalise the contest!
The Burghal Hidage Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:56pm
There you go Opher! We can save those endangered species by arming them all with all of the guns that are confiscated!
Tubularsock Added Mar 26, 2018 - 1:56pm
Burghal, Tubularsock has always found SOCK-SOAP difficult to sell. But maybe a new marketing direction?
opher, Tubularsock has found drone strikes to fit that same category.
But who counts anyway.
EXPAT Added Mar 26, 2018 - 2:03pm
Rusty. You try to talk facts, to an audience that acts on emotion. They want to blame hardware for Mental deficiency. The same people who want to make gun ownership difficult for law abiding citizens, wanting to protect themselves; were instrumental in closing down mental hospitals, and defending the rights of the insane.
How many Chicago gang members went through a waiting period, before shooting a rival drug dealer? How many gang bangers go through a background check? The approach to insanity, is insanity.
None of these common sense rules are common sense. The only thing that works is being tough on street crime. But none of the tubesock liberals want to do that, because they are overwhelmingly minorities and illegals.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 26, 2018 - 3:35pm
Of the 11K gun homicides in a year, less than 100, or less than 1% are part of a mass shooting. However, it is these mass shootings that get 99% of the attention, and cause hysterical reactions.
We probably can make the schools more safe for the kids without arming the teachers.  Current practice in my city is to leave the fron door open, allow anyone in, and post a sign asking visitors to report to the  admin office.  I think we can all think of ways to make this situation more safe.
Making schools more safe wont stop the  mass shootings.  They will likely move to malls, or other places where people gather. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 26, 2018 - 4:11pm
"An "Assault Rifle", is any SEMI-automatic rifle that uses removable ammunition magazines and has other attributes like a pistol grip, thumb hole, flash suppressor, folding stock, or barrel shroud.  Guns that fit that definition are involved in less than 2% of the homicides where a gun is used.  "Assault Rifles" are not the preferred guns used by criminals. "
These definitions are designed by the far left to bring fear into the political arena. The drooling left focus on the SEMI part as if it were especially evil. They want a full ban on all guns so the criminals can have a better life with more drugs and such. 
2A is very difficult to get around. 
People would not turn in their guns anyway. 
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 26, 2018 - 4:16pm
"How many Chicago gang members went through a waiting period, before shooting a rival drug dealer? How many gang bangers go through a background check? The approach to insanity, is insanity."
Precisely. Notice the lefties do not attack the gang-bangers as the gun laws are strict but completely ineffective. Clearly, the thrust is against honest gun owners not the inner-city scum. Democrats are soft on drugs and crime as usual. They like to feel good.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 26, 2018 - 6:54pm
Tubularsock first, why do you write in third party?   Is that a way to say things you don't really believe without actually saying them yourself, Devil's Advocate?
Second, can I safely assume you don't eat meat?  I'm figuring anyone who calls a hunter a coward, probably wouldn't pay other people to kill animals just so they can eat them.  I get the anger but remember 90% of our forum readers do eat meat, and I don't think it's wise to call all of them COWARDS.  Do you think most of us are cowards?
Third, can I safely assume you haven't had much active shooter training?  Things like knowing how to correctly do CPR and apply a tourniquet are very valuable tools to reduce fatalities after a shooting, but you obviously don't know that.  
Pray tell, what do you suggest people use to defend themselves from home invasions, a cell phone?  Do you believe muggings and rapes are just something normal people should learn to live with?
Please help us out and tell us where it's legal to sell guns to children, or are you just a gun hater who repeats things like a parrot without ever trying to find out if they are true?  What do you call people who get real upset about things they now nothing about?
And finally, please tell me how many times we need to train criminals before they will stop murdering each other?  Do you think they murder each other because they forget the rules?  Do you think the murders are accidental?  Do you realize most of the criminals wouldn't be eligible for the training because they are felons who aren't allowed to own guns?  I guess not, your panties were in a bunch when  you launched your tirade against guns, and I know how hard to create good arguments about things you know nothing about.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 26, 2018 - 7:04pm
opher goodwin that's right, real hunters shouldn't be worried about wounding game, if they don't get a clean kill and it runs away they can always shoot another one.  I'm sure Tublarstock would agree.  
I bet if she were to want to eat chicken she'd turn one lose in a field and use her bare hands so the chicken has a chance and she could look it in the eye as she chokes it.
I lived largely off what I shot for about 2 years and was never ashamed of the facts that my scoped rifles were deadly accurate.  When I went out it wasn't a fair contest, I was out to bring home the bacon, and if I didn't I'd have wasted my money and not eaten as well.  Most of my food died seconds after being shot and never knew I was there.
Next time Tublarstock goest to the store perhaps she should try her own medicine.  When she gets there she can flip a coin, and if it's tales go home without any food.  That way she can learn how a subsistence hunter feels when they go home empty handed.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 26, 2018 - 7:13pm
EXPAT I don't think all gun haters are minorities and believe most really don't know much about the topic that you can't learn reading headlines.  
Most get angry when they think about "Assault Rifles" but most couldn't identify one if they saw it.  Most aren't sure what makes them "so deadly", and most think the civilian versions of military guns are the same thing used by the military.  Most also thing they and the bullets they shoot are super deadly.  Most think they are favored by criminals and have no idea they are only used in 1.4% of the homicides.  Most would not guess that many Assault Rifles can be made legal non assault rifles just by removing things like a pistol grip from them.  Most don't realize that most assault rifles are short range guns that aren't deadly enough to be used for big game.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 26, 2018 - 7:15pm
rycK the JFK Democrat funny you should mention that; could it be that the real purpose is not to reduce carnage, but rather to get guns out of legal gun owners hands?
Gerrilea Added Mar 27, 2018 - 12:53am
RYCK The JFK D & Rusty S--- 
     YES, now you're on to something there:  "...to get the guns out of legal gun owners hands"!!!
Step one, disarm the masses.
Step two, cross the Rubicon.
Step three, kill anyone whom doesn't want you to install yourself as Dictator for Life.
"No hon, this is for the children.......You CT nutcase!"
"Buuttt...what about this?"
Highway Safety: 11 Teens Die Each Day Due To Texting & Driving
"Dearie, you can't change the subject that easily! We're talking about you HAVING THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN ON YOUR HANDS! "
"Ma'am, I want to save the lives of children."
"No you don't, you want your PRECIOUS guns in the hands of children!"
Leroy Added Mar 27, 2018 - 9:50am
My brother-in-law just bought my sister a rifle with a camo collapsable stock and thumb hole.  I don't recall the caliber, but 7mm seems to be in vogue these days.  I am not much into the fancy stocks.  I prefer the beauty of wood.  In any case, no one has anything to fear from my sister.  The schools would be well-advised to let her bring it to school.  He also bought her a massive pickup.  I never thought of her as a truck girl, but she likes it.  He bought it for safety.  Truthfully, the world should fear the pickup more than the rifle.  She's picked up the nasty habit of texting while driving.  She picked me up at the hospital a couple weeks ago.  Scared the crap out of me.  She does use voice to create the messages, but, then, she has to correct and send them.  It a constant yo-yo-ing back and forth and side to side that makes me nervous, especially on busy roads.  I have another sister who handles it better.  She can be on the phone taking a message with a pen and bottle of water in the other hand while making a left turn at the light with her knees.  I kid you not.  But, she can do it safely.  
Rusty Smith Added Mar 27, 2018 - 11:09am
Leroy since I don't live in a real bad neighborhood I do worry much more about many other things than getting shot because for me, they are more likely to get me killed.  
I don't live that far from some bad neighborhoods, not nearly as bad as the one on the forum map but I try to stay away from them especially at night because I know how bad they are.  My children are all not allowed to go in any of the bad neighborhoods, in the day or at night, not even with lots of friends.  
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 27, 2018 - 11:17am
The thugs will always have guns. 
Gerrilea Added Mar 27, 2018 - 11:46am
Leroy, Nice to hear/read...she's learning to shoot.  As for the pickup, the kids really don't understand how powerful a vehicle really is and how much damage it can do in seconds.  That conversation on their phone is more important.
Rusty S-- Who in their right mind would go into a bad neighborhood, let alone raise their children there?
Ryck TJFK D-- Criminals obey the laws, come on now...we're just oppressing them by labeling them in a negative light.
--"Drug Dealers" should be labeled Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs. --"Gangbangers" should be labeled Community Organizers, jeez.
--"Rapists" should be labeled Gender Studies Researchers.
--"Home Invaders" should be labeled Junk Acquisition Professionals.
And just because someone might not follow the rules, doesn't mean we shouldn't have them...amirite???
Ugh...wait...what side am I on again? 
Gun control and regulation has always been a means to disarm the populous.  If we go by just "criminal records" alone, by the time a child today reaches 23 yrs old, 41% of them have been arrested.  Meaning that "March for Life" thingy...almost 1/2 of them can't own a gun anyways.
Just 10 yrs ago, the number of Americans that have been arrested reached 87 million, or 28% of the population.
Whether you know it or not, they've already "taken" the guns from what is approaching, the majority of Americans. No need to go door-to-door, really.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 27, 2018 - 12:32pm
Gerrilea:  If we go by just "criminal records" alone, by the time a child today reaches 23 yrs old, 41% of them have been arrested. 
You have to be convicted of a crime that is punishable by more than a year in jail to be denied a gun purchase.  Many of those people arrested, are not convicted, and many of them dont receive a sentence of a year or more. 
In fact most of the people that fall into the category of being arrested for more than a traffic citation were arrested for DWI. Go to any municipal court, and the room is full of DWI offenders.  DWI is more than a traffic citation but it will not stop you from legally buying a firearm. 
Yet your point is taken, that there are many reasons why someone would fail a background check, being arrested is not the only one.  As they add more reasons, they are limiting the people who can legally buy a weapon.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 27, 2018 - 12:33pm
"Ryck TJFK D-- Criminals obey the laws, come on now...we're just oppressing them by labeling them in a negative light."
Now, that is truly novel. 
I said: "The thugs will always have guns. "
I did not say "Criminals obey the laws,"
Criminals ignore  the laws and need guns for their businesses. 
"Ugh...wait...what side am I on again? "
I cannot imagine. 
Gerrilea Added Mar 27, 2018 - 1:13pm
Bill K--- Here's the link to the FBI's NICS check:
Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited from Receiving
Here's a few I find suspect:
--a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
How would they know you failed a drug test?  You mean when you apply for a job and they send you to pee in a cup, if you fail, you can't exercise an unalienable right?
--A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution
So Adrian Schoolcraft, the NYC Police Officer, turned whistleblower was involuntarily committed by his fellow "officers" after he went public with their crimes.
They put people in psych wards "for observation and evaluation" for various reasons, most of the time, it's not what any normal person would consider "legitimate".
--A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces
And this short list for Dishonorable Discharges are:
 AWOL, Sedition, Sexual Assault, Murder or Manslaughter
All those draft protesters during the Vietnam War were declared AWOL...How interesting.  Sexual Assault, that means Julian Assange couldn't get a firearm here.  Manslaughter?  Who knew
--A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
Wait, so if I protest our endless unfunded wars and I rip up my passport and say "I'm not a US citizen", the US government doesn't have to follow the rules they were given, IN the constitution? 
--A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
The last one is the truly scary one.  You're not convicted of anything, yet, so you lose your constitutionally protected rights?  Like your Miranda Rights?  You have no right to remain silent, once you've been arrested...got it.
Does this mean they don't have to follow the 4th and 5th Amendments either?  Privacy rights and Due Process? What about the 8th Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment?
Oh wait, those amendments were gutted by Obama already with targeted assassinations.
Anyone claiming that "gun control" is to save only to save lives, hasn't been paying attention.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 27, 2018 - 5:26pm
As you guys know the European governments have collected all guns and testicles, so I could only guess what an assault rifle is. I heard the word so often in American news stories that I'm convinced that they shoot radioactive explosives through 30 inch thick walls.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 27, 2018 - 6:11pm
Benjamin Goldstein You might be surprised to know that the vast majority of our police have no idea which gun models are banned and which aren't, there are just far too many and the rulings are rather arbitrary.  
Originally there was a list of very specific guns even down to who made them, but very quickly they realized lots of other manufactures  also made similar guns, so they tried but never got all of them on the list.  Here in California Ghost Guns are common, they are for all purposes just like other guns, but not registered and have no serial number because the receiver was not finished and functional when it was sold.  Usually anyone with a router and a drill can finish it.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 27, 2018 - 6:16pm
Trying to stop crime by outlawing guns is like trying to prevent rape by making women go around naked so the won't wear provocative clothing.
In both situations you are presuming the criminal can be controlled by forcing potential victims to do things that are more likely to inspire than deter the criminals. 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Mar 27, 2018 - 6:17pm
There is a very funny cartoon about Ghost Guns:
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 28, 2018 - 9:18am
Can't believe you guys are still arguing about whether gun controls would reduce the violent death toll.   Empirical evidence in a whole raft of other countries proves that gun controls reduce violent death (from all causes interestingly enough... not just those directly inflicted by firearms).
As for sport... as people have stated elsewhere, slaughtering some animal using a high powered weapon and a telescopic sight is not sport.  It is purely slaughter.  I get it though.  You like to imagine yourselves living the life of some frontiersman when men were men and sheep (and every else) were nervous...   It is a good fantasy compared to modern life where it is very easy to feel powerless.   I am not powerless with a 60 round per minute thingummy ... I can blow anyone away....
I think that you should be honest with yourselves.   Yes, the gun culture in the USA costs a whole lot of lives.  But hey, you like having guns.  They make you feel more manly.   But take a rest from the bullshit justifications.
These come from what we call the "task justification" for wanting to do some thing.  This is the reason you give the world in general to justify what you do.  But it usually bullshit.  The real reason we call the "non task justification".   It is usually something you are slightly ashamed of.  So you construct, in your mind, a "task justification"... a bullshit justification.
Task justifications:  
More guns reduce violence (The don't.. they increase violent death)
I like to use it for sport (No you don't.  It's not sport.  Killing things make you feel less powerless and gives you a buzz)
I want to protect my family (Your family actually more likely to suffer harm because of a firearm being kept in the house... especially if it is not kept under lock and key... in which case...  BTW 21 people killed by toddlers with Dad's gun last year.   Having a gun also makes it much easier for your kids to top themselves if the black cloud should descend one day.)
It helps me to protect against criminals with guns (Duuhh... if guns are controlled then few criminals carry them either... look at empirical evidence from other countries)
I need one in case the government becomes tyrannical (good luck against the CIA, US military and drones...)
C'mon guys.   Have guns if you want to.  It's your right.   It's written on a tablet of stone somewhere.   But just give us a break from the bullshit.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 28, 2018 - 11:34am
Robin the red breasted songster I live on the outskirts of violent cities were there are 1 or 2 gun deaths in an area that has several million people.  15 to 30 minutes away there are far fewer people and more like 5 or 6 or often more deaths in small areas I try not to even drive though.  
There is a distinct possibility people where I live will at some time be the object of home invasion robbers, over the last 20 years they have struck within a block and did brutalize but not kill several of my unarmed neighbors. 
Two tried my house one time and I stopped them at the door with one of my guns, and let them run.  I think they deserved to be shot but didn't because I'd be in too much trouble even if the shooting was found to be justified.  The police refused to come out and even take a report because I told them no one had fired a gun.
I also hunt regularly, but not because I have to, I like to.  I did live off what I shot for 2 years after I bought my house, I didn't have money to buy other food.  
I grew up with guns had my first semi auto given to me at 12, and bought my first big bore pistol at 14.  Many guns I have are family heirlooms.  I have reloaded since I was 13.  Most of my friends have guns and hunt, practically all our vacations center around fishing and hunting seasons.  
It might surprise you to know that neither myself or any close friend I have has ever had to shoot someone, in civilian life, and none of us or anyone in one of our families has ever been shot.  
If we lived in a bad neighborhood, even  15 minutes away that couldn't possibly be true.  
My point is that people who aren't violent and don't live near violent people might as well be in another country, because it's so much safer than the places that are super violent.  
I really don't care if drug dealers kill each other with guns or baseball bats, I think they deserve each other.  I'm not willing to give up any of my guns so that they need to use knives or baseball bats.  I just hope they continue to kill each other and leave me alone.
Dino Manalis Added Mar 28, 2018 - 12:41pm
We won't stop illegal ones, so assault rifles are here to stay in one form or another.  The emphasis should be on screening gun buyers; paying attention to the mentally-ill; and adequate security for public places, including schools.
Gerrilea Added Mar 28, 2018 - 1:15pm
Robin TRBS-- Sadly for the diatribe you wrote, most of it doesn't really matter.  More guns in this nation does not equal more deaths.  In fact, homicides and violent deaths have gone down as gun laws were relaxed throughout the nation.  Your arguments are moot.
The 2nd Amendment protections aren't for hunting. There is no predefined "exclusive purpose" for said.  The writers of the 2nd A made their opinion known, for the protection of this nation.  This doesn't mean that is the only "purpose".
Purpose and intent are immaterial.  While I do not own any firearms,  I have the unalienable right to do so.
Mr Smith down the street has them for hunting.  Mr. Jones collects them as a hobby.  And Crazy Bob Hamilton, down the street acquires them for that Zombie Apocalypse he's been reading about.
Again, purpose and intent are immaterial.
That negates your "task justifications".
You do present a great example, the CIA, however.  Let's expand on that a moment.
They've fomented color revolutions, trained AND armed insurgents and toppled over 58 countries in the last 100 yrs.  They know that an armed population can overthrow their own governments.  Odd that you now believe we couldn't do the same here. 
Here, educate yourself on the facts.  A timeline of the CIA enforcing American Hegemony.
Our nation has over 350 million arms in the hands of private citizens.  The only way you could get them all would be by door-to-door confiscation AFTER the suspension of our constitution and a declaration of Marshall Law. Which, by the way, would be a treasonous act and a declaration of war against We The People.  I offer you the position and task of collecting them.  Let's see how long you survive.
Let history be your guide on that endeavor, if you dare take it up.  What did we do the last time a government sent troops in to confiscate the weapons?  We fought a revolution and won.  Surely you're aware of the "Shot Heard Around the World" at Lexington and Concord?
Robin, we're in this for keeps. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 28, 2018 - 1:27pm
I think Rusty that you are an exception in that you live in an extremely violent area with ineffective policing.  I would get political and campaign to change that if I were you.   You live in a free country so you should not have to put up with being terrorised by gun toting thugs.
It is an example of the prisoners dilemma:  The people who live around you have guns so you need a gun to protect yourself against them.   Then the person who lives next to you needs a gun... because he doesn't know you that well but has seen you around with a gun....
I also don't believe that there are many Americans who actually use a gun to get their food rather that dropping round the supermarket (unless it is by holding up the cashier).   You can, of course, simply pick up road kill if you are that desperate for food.   I also know of people who eat from the food thrown away outside of supermarkets and restaurants because it is past its "sell by" date.
As a fantasy, the gun fantasy is probably OK right up until someone is called out on it.  That is when the fantasist is faced with either humiliation or using his gun...
About 35 years ago my boss owned a replica sub machine gun.   It looked really good but could never fire.   Then one day, the police were called by a neighbour who saw someone breaking into his house (there is a story behind this which I cannot tell because some of those involved are still alive...).   They turned up and found that the door had been forced but there was no sign of anything having been stolen or damaged.   However they did find six cannabis plants and the replica gun.   They thought it was real and that they had uncovered a drug taking IRA (Irish Republican Army... back then these were the terrorists trying to kill us all ... Catholics rather than Muslims..) cell (there is not a lot of crime round our way...).  They called for the heavy mob (armed response) who had to come from Bristol (about 30 miles away).  They realised that it was a fake and things then calmed down... except my boss was arrested for growing drugs when he came back from Germany and fined fifty quid.
Business was much more fun back then...
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 28, 2018 - 4:14pm
Get rid of assault cops, assault politicians, assault bureaucrats, assault doctors all of whom by themselves kill many magnitudes more than guns.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 28, 2018 - 4:35pm
Redbreasted:  Empirical evidence in a whole raft of other countries proves that gun controls reduce violent death
These other countries do not have the equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.  So it is not a fair comparison. 
If we try to lay some kind of gun controls, on top of the right to have guns, then we have rather ineffectual laws.  Add in the fact that there are a fair number of people wanting to eliminate or neuter the 2nd Amendment, and the type of controls that will pass Congress are even more limited and ineffectual.  
Whether people can buy guns at 18 or 21, whether we limit clip size, or whether we stop selling AR-15s, there are 300 million guns in circulation and people can get what they need or want. 
A certain number of gun homicides are going to come with the right to have guns.  Some will be accidents, some will be murders.  That is just how it is. 
Jeff Michka Added Mar 28, 2018 - 7:15pm
Rusted Smith sez: Assault Rifles similarly to how I regard fantasy knives, a lot of visual appeal to some people with very little if any real world practical advantages.-Like most people should regard fantasy warriors like yourself and a few others around here, yeah right, "Armed Americans are the only thing that keeps America from becoming a dictatorship...that bad ol gummint. you know, the one fully controlled by the GOP, rightists, racists, and Trumpists.  Frankly, wanna keep that bad ol gummint away?  just put the muzzle of your assault rifle in your mouth and wedge a toe into the trigger. "Poof." for you, no more "bad ol gummint."and people can get what they need or want-Yup, since you want to take on the government, then troops and cops will be your enemies in the field.  Like elsewhere IN THE WORLD NOT GETTING WEAPONS AIRDROPPED FROM THE US, kill one and take their weapon.  Talk about crossing the Rubicon, eh?
Jeff Michka Added Mar 28, 2018 - 7:21pm
RRSB sez: (Gorilla sez:) Sadly for the diatribe you wrote, most of it doesn't really matter.  More guns in this nation does not equal more deaths.  In fact, homicides and violent deaths have gone down as gun laws were relaxed throughout the nation.  Your arguments are moot.-Yeah, take 'rilla's word, she sez she knows everything. like the canard "In order to stop gun violence, we don't need laws, we need more guns."  Dana Loesch, NRA shill changed her name.
Katharine Otto Added Mar 28, 2018 - 10:53pm
Thanks for the explanation.  My take home message is the government is busy regulating many things it doesn't understand.  It is good at spending money it doesn't have on programs and laws that don't work but create lots of jobs for people who don't know how to do anything except tell other people what to do.
I got rid of my father's guns, because I'm afraid of them, but I'm reading now about how the commercial drone business is gearing up.  I'm already plagued by machine noise from all directions, including military helicopters and aircraft over my house.  I may need a shotgun if those drones start violating my ear(air)space, too.  
I would like to point out that the US was founded on violence and has been involved in violence more or less since its inception.  It's built into our DNA.  We have never learned to cope without it.  If we really want to reduce violence, we need to quit glamorizing it in perpetual wars, movies, television, video games, sports, and politics.
Gerrilea Added Mar 28, 2018 - 11:53pm
Kathrine O--- Do you really think it's in the DNA now?  Some may be predisposed to violent tendencies, for sure...but you're point about movies, tel-lie-vision, etc reveals a "conditioning" of sorts.  How each of us deals with adversity and chaos is to beat, kill, eliminate... the "offender".  That glamorization instills the false idea that you (generic) can become the hero in your own mind.  Violence sells here because people have become "accustomed" to it. 
The true culprit is the Military Industrial Complex.  Many of the blockbusters have military censors.  THEN there's the CIA and it's involvement with Hollywood.  They have an Entertainment Liaison Office.  Don't forget "Operation Mockingbird" and their control of the Media.
You can't have endless unfunded wars without a population that's willing to fight for you.  
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 29, 2018 - 1:48am
Do you really think it's in the DNA now?  
Damn skippy. Just look at so many people calling to turn this that or the other country into nuclear ash.
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 7:59am
Jeff G--- I agree, I see the escalation of rhetoric...some of it I actually agree with but that's a far cry from actually doing it. 
Is the thought the same as the act? No.
The brutality in many 3rd world nations is bizarre.  But is it caused by human genetics, or as I posit, conditioning by our MIC and our continuous "war footing" and wars?  The genre of prime time cops shows, blockbuster movies and rap "music"...how much of that contributes to the mentality?
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 8:07am
Jeff M--- You truly are a psychotic piece of work. Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves, especially when they advocate the rule of law through our Constitutional Republic.
If you hate guns and the GOP and all those racists and Trumpists...how about you vote against them?  Oh you did, eh? And you lost? 
Rusty Smith Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:11am
Robin the red breasted songster Although I was often hungry because I was house poor for a few years, I never felt like I wasn't in control and any time I wanted more protein I knew it was up to me to go out and shoot more.  Where I live it's illegal to pick up road kill, they do that so people don't poach, claiming they "found it".
Where you live the only way to get protein may be to purchase it at a store but where I live you can get it for far less if you shoot it yourself especially if you already have the right tools for the job.  Of course the tools vary a lot depending on what you feel like eating, no one shoots geese with a 22, or rabbits with a 30-06.
Of course you have to buy a hunting license, but that's only once a year and a good investment.  I also have to buy deer tags, one for each deer I want to take, and sometimes if the area I want to hunt in is overrun with bears, they even throw in a bear tag for free.  A lot of game like deer are pretty lean and a lot more tasty if you cook them in bear fat or make them into stew.
I don't feel like I live in a violent place even though home invasion robbers once tried to get in my house, I feel like I am in control of my own safety and do a pretty good job.  There are several neighborhoods not too far away that I avoid like the plague especially at night because I know they are very violent, but they are pretty easy to avoid since they have nothing I need.  About all they have that's unique is a lot of drugs that I don't use.  Most stores in those areas closed long ago because the folks in those communities drove them out of business, or in some cases rioted and burned them down.  As a result they live in a cesspool of violence of their own making.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:15am
Jeff Michka WOW, you sure are a hot head, I'm glad you don't like guns.  It sounds like someone needs to report you before you get so irate that you kill someone.  If you had one I wouldn't be surprised if you threatened people with it.  
Perhaps there are good reasons for taking guns away from people who don't seem to be able to control their emotions.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 29, 2018 - 11:41am
Katharine Otto the government gets into lots of things they know very little about and often pass laws that don't even make sense.  Almost very politician wants to appeal to the major voting groups, including those who are worried about "gun violence", and other things like the man made global warming.  In their frantic search for something they can claim they did to help make things better they often create or support proposed laws that SOUND LIKE they will appeal to their potential voting groups. 
They gladly pass anything anti-gun, even things they don't understand at all, because doing so appeals to many of their voters, who also don't understand what's being done.  
Where I live the laws are so conflicting that it's impossible to go hunting in a Jeep or pickup truck without violating firearm transportation laws.  However I can buy an airgun with a silencer, that's as powerful as a Colt 45 without ID or a permit, via the internet, because that's not against the law, (it's not classified as a firearm).  I have a few airguns that can kill people, none are considered firearms.  I can also buy a kit that makes it easy for me to "finish" building the trigger mechanism on an unregistered AR-15 lower receiver, using just a router and a drill, and then LEGALLY OWN one that is not only not registered, but doesn't even have a serial number.
I can't carry an unloaded rifle or shotgun home from a store, or even take one to the police station so they can destroy it, even if I don't own any bullets, and I can't get a permit to carry one concealed, even if I have to work in very dangerous places.  Most of my friends do carry anyway, and none have ever gotten in trouble for doing so because most police don't enforce those laws unless the person does something criminal, or they don't like the person.
I don't like the fact that I have to break the law and risk arrest in order to go hunting.  I don't like the fact that a cop can bust me if they are having a bad day and don't like my attitude or the way I look.  I don't think my right to own a gun was ever intended to imply I only had that right if I never take it out of my house, unless I first buy a vehicle that has a locking trunk so I can legally put my guns somewhere out of reach from passengers, and keep them separate from the bullets.
Somehow I don't think any of those stupid laws have much of an effect on the targeted criminals, who are on their way to rob liquor stores, or mug or murder someone.  The only practical application of those laws is making trouble for people who are not criminally inclined.  
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:10pm
"Somehow I don't think any of those stupid laws have much of an effect on the targeted criminals, who are on their way to rob liquor stores, or mug or murder someone. "
In many respects the Dems are aligned with the criminals as crime generates many jobs in inner cities such as  police, medical, prisons, counseling, drug rehab, jails social workers, welfare and more. 
If crime disappeared, suddenly, in a major inner city then how many jobs would be lost. 
The left owes a lot to criminals for sex, drugs, politics, votes and much more. They tolerate crime and their gun laws are ineffective and this does not bother the left in control of inner cities. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:25pm
Rusty:   I am sure that you personally were always in control.
The problem with law making is that you have to design for the lowest common denominator.
I guess that you would be perfectly safe driving a car without having to have taken a test, register for a licence and buy insurance.   But I think you would agree that it would be foolish to let everyone do that... because we all know that not everyone is as responsible as you believe yourself to be.
Same with guns.
BTW having reasonable gun laws does not mean "banning guns".   That is an emotional phrase used by the pro-gun lobby.   Private British citizens have over 3 million firearms legally owned.   If you want to hunt, and can show you are responsible, you can do it.   You do need to show that you have the necessary skill and inclination to be able to do so without causing unnecessary suffering or danger to the public and without killing species that are on the protected list.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:31pm
Bill Kamps:
You say that other countries, who have lower levels of violent death because of sensible guns laws, do not have the Second Amendment.
True they don't.
If your constitution contains statements which cause thousands of deaths a year then.....   I guess it is time to change the constitution.
Who is in charge here?   You?   Or some bunch of beaverskin wearing people from 200 years ago?
Just because your country is only a few centuries old it does not mean that you have to be so awestruck by some declaration from 200 years ago.  All legislation should be reviewed.   Even sacred cows like the 2nd Amendment.
The one thing I know about sacred cows... they make great steaks!
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:38pm
Rusty:  Gun controls have a very direct effect on criminals.
Most policemen know who is committing most of the crime.  It follows a normal distribution.  90% of the crime is generally committed by about 10% of the criminals out there.  The police know who they are... they just need evidence.   Ownership of an unlicenced firearm is a great way to allow the police to actually pick you up.
The professional criminals in the UK know this.  And, as a result, they don't carry guns.   They would be stupid to do so.  Generally it would not reduce their chances of being arrested whilst committing a crime and, instead, it would lead to higher likelihood of being arrested for possession and for far harsher sentences.
All the best criminal talent these days is moving into fraud and cyber crime.   Physical crime just does not pay that well anymore.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 29, 2018 - 12:50pm
Robin: If your constitution contains statements which cause thousands of deaths a year then.....   I guess it is time to change the constitution.
Cars accidents cause some 30K deaths a year in the US, and we dont think about removing them from the road.
There are some 2.6 millions deaths of all kinds in the US per year.  Its a big country.  Some 11K  are results of gun homicides.  Less than one death in 20.    If we banned guns we would not get rid of all of them.
Changing any amendment to the constitution is not easy, and changing the 2nd, would be particularly difficult because lots of people own guns, and  want to own guns.  I guess my take is that one death in 20 being caused by a gun, is the  price we pay.  Just like 30K deaths a  year in car accidents is the price we pay for having cars.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 29, 2018 - 4:27pm
2A is here to stay despite the howls of the left. 
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 29, 2018 - 4:40pm
Bill:   USA violent death rate (from all causes) is 4 to 5 times higher than most other first world countries.  Gun culture is the major difference.    It also affects the life expectancy because it makes people fearful of each other.   Lack of direct social contact is the strongest predictor of early death.   USA life expectancy approx 2-3 years less than UK and Western European countries (although single payer medicine has a lot to do with this as well).
Guns are not really a necessity of modern life... unlike a car... just to state the blindingly obvious.   If you banned cars, life would grind to a halt.   If you did not ban, but sensibly controlled guns, life would blossom...
But you are right, it is your country and you can do what you want.  I think what you are doing is monumentally stupid... and so do most Europeans.   But that is just our opinion.   If having guns around is worth 11,000 deaths a year, then that is your choice.
However I would like to point out that the 9/11 attack claimed around 3 -4000 lives.....about 4 months average death toll for your gun habit.   Because of 9/11 we all went to war...
Gerrilea Added Mar 29, 2018 - 5:56pm
Robin--- Your relativistic morality and arguments aside, we have no desires to be like you.  Didn't we fight a Revolution to throw you out of our nation? Why would we wish to become like you again?  You don't have free speech, you don't have free religion, unless you're a Muslim and you don't have the freedom to defend yourself.
Go ahead, say something mean about Muslims...awe hell, say something truthful and you'll be in jail tomorrow.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 30, 2018 - 10:46am
"Guns are not really a necessity of modern life... unlike a car... just to state the blindingly obvious.   If you banned cars, life would grind to a halt.   If you did not ban, but sensibly controlled guns, life would blossom..."
Guns are essential in crime such as drug dealing, robbery, kidnapping, mugging and others. 
Just tell us why the gun laws do not work in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, Elizabeth, Atlanta and Oakland??
Oh!  Crooks will not obey such laws! Really?
Katharine Otto Added Mar 30, 2018 - 11:23am
Your answer just gives me more "ammunition" against the totally irrational and out-of-control government.  I suspect that if government and media would quit harping on this, the gun violence would decrease naturally.  But they like to stir the pot to keep things interesting and to keep people at odds with each other.
I was sort of kidding when I suggested violence is in our DNA.  I do know we have few examples of reconciling differences without it.  Maybe it's the male-dominated history, the association of violence and war with masculinity, the notion of "survival of the fittest" that presumes survival depends on eliminating competition.  I do believe people need to lighten up and quit taking everything so seriously.
That the Brits transferred their attitudes to the colonies, then induced the colonies to fight their wars for them, makes guns unnecessary, perhaps, in the UK.  The Brits are amazingly clever at convincing the world they are worth fighting for.  But do take note of the legacy of the British Empire, which depended on guns, the military and shipping to expand its influence around the world, when the US was still a fledgling British clone.  The Brits controlled the slave trade, for instance, and were notorious for piracy on the open seas.  Of course it would benefit you to have your adversaries unarmed.
I, for one, would be happy to withdraw from NATO and the UN, and let the Europeans fight their own battles.  I would be happy to disband the military, too, and all other careers that involve carrying or using guns.  As long as the police and military have them, anyone should be allowed.  
Robin the red breasted songster Added Mar 30, 2018 - 1:33pm
Gentlemen and Ladies:  I am making no moral judgements about the USA and gun laws.  Neither do I claim any sort of moral superiority.   You do what you want.  It's your country
I merely am pointing out that empirical evidence from other countries demonstrates that tighter controls save lives.   It is a fact... not an opinion.
I am also pointing out how I believe many people invent false reasons for justifying wanting guns... because the real reasons that they want them are somewhat embarrassing and they don't want to admit them even to themselves (I accept that there will be exceptions to this... Like Rusty who seems to live in downtown Beirut and needs to hunt for his supper in the wilderness).
The level of vitriol that this opinion seems to have attracted tends to make me think that I am right.   I have hit close to home.
If you rather have guns and pay the price of thousands of lives each year in order to have them, then that is up to you.  But lets be honest about why you want them and stop insulting everyone's intelligence.
And Katherine, it has nothing to do with the armed forces.   I think that you will find that most times that the USA has invited us to a war (most recently Iraq which turned out to be on a false premise), we have turned up with enthusiasm.    Unfortunately the USA had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the war against Hitler et al...
This debate is about guns in everyday civilised life, not the armed forces
By the way, Katherine, if you look at the slave trade.  You are quite right, we were highly involved in it.  It is a lasting shame on our history.  Cities like Bristol got all their wealth from it.  
However the facts as these:   Britain abolished slavery in the UK some 100 years plus before it was abolished in the USA (so much for the home of "freedom" etc eh?), abolished the slave trade in British vessels from the late 18th century and finally abolished slavery in all Imperial countries in 1820 something... around 40 years before it was abolished in the USA.
So, in other words, I would not try and claim moral superiority for the USA in the slavery question.   The facts are against you.
The USA may also have been late coming into Imperialist activities... but it has done very well since it started up.   First the native Americans were disenfranchised and driven off of the land onto worthless reservations (those that were not slaughtered) in order to extend the US empire westward, then additions such as Hawaii through sponsored coup, then more recently empire building through commercial means (often at great cost to the world e.g. Iran and Iraq and all that followed after...). 
Effectively all countries do it when they have the chance.   But Americans do go on about "Freedom" ad nauseam...  I just wish they were rather more honest.
Gerrilea Added Mar 30, 2018 - 2:56pm
Robin--  Honesty?  If you wanted polite public debate, why make false circular arguments?  "The only western nation", "the only 1st world nation"?  Of course you stand in judgment of us and you do so with an upturned nose, similar to your "British Lord's" and "British Monarchy".
Our nation is young and old at the same time (talk about a personality conflict). We were immigrants from England and Europe, generally.  It was your settlers, our ancestors, that drove the Native Americans to the brink of extinction.  It was your nation that supplied slaves to the colonies. IN fact, you have a 2000 yr history of enslaving others.
We inherited those same prejudices, policies and procedures until we became our own nation.  Slavery was eventually abolished, by force & blood.  Millions died to free our fellow man, only to enslave them in a more dastardly way...through wage slavery, etc. But that's a story for another day.
We are learning as we go, mostly. We're doing it on our own terms, not the terms your nation has dictated by your ruling elite and signed off by your potentate...  Sadly, we seem to have come full circle.  Our "s"elected leaders want us just like you are now, disarmed, impotent and a ward of the Almighty State. 
NO thank you.
NOW you want us to be honest about freedom, seriously? 
What freedoms to you entertain today?  Can you speak freely?  Can you practice religion freely?  Can you defend yourself in your own home? We already know you can't own a firearm for self-defense purposes...what FREEDOMS do you actually enjoy?
Let's have an honest debate, if you dare.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 30, 2018 - 7:14pm
Robin the red breasted songster making people take gun safety courses certainly would save lives, but the question is how many and is there a negative impact.  
To the first part, in the US our accidental gunshot death rated is so low that few of us know someone who has died via a gun accident.  About an average of 10 people a year in each state die from accidents.  Each state has lots of cities and many cities have millions of people.  As things are without classes more kids die in private pools than die from gun accidents, they are pretty rare.  
In contrast the deaths from homicide is up in the thousands, and they are no accident.  That number dwarfs the accidents and will not be reduced even a little if criminals are taught how to handle their guns safely.  In fact I would like it if they did accidentally shoot themselves.
Now we have to look at what a gun is to American gun owners, most consider it the ultimate equalizer.  My elderly mom can't hardly walk, and I'm sure she couldn't pass a test that required her to show the safe way to cross a fence with a gun, but she sure can defend herself with one.  Any test that required as much physical strength as it takes to chamber a round in most semi auto pistols, would be beyond her, so there is a good chance she can't pass any test you might give her.  She's darn good with a small revolver, especially if she's sitting down, and I don't think it's far to deprive her of the right to own a gun just because she is not physically capable of handling many guns she couldn't use even if she had them.  In order for any gun safety course to work the person has to get there, my mom doesn't go anywhere and I'm glad she doesn't have to go attend some sort of testing, in order to keep a pistol in her knitting bag at home.  As long as she has enough marbles to do all her own finances, including her taxes, I think she should be allowed to keep her guns.
Rusty Smith Added Mar 30, 2018 - 7:20pm
Robin the red breasted songster our police know who most of the criminals are too, but they aren't allowed to search them for weapons unless they are recently out of prison and still on parole, and even then only their parole officer would know who they would be.  
What you're talking about, searching those who might be breaking the law is called profiling in the US and highly illegal.  I'm sure our police could reduce crime dramatically if they could go after likely criminals when they see them but then the minority communities would scream and then the police back off.  Personally I think it's time to take the police away so they can't be accused of targeting minority communities, and let the thugs kill each other. 
Jeff Michka Added Mar 30, 2018 - 7:23pm
Rusted Smith, 2nd amendment fool sez: You truly are a psychotic piece of work. Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves, especially when they advocate the rule of law through our Constitutional Republic."Anyone" means just you, tone cop.  Yeah, I'm a gun owner, probably a better shot than you'll ever be, but by all means turn me in.  You are so desperate to keep your BS2ndA crap, you'll say anything.   Remember, you start turning people in because YOU think they need it says, you should pay both civic and criminal penalties for falsely doing so.  You don't know me, or anything about me.  You can't win the "2nd A uber alles", so like your fellow rightists try and remove those who call bullshit on your stuff.  Doesn't matter Rusted, you are still Bullshit. 
Rusty Smith Added Mar 31, 2018 - 11:25am
Jeff Michka I think you need to take a pill, cool down a little, maybe stop drinking, and re-read whatever it was that got your panties in a bunch.  I'm sure you are a much better shot than I am and have many times more trophies.  I've probably watched you on Youtube  and just didn't know it was you.
I have never said:
"Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves"
After you calm down and re-read whatever it was that got you so hot and bothered, please explain what your last post was referring to with quotes so that I can better understand what you mean and reply.
I don't even remember anyone else saying that in this forum.  The closest I've come is to say that it would be fine with me if thugs killed each other and I freely admit I'm fine with that.  To me a thug is someone who victimizes other people and if they were caught killing someone they could easily face the death penalty.  If two of them somehow killed each other I think that would be poetic justice and save a lot of tax money.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Mar 31, 2018 - 1:51pm
"Jeff Michka I think you need to take a pill, cool down a little, maybe stop drinking, and re-read whatever it was that got your panties in a bunch. "
Rusty Smith Added Mar 31, 2018 - 6:11pm
rycK the JFK Democrat I'd say guns are the least necessary for city folks who live in safe neighborhoods and the most necessary for people who live in dangerous places or use them to put food on the table.  
I don't know anyone who is a pure substance hunter, but know lots of people who regularly put a portion of their food on the table after shooting it themselves.  For about 2 years I was very house poor and shot the vast majority of my protein.  
I often think it's not fair that people who live in big cities and don't shoot any of their own food want to take guns from those who do.  The same for those living in ultra safe neighborhoods.
As for those who still say guns aren't worth the carnage they cause, I say, first it's bad people that create the carnage, not the guns and second, I like to remind people we gladly embrace lots of other things that kill because we consider them well worth the trade off.
We could drop the speed limit to 25 mph and save tens of thousands of lives a year but it it worth it?  After all no one needs to go faster and the only thing we save by doing so is a little time.  Is saving lives worth getting places a little later...  Obviously not to most people.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 1, 2018 - 3:19pm
Rusted Smith opines: I think you need to take a pill, cool down a little, maybe stop drinking, and re-read whatever it was that got your panties in a bunch.  I'm sure you are a much better shot than I am and have many times more trophies.  I've probably watched you on Youtube  and just didn't know it was you.-Really, rightist lap dog? I don't have anything up on Youboob, and never have.  You got your little hands-rightist manhood tweaked by someone not applauding your John Wayneism. Awww,  so, obviously I'm a crazy drunk to you.  I suggested a quick way for you to stop worrying about the bad ol Gummint coming to get you, and you decided the options were better.  It has been totally pointless quoting your crap back at you, or asking for answers you just can't/won't give.  Hey, you've got an ardent follower in ol syck ryck the Barry Goldwater Republican.  You've only supplied tone cop noise, not "ideas."  Watch out and keep yer guns close. "They" are waiting in the shadows for you, Rusted.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Apr 1, 2018 - 3:48pm
There is an argument that, if you are going to let all and sundry run around with machines specifically designed to kill their fellow man, then they should have the very best of those machines.   Otherwise, where do you draw the line.
How many people should it be possible to slaughter in one minute?   Or in the time it takes for the SWAT team to arrive?   What is the record so far?   Something north of 50 I believe?
The madness is in allowing anyone who wants to run around with a killing machine in the first place.   If you allow that as sanity, then there is no reason for them not to have an assault weapon... or a tank... flamethrower ... whatever.   Personally I favour minefields and attack dogs as the best form of home defence...
Just as a matter of interest, I see from statistics in the UK that more than 90% of fatal attacks are committed by someone directly known to the victim (i.e. family, crime of passion, or rival gang members).   A vanishingly small number of fatal attacks occur from what Americans would call "home invasion" by strangers.   So, actually, you really don't need weapons to defend your home... just to check that you have the right friends....
I don't know what the proportion is in the USA.   It would be interesting to know.  Maybe the "home invasion" fear in the USA is actually groundless too?
BTW Here we have started to see 20 mph zones in places where there are likely to be pedestrians present.. especially children.   The good drivers already drive with such care anyway... this simply makes the bad drivers follow suit.    A child's chance of surviving a collision with a car is nine times higher at 20 mph than at 30 mph.   Smooth driving at 20 mph in crowded conditions, without the acceleration and braking, takes virtually no extra time in most cases... and it saves wear on tyres and brakes etc.
Conversely, on Motorways, there is a case for increasing the speed limit to 80 mph.   Modern vehicles and crash barriers can take the extra speed without significant extra threat to life.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 1, 2018 - 7:41pm
Jeff Michka I not surprised you couldn't find the place were you thought I said, "Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves"?
I am a little surprised you don't appear to have sobered up, perhaps when you do you can provide a more coherent response.  Until then I will gladly leave your last post up so that others can be as impressed by your well thought out reply as I was.  
Gerrilea Added Apr 1, 2018 - 7:54pm
Robin--- Now you move the goal posts to "machines specifically designed to kill" , as if that somehow neutralizes the moral superiority through circular logic and specious arguments. Please, how can we have an honest debate with these tactics.  Moral or not, we have rights you cannot exercise.  Why should we surrender them as you have?  Your moral arguments can't be held up against our unalienable rights.
We can use deadly force if necessary and it's a good idea to have weapons "designed to kill", if and when needed...that's the whole point of them. We've decided the morality of this and agreed that if someone wishes to place us in the position of judge, juror and executioner...so be it. 
If you don't want us/me to be placed in that position, the solution is simple: Don't steal from me, don't rape/assault me, don't break into my home, etc. Don't commit crimes that can lead to your death. 
After all, it is still your choice.
Or are you saying, morally speaking, it's okay to do those things and not pay the price?  No one forced you to break into my home, no one forced you to rape/assault me, no one forced you to steal my car, etc.
Oh, and by the way...the majority of "gun" homicides are people that know each other...they could be rival drug dealers, ex-lovers, former co-workers, boss, etc.  Hell, in my suburb of Buffalo, a Manager of Toys 'R US was stabbed to death by a former employee.  NO gun needed.
And that's the pink elephant in the room, isn't it?  In your country, people resorted to knives after your gun banning.  So many killings by knives your doctors and your police have called for them to be banned now.
Here read this and this, if you don't believe me.
You nation isn't any safer than ours, you've just learned to hide it better.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 1, 2018 - 7:58pm
Robin the red breasted songster we don't regulate bombs and they generally kill far more people at one time than people with guns do.  We also don't regulate gasoline and fires  in confined places like nightclubs and bars kill far more people, including bystanders, than guns when they are used.  One bucket of gasoline thrown in the door of a classroom followed by a road flare, would kill most of the people in the room.
To answer your question home invasion robberies aren't all that common in the US, but for some reason I can't explain they were quite popular in my neighborhood for a while, and the people doing it were not from our neighborhood.  I am quite pleased I was able to deter the two that came to my door and only later realized I could have handled it better if I'd not been so shocked when it happened.  If I'd been thinking better I might have tried to keep them there and call the police, but hindsight is 20/20 and I was more worried about getting shot myself than getting them caught.  I didn't have a phone with me, so I'm not sure how that would have worked out, it seemed easier to  just let them run off.
In the US most shootings are between people who "know each other" but I think most of the time competing criminals like drug dealers fighting over turf, falls under that heading.    
We have lots of 25 mph zones like near schools, and I'm sure that helps cut the death count down.  At that speed it's hard to have a fatal car to car accident, but at 50 mph you can die if you run into a tree, even with an airbag.  Their design speed is up to 35 mph and once you get going a lot faster than that, like 80 mph, your seat will break loose and kill you even if it's pressing you into an airbag.  When they deploy even at low speeds you don't just walk away without injuries, you're going to be pretty beat up and bruised.  They decelerate you more slowly, but only by milliseconds when you're going fast.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 3, 2018 - 8:11pm
Rusted Smith puffs up: I not surprised you couldn't find the place were you thought I said, "Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves"?-Funny, you are the one bent all out of shape about this.  I suggested an easy out for a big-time 2nd Amendment guy like yourself.AND I am a little surprised you don't appear to have sobered up, perhaps when you do you can provide a more coherent response.-YOU RIGHTISTS ALL DRAW WATER FROM THE SAME WELL. I'm sure 'rilla and your barricade buddy, Tex ass Lynn love it.  You are, like both Tex ass and 'rilla, a hypocrite.  Not this "studied, reasonable 'businessman'" of the far right, just another piece of shit someone has to wash of their shoe.  Now you're an automotive engineer, eh?
Rusty Smith Added Apr 7, 2018 - 12:36pm
Jeff Michka your last posts have made a wonderful statement about your own competency, you still haven't provided me with a quote showing where I said "Anyone that doesn't agree with you should kill themselves".  Wow, is it possible you might have been putting words I never said in my mouth?  Might the Mighty Jeff have been wrong and too proud to say Oops I made a mistake.  I know it would be convenient for you to think gun folks like me are that hateful, and yes, I do care enough to correct you because I don't want people to think I am that hateful.
You've misquoted me, and you've insulted me, but failed to acknowledge your own mistake or even ignore your mistake and try to provide a rational argument in favor of your point of view.  Do you really think that's a good way to convince me or other forum participants that I'm the one who can't come up with a coherent response?  And for the record, even though I can see you don't agree with me, I would never hope you'd kill yourself.
As Hillary once famously said in a debate against Trump, after listening to him spout off, she didn't think she could add anything that would be better for her than what Trump already said himself.
You seem to be doing just fine, I don't need do anything but point out what you have already said.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 7, 2018 - 2:48pm
Rusted Smith  sez :As Hillary once famously said in a debate against Trump, after listening to him spout off, she didn't think she could add anything that would be better for her than what Trump already said himself.-WHICH HAS TO DO WITH WHAT, YOUR NASTY PERSONAL SMEARS? Oh, I get it, I'm supposed to get angry over being compared to HAILLARY.  Once again, Rusted: You are, like both Tex ass and 'rilla, a hypocrite.  Not this "studied, reasonable 'businessman'" of the far right, You smear like just another piece of shit someone has to wash off their shoe. 
Jeff Michka Added Apr 7, 2018 - 2:53pm
Raving rightist loonie, syck ryck the Barry Goldwater republican rants: The left owes a lot to criminals for sex, drugs, politics, votes and much more. They tolerate crime and their gun laws are ineffective and this does not bother the left in control of inner cities.-Yeaah!!! Now there's the kinda red meat Rusted loves.  And he smears me.  LOL  They should just take your guns away, syck.  The ghost of Barry Goldwater might bring you a B52.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Apr 7, 2018 - 5:00pm
Gerrilea:   You again miss the point I am making.   Possibly you are missing it deliberately.
The key fact is that deaths from violence of all types are about 4.5 times higher pro rata in the USA than they are in the UK and a number of other first world countries with rather more sensible regulations about guns.
Guns are indeed machines that are specifically designed to kill, whatever way you might want to spin this fact.
Cars, on the other hand, are primarily designed to provide transport.   Even so cars are subject to significant regulation.   You need to acquire certain knowledge, demonstrate skill, pass a test and keep a licence in order to drive one.  Pretty much, in fact, what you have to do to have  a gun in this country.   Seems like a good idea doesn't it.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Apr 7, 2018 - 5:03pm
Rusty:   Just for the record, here you are not permitted to have a bomb in your possession or any other thing which is clearly intended to cause death or bodily harm.   If, for example, you were walking in town with a can full of petrol and clearly not taking some to your out of fuel car, you could (and should) be arrested.   Same goes for carrying a kitchen knife.   If you are taking it home from the shops, fair enough.   If you are carrying it with you concealed in your jacket to a nightclub... then now way.   And I think that that is right.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 7, 2018 - 9:39pm
RRBSYou again miss the point I am making.   Possibly you are missing it deliberately.-Seems that's the new WB rightist thing:  miss the point someone is making, ignore it, talk around it and it will no longer be "valid."  I guess other than gas, it's from being such patriots...
Riley Brown Added Apr 8, 2018 - 11:08am
Jeff Michka, I too think you need to calm down and re-read what's been written much more carefully before you reply.  I've been reading the forum for a while and many of your posts are way off base, you miss the points of the people you reply to, sometimes you reply to the wrong person, and in general have become an angry poster who makes little sense in the context of what's being discussed.  You are making yourself look foolish.
In one of your more recent attacks on Rusty you presumed Rusty was comparing you to Hillary when in fact if you read it more carefully you'd see he didn't. When I read the post I got the message that he was saying when you rant like Trump, he feels like Hillary in a debate, because you are making yourself look like a fool to everyone who reads you posts, so he don't need to say more, you are doing a find job of that yourself.  If I recall properly in one debate Hillary's response to one of Trump's rants was to say something like she couldn't come up with a more damaging rebuttal to Trump than his own rant.
You've very bitterly torn Rusty apart over and over for something he didn't say, and apparently even after he pointed it out, never bothered to check and see if it's true, so instead of apologizing and explaining you were mistaken, you doubled down and attack him even more.  Of course I can't read your mind, maybe you know you've made mistakes but would rather try to shout people down with insults than apologize, I hope not.
I've enjoyed reading some of your posts in other forums so I know you're not always this way, and perhaps that's why Rusty handed you an excuse by suggesting you might have been drinking when you posted irrationally, but instead of reading more closely you just went on with more irrational posts.
Please reread more carefully and stop responding like an angry and unhinged child.   I know you can do better if you want to.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 8, 2018 - 2:54pm
Jeff Michka Wow,I don't know if I can add anything that will illustrate how poorly you understand the forum more than your own posts already do.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 8, 2018 - 3:02pm
Robin the red breasted songster I'm not sure where you are talking about but the only places where people are regularly inspected to make sure they don't have something like a knife, gun or bomb are places like Federal and State buildings, and airports.  
Millions of people carry big backpacks that could have any of the above are extremely common everywhere I look and go in the US.  Mine is large enough to old a large laptop and lots of tools, and test and measurement equipment, and I've NEVER been stopped in a public place and asked what's in it.  I can walk on any college campus with it totally unchallenged so I'm pretty darn sure the laws against carrying any of the forbidden items you discussed are pretty ineffective.  
Come to think of it I actually do take knives with large blades to work on a regular basis, so I can show them off to friends at work, and use the companies equipment to make a nice protective sheath to cover the blade.  I always have a few at work for cutting birthday cakes, fruit and the occasional holiday ham.  No one ever says "you shouldn't have that here".
Robin the red breasted songster Added Apr 8, 2018 - 3:28pm
Sorry Rusty.   I may have misunderstood you.
You cannot be searched just because a policeman feels like it.  He must have reasonable cause for suspicion (e.g acting in an abusive manner or threatening harm).  As for having a bomb... well I don't think that there can be any reasonable explanation for having one.  Knives are a different matter.    But I think that you would probably agree that they should not be allowed anywhere where there is alcohol or where tempers are likely to get out of hand. 
It is a sad fact that some young people carry a knife because they think it gives them some protection to do so.   I believe that actual results show otherwise... you are more likely to be a victim of knife crime if you carry one yourself.
I often carry a bag of some sort and I have never been asked what is in it either.   I guess that I don't look, or act, like a homicidal maniac and neither do you.
In practice most good neighbourhood coppers know who is likely to be carrying and who they need to look at.  We don't fit that profile
Rusty Smith Added Apr 8, 2018 - 8:01pm
Robin the red breasted songster I agree there is no excuse for having a bomb in you possession, even in your own house it's illegal to have one.  However yes I also know they are impossible to control since they can be so small and easily contained inside another very benign objects like musical instrument cases or computer cases.
Where I grew up all boys carried knives, not for protection but because they are useful, and I still always have at least one on me, usually two, unless I'm at some place like airports and even in places like other countries where big knives are very illegal.  My small knife is kept quite sharp and can be used for anything from cutting paper to removing splinters.  My large knife is usually not as sharp but strong enough to open cans or cut a girdling root.  When I was younger I did occasionally did hang around trouble and was taught how to use two knives effectively.  All things being equal, two knives are always much more effective than 1, but under ideal conditions it's always a good idea to avoid a fight.  I've been stitched up, it's not fun.
Technically my large knife should never be concealed but it always is and it's never gotten me in trouble with the police but only because they have never caught me doing something criminal and wanted to make trouble for me.
I think people who get in trouble hang around places where trouble is common, and that is why they carry a knife for self defense.  Proposing they get in trouble because they carry a  knife ignores the fact that they go where it's risky to begin with.
In the US the police are not allowed to profile people and search those they suspect, they have to have "probably cause", but of course sometimes they make it up if they want to search someone.
Jeff Michka Added Apr 9, 2018 - 7:51pm
Riley Brown sez: Jeff Michka, I too think you need to calm down and re-read what's been written much more carefully before you reply.  I've been reading the forum for a while and many of your posts are way off base, you miss the points of the people you reply to, sometimes you reply to the wrong person, and in general have become an angry poster who makes little sense in the context of what's being discussed.  You are making yourself look foolish.-Nobody asked you, Riley, and despite your words that sooth fascists here your av has thrown them off and they've been more concerned with your possible sexuality than your politics.  You've nothing to say about Rusted's very personal attacks on me, then his wailing like a stuck conservative (read: pig) over the "lack of civility".  No, I DID SUGGEST THAT RUSTED CAP HIMSELF, JUST TO AVOID THAT "BAD OL GUMMINT" FROM PLOTTING AGAINST HIM AND TAKING HIS GUNS AWAY.    You can delete any comments I make on your articles, other than that Mind your own business, Riley. Although I'm sure Rusted will pat you on the back.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 9, 2018 - 11:53pm
Jeff Michka I must say you are consistent.  By the way, this is not Riley's forum so she can't erase your posts.  It's mine and I'm leaving them for all to read, I think they say more about you than I ever could.
You sure have harsh words for Riley, who was trying to help you. You even jump on Riley over sexuality issues that have nothing to do with the forum, like you'd know!  For all you know Riley might be a Marine.  Making friends all over aren't you!  
If this forum wrecks you composure so much it can't be good for your health.  Why don't you just move on to something more your speed that doesn't get you so upset?  I'm sure you've heard the common phrase, better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and...
Jeff Michka Added Apr 10, 2018 - 9:28pm
Rusted Smith strokes Riley as predicted:You sure have harsh words for Riley, who was trying to help you. You even jump on Riley over sexuality issues that have nothing to do with the forum,-No, he wasn't trying to help me you fascist asshole.  Despite your claims, you attacked me as "a drunk," dodged questions and now try and continue to make you and your fascist ideas and thoughts not the problem.  Good try, AS To Riley, he shoulda just left you an atta boy, but decided to join you in making it about Jeff,  If memory serves, it was you or your buddy pinhead traitor Tex ass Lynn that got wrapped over Riley's "supposed' (cause you rightist jerks just don't know) sexuality.  Once again, you want it my problem. Like I told Tex ass:  Fuck off, Rusted.  You're just another fascist.
Rusty Smith Added Apr 14, 2018 - 1:03pm
Jeff Michka I'm trying to understand what you're saying but it gets harder and harder and I am trying to give you an opportunity to explain your thought process and beliefs.
I searched this forum and can't see any posts that include Lynn that aren't yours.  In your mind, who or what is this Lynn person and what does it mean.  Please make the explanation simple so that even people like me can understand.
And while your at it please enlighten us about your preoccupation with Riley's sexuality.  I can see it's something important to you because you keep bringing it up but I've reread all the forum posts many times and can't see where anyone but you has brought up anything that might be construed as discussing Riley's sexuality.  Do you have a personal relationship with Riley and inside knowledge that you can share?  Please tell us how what you know about Riley is related to this forum topic.  Riley only made one post and I thought it was relatively kind to you, and I quote, " I know you can do better if you want to."
I'm trying hard to let you enlighten me, so please do so respectfully so I don't have to wade through irrelevant insults that may make harder for me to understand the points you are trying to make.