arma virumque cano (et alia)
An interesting statement. It pretty much mimics the reason that the majority of Americans now oppose an assault weapon ban. And it certainly worked pretty well in Garland Texas."A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help."http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846
You've been working that quote to death. Usually you question the validity of polls, you often point out that they phrasing of the question or the sample group can account for much of the result. But, this one you just love.
I tend to look at polls a bit skeptically unless there is other data to support the conclusion. For example, evil black rifles have become one of the most popular and most sold rifles on the market. So its entirely believable that a majority of people would be opposed to a ban on them. If the other data doesn't support the poll, such as the supposed decline in gun ownership, I tend to disbelieve it. I've mentioned previously the data I've seen to disbelieve the decline in gun ownership.
C'mon, man, the people buying the very popular rifles do not make up a majority of the population. Your logic doesn't work.
C'mon, man, the people buying the very popular rifles do not make up a majority of the population.So what's your explanation for the dramatic reversal of public opinion on banning so-called "assault weapons"?I think that perhaps what's going on here is that the public is finally coming to recognize the exstremism you gun ban zealots espouse--you've become so openly unhinged that a "tipping point" has been reached, and decent Americans are starting to push back.
"C'mon, man, the people buying the very popular rifles do not make up a majority of the population."You've got it backwards Mike. I use the popularity of the rifles to add credibility to the recent poll opposing another assault weapon ban. Certainly you can understand that a person might oppose a government action even if it doesn't affect them personally. Many people support equal rights for gays even though they aren't, or even know someone who is. So its entirely reasonable for a person to oppose an assault weapon ban even though they don't own one. If sales of the rifles were very low, you could even use that data to argue that the poll wasn't accurate, though that inst the case in this instance.
I think for consistency's sake you should not rely on dubious polls like this one just because it supports your agenda. There has been no !dramatic reversal of public opinion on banning so-called "assault weapons"" in spite of what Kurt and this poll say.For me, the AWB is quite a ways down the list of things we need to enact porper gun control.
There has been no !dramatic reversal of public opinion on banning so-called "assault weapons"" in spite of what Kurt and this poll say.Of course there has, you silly child. As I explained in words I thought short enough even for you, some of these multiple polls all showing majority opposition to a ban have been conducted every year for decades, so any built-in bias (which, when you consider the polling organizations, would definitely not be pro-gun) wouldn't matter, because that bias would have been there all along, and the major reversal occurred anyway. Genocidal tyranny enablement is losing, Mikeb--maybe you should change sides ;-).
So as long as individual Americans have guns, we are safe? Laughable.
And its funny to you why??
It's funny to me because it's simply not true. In fact, guns in the home do more harm than good.
Mike you keep calling a fact but that's simply not true. Its your opinion but even that opinion defies logic. You've been working that quote to death. But, this one you just love. Its really time to come up with a new line. That one just doesn't work.
Your willful blindness is really funny. You like guns, that's all. To you it doesn't matter if they really work for making you safer or not, you like 'em. It's like that Australian comedian said - do I have to post that video again?
Perhaps we could come up with as succinct an explaination for your position- you hate guns. This would explain why you are so impervious to facts I've presented showing murder and violence as the metric instead of your fallback of "gun deaths". This would explain how you support just about every restriction proposed even when you admit it won't do any good but merely a "step in the right direction". But there is more to it than just hating guns. There is something inside you that makes you want to impose your beliefs onto others- something which I can't relate to. I suspect it's the same something that makes people want to vote Democrat. It's those two qualities combined that make up a gun control supporter.
Really Mike. Where in my response did I say I like guns? What is at hand is your constant bleeting that simply isn't true.Mike, you hate guns and that's all there is to it. To you it doesn't matter if they really work for making you safer or not, you hate 'em. It's like that Australian comedian said - do I have to post that video again?
TS, when you can show that the UK and Australia have an overall murder rate similar or worse than that of the US, get back to me with that nonsense. The fact is, as much as you try to avoid it, is that guns are the most efficient tool for committing murder and their absence directly impacts on the murder rate, both the gun murder rate AND THE OVERALL murder rate.
Mike: “TS, when you can show that the UK and Australia have an overall murder rate similar or worse than that of the US, get back to me with that nonsense.”Get back to you? We must have discussed UK/Australia murder rates fifty times here. Seriously, have you been checked for Alzheimer’s?Once again…1) I can show you countries with stricter gun control than UK and Australia and much higher rates of murder than the US. But you don’t like to count those.2) About 20 years ago, UK and Australia took drastic confiscation measures but saw less improvement than the USA, which expanded gun rights. In other words, they had lower murder rates even without the gun control.3) State data doesn’t show any of the changes in murder rates that you want, as I have showed you at nauseam. The fact is, as much as you try to avoid it, is that guns are the most efficient tool for defending oneself to.
No one is denying that guns are the best tool for defense too. It's just that those incidents don't happen enough to make a difference in the rule: guns do more harm than good.1. I know Venezuela has a higher murder rate than the US, but you're right, I don't count it.2. "less improvement than the USA" according to whom? I know those claims are out there but they're not credible.3. As I have showed you ad nauseam, states have porous borders, so their individual gun laws are meaningless.
Even if it were true that guns did more harm than good, what good is saying that to the responsible person who wants to protect themself? Why should their access to the best self-defense tool be limited because some junkie in West Virginia got high and played Russian Roulette?1) not just Venezuela, but counties that the OECD officially calls "developed" like Mexico, South Africa, Estonia, and Bermuda.2) according to the FBI, UK's home office, and Australia's AIC, that's whom. They all had similar drops in murder rate, but the USA's violent crime dropped the most, and in the UK it actually went up! So those sources aren't credible to you?3) uh, countries have porous borders too, so what chance do we have for gun control to ever be meaningful? Also, in my above example of Bermuda, they are a tiny country in the middle of the ocean- pretty much the best scenario to control a border. They also have s GDP per capita on par with the UK and USA, they have the UK's oppressive gun laws, and they have a murder rate higher than the USA.Additionally, you say "guns do more harm than good", but in number 3, I've showed you how murder and violent crime don't correlate to gun laws OR gun ownership. Despite porous boarders, there ARE still more guns in Iowa than in Maryland. The criminals are equally armed in all the states, because as you said, gun control here hasn't worked, but more good people are armed in gun friendly states. Yet... those states don't have "more bad".You are wrong, Mike.
Think of it this way, Mike. You say "guns do more harm that good". You say this as a deterrent to choosing to own a gun. You say something bad is more likely to happen. You say the presence of a gun would escalate a bad situation into something worse- deadly even. None of that has anything to do with your "porous borders" excuse. Your hypothesis should bear out in gun ownership numbers. High gun owning states have more of these impulse opportunities according to you, right? That has nothing to do with criminals who take six hour road trips to stock up on guns. So what's your excuse for why gun ownership rates don't correlate to more murder and violence?
300 million guns in a nation of 312 million people, but all those Americans having guns didn't stop an attack (911) on us , nor have those guns stopped crime, nor have all those guns stopped the mass killings with guns.
"but all those Americans having guns didn't stop an attack (911) on us" Anon, are you really going to try to claim the failure of gun owners to stop the 9/11 proves there is no utility in armed self defense? Especially considering that commercial airliners are pretty much the ultimate gun free zone since the 70's? "nor have those guns stopped crime, nor have all those guns stopped the mass killings with guns." Perhaps you could show a country with strict gun laws that have stopped crime? I'll even make it easier for you Anon, lets limit it to stopping just violent crime. Let me just throw in the lack of correlation in guns and crime. Gun sales have been going through the roof for a good number of years now, yet accidental gun deaths,homicides and violent crime continue their steady decline.
300 million guns (the most recent estimate is 450+ million guns) wasn't there to stop 911 from happening, that was a surprise to everyone. They have stopped several mass shootings from happening however like the one in Garland Texas. The only people killed there were the home grown terrorists.The reason that you only hear about a single shooting in some cases where a shooter was armed up to the hilt either shot himself or was shot before he got started, there are several examples of such instances.
You're wondering why an American didn't shoot a hijacker on 9/11? Really?
Did I stump you, Mike?
Hopefully when ISIS comes to his house, they won't bring too many guys with even more deadly guns than Marco has. Maybe he just wants to win the White House to keep his family safe for the next eight years?
If it gets to the point that armed men are storming your house, what would you prefer to have in your hands as the last option to defend your life? A phone to dial 911? A baseball bat?
The best defense against having your house burglarized is to not have any guns to steal. Home invasion? The most cases of home invasion that I have ever heard of were perpetrated by the U.S. Army.
Howdy FJ, Notwithstanding your expansion of civilians committing crimes in the US compared to military operations, I brought up some data for Anon when we were discussing Michael Moore,"Between 2003 and 2007--*On average, household members became victims of violent crimesin about 266,560 burglaries annually. Offenders known to theirvictims accounted for 65% of these burglaries; strangersaccounted for 28%." http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
"The best defense against having your house burglarized is to not have any guns to steal."You think stealing guns is the ONLY reason for burglaries?? Really? Cash, jewelry, expensive electronics and the like mean nothing to the burglar? Only guns? WOW! Just WOW!
Flying Junior, how does a burglar know if a house doesn't have any guns? Do you put a sign up on your property that says: Attention burglars. There are no guns in this house to steal, so don't waste your time breaking into my "gun-free zone"?
Why is that funny? He didn't say the first line of defense.
Yeah, he said the last line of defense, against say, rocket launchers and drones, right?
While ISIS has been known to use RPGs, drones are pretty much a common weapon used by governments such as ours against supposed allies like Pakistan. Considering that we have had widespread civil unrest from overuse of firearms by police, how well do you suppose a Hellfire missile in a residential area will sell here?
ISIS does drone strikes?
Yeah, he said the last line of defense, against say, rocket launchers and drones, right?ISIS have a lot of those?By the way, can you name one nation whose military has scrapped all its rifles, because they're no longer useful in a world with drones, GPS-guided bombs, MLRS, etc.? Hell--it's your side that wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" for private citizens, because they're "weapons of war"--right up until someone suggests such arms in the hands of the people would be useful in a conflict. Then it suddenly becomes ludicrous to propose using such arms in real combat.
We are supposed to believe guys like Rubio who don't even believe in Science. He reminds me of those B flick Sci-Fi movies where everyone denies the scientists until the monster ruins their city.
It's funny watching Rubio make such ridiculous and outlandish statements. But he is actually seriously courting the 2A paranoia vote and peddling nonsense about how Obama has overreached or somehow damaged 2A rights. Just go to his website and watch his highlights from the Charleston debate one week ago. He is playing the gun card and he expects for it to pay off.
"It's funny watching Rubio make such ridiculous and outlandish statements. But he is actually seriously courting the 2A paranoia vote and peddling nonsense about how Obama has overreached or somehow damaged 2A rights." And even funnier FJ, is watching the current Democratic candidates trying to out gun control each other with Clinton actually supporting a large scale gun confiscation law that Australia implemented. In light of Clinton's outlandish statements, can it be called paranoia?
How is that any different than what Hillary is engaging in? Demonizing a class of firearms that she can't define, completely misrepresenting the PLCAA, etc. She plays to the fears, paranoia and ignorance of the gun control voter.
Now it's Clinton who is going to get your guns? You gun loons have been saying Obama was out to get your guns for 8 years now, he has done nothing to take your guns away. More delusional paranoia from the gun loons.
"You gun loons have been saying Obama was out to get your guns for 8 years now, he has done nothing to take your guns away." A better way to put it is that he hasn't been allowed to do anything through the checks and balances of our political system. And Clinton is sounding even more extreme than our current President with her admiration of the Australian gun confiscation. So if politicians make public comments suggesting that they'd like to outlaw various firearms, is it delusional to listen to what they said and assume they mean what they say?