If you have 1 pistol and your up against 3 people all with pistols and you show them the pistol, it won't be enough of a deterrent to protect yourself. Your outnumbered with guns. Showing them a AK 47 would help prevent anyone from getting robbed, and would prevent anyone from getting shot.
I just listed a sample. You have about a 1/20 chance of getting robbed in your lifetime(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). Given that people are alive for a long time, it is safe to assume that you yourself have a significant chance of getting robbed. To make it personal, my aunt got robbed, and that is just within my family. Robberies are common.
Most mass shootings are caused by handguns. Only a fraction are caused by AK 47s and AK 15s combined.
But the point is, they don't appear to have common or appropriate usage outside of mass shootings that cannot also be replaced with other solutions or other firearms. Hence there is no good reason not to ban them outright
There are many unreported times when people use AK 47s to defend their house against multiple people. I imagine most robberies happen with multiple robbers because robbers have incentive to work in packs.
If your argument that AR-15s *could* defend against some of these robberies and therefore they should be kept, you need to actually demonstrate that this is something that they are currently used for, and where no other firearm can be used for. We cannot create policy based on what *could* be. We can only create policy based on what *is*.This country is pretty big. If 1/20 households get robbed in their lifetimes, that is about 5 million households in around 50 years then that means around 100,000 households get robbed annually in the US. A majority of these have multiple robbers responsible. There aren't that many shootings. Is there a consistent homicide difference between the time period before a state abolished AK 47s and after the AK 47 ban?
Guns are like cars. I think you should be allowed to own any car/gun you want. But they should not be classified as a right for people. They are a privilege. Anyone with any type of car/gun should get trained on how to use it and should be made sure they aren't going to use the car/gun poorly. They are tools. Not toys. If you race with a car on a speed limit 25 mph road, you should have your license revoked. If you decide to shoot in the city recklessly, then you shouldn't own a gun.
you must understand the history and why it is a right
We have many laws that could and should be better enforced and stiffer punishments.
We cannot create policy based on what *could* be. We can only create policy based on what *is*.
I give no credibility to other countries because there is no logical comparison. The U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws because freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected, and other rights which other countries don't have, by the U.S. constitution and bill of rights, as one of many examples of differences.It doesn't seem you are looking at the big picture. Yearly murders is my priority. One mass shooting of 50 is less important to me than 1000 murders per year. This concern or outrage of single rare events boggles the mind when far more 1 and 2 murders add up to so much more per year than these anomalies as you put it.This term "mass shooting" is a scare tactic which should be obvious. Recently this crazy man killed is pregnant wife and his 2 children, so 4 people, mass murder? Not really since they were all related and it was contained to that one instance and family. He didn't use a gun, don't you want to stop nuts like that? I do.
Reducing the amount of murders is admirable, focusing on how someone is murdered is far from admirable. And you are specifically talking about mass shootings. You can have a mass murder but without it being a mass shooting.How do you propose to do that? A house to house search and confiscation by people WITH guns? How do you stop the black market given the videos I posted and 3d printing? If getting rid of guns is so easy why can't they get them away from criminals? How many illegal guns are on the streets? No one could possibly know. If all manufacturing stopped today, how long would it take for all the guns to eventually break and or be taken away from criminals? few thousand years? maybe more?What about the police and military? their guns get stolen, what do you do about that? How do you stop guns coming in over the Mexican border?
if you didn't watch or understand the video of the murders per 100k it explains that if you actually look at the specific data, murders are mostly narrowed to a small number of counties in the U.S. This is why general sweeping idea such as yours are illogical. If you want to address murders look and where they are happening, that seems to be a pretty painfully obvious first step, and yet that doesn't really happen.Chicago has been the poster city for murders, in fact they keep weekend totals. What's been tried to address that? They did have a ban which didn't help, but that's pretty much it.You seemed to selectively ignore facts like the assault weapons ban did nothing to affect crime rates or that people are murdered by other ways than guns.
It doesn't appear we have any real common ground. While I want solutions to stop murders, you seem to have tunnel vision for "mass gun murders" which makes no sense at all to me.
It does provide protection against multiple people. But you have yet to prove that this a reasonable necessity such that it should be kept.I think AK 47s do provide protection against multiple people. How can this be accomplished with any other gun? A pistol only fires one shot at a time and won't do you much good against a crowd of invaders, all armed.
It does provide protection against multiple people. But you have yet to prove that this a reasonable necessity such that it should be kept.
look, this has been tried and it did NOTHING!!!!!The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), officially the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law, which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity."study, by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.
You certainly have the right to safety. And if people were regularly assaulted by throngs of robbers my opinion would definitely change. However people are not. And the people that are shot in mass shootings also have their own rights to safety.Isn't protection a basic human right?
Isn't protection a basic human right?
And the people that are shot in mass shootings also have their own rights to safety.
It would be like owning a rocket launcher and your reason for owning a rocket launcher is to prevent and/or defend yourself against alien abductions.
Where are all the situations in which the AR-15 is *absolutely* required that an alternative firearm cannot be used?
don't be fooled by the deaths per 100k, look at the total numbers.
ten years later it dropped that much AFTER the ban expired.....interesting don't you think?
a right that you can't exercise is no right at all. what good is a right to protect your life if you don't have the means?
Yes. However, homicide in general is my measurement for how effective gun laws are. Not every murder victim is someone that dies from a mass shooting. Most people that get murdered don't get murdered in a mass shooting. If AK 47s save lives, then they are worth having around. If they do kill too many people, then they should be banned.
-Aliens that have the technological capability to come to Earth probably have defense/attacking technology far better then humans. A rocket launcher wouldn't be effective.-No one else owns a rocket launcher. Other people own guns. Just as it is a good idea for the US to have nukes because other countries have nukes. If the US removed our nukes, we would get nuked. If you remove AK 47s from law abiding citizens, how can they defend themselves against a crowd of robbers? Anyone can get robbed.-There is not enough credible proof that aliens even abduct humans. There is evidence that people get robbed.
Protection against multiple people. What other firearm can be used for this purpose?
No one out of me, you, or dustryder wants to ban all guns. Dustryder wants to ban AK 47s. That I think is all. I don't know his/her full position on guns.
This isn't about general gun laws or homicide. It's about AR-15s and mass shootings.
Ok. And how many people per year are robbed by a crowd of robbers? That is, say 3+?
But we don't care about robberies with only 1 or 2 robbers. A simple handgun can deal with such situations.
1. There are a number of robberies that occur with a large amount of robbers all at once. For example, the amount of such events per year2. That in such scenarios, an AR-15 was successfully used to defend the victim and hence this is a good application of the gun3. And to argue that a handgun or other firearm would've not been sufficient in such situations
I mean really, at the very least would a gun license and a gun registration be too much to ask for?
Tell me how you or anyone could possibly know the number of mass shootings with an "assault rifle" wouldn't have gone down anyway w/o any ban at all? The numbers fluctuate greatly when comparing certain years.
If we further break down the years both Mother Jones and the Washington Postuse, the statistics remain similar. From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year.From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year.how many of the mass murders were actually committed by someone using an assault rifle, funny can't seem to find the actual specifics, they claim mass murders may have gone down, but don't specifically say mass murders by assault rifle. Can you find actual specifics as to what weapon was used, because I can't.
tobacco kills, what 10x or more people per year than firearms?
I think it's important to note why assault weapons were targeted. It's because they have the most opportunity to kill as many people as possible.
Mass shootings occur in other places apart from schools. And arming teachers brings it own host of problemsIt's about (general gun laws and homicide). If you want to focus in on how to prevent mass shootings, I say let the teachers be armed if they have legal guns. If advertised on a school that they allow their teachers to be armed, that would scare would be shooters from killing people.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm states that around 320,000 people were robbed in 2017. A majority of these had multiple robbers. Home Alone had 2 robbers. Mean girls I think was the title had 3 robbers. Robbers get into packs.
A handgun can maybe deal with 1 robber. But not 2 robbers who are armed. You shoot on of them in self defense, the other robber shoots you in retaliation.
I think I have argued why numerous times.
