point-bank-robbery-846793
- EXTXOILMAN
- 01-18-2013, 08:13 PM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/alaskapoint-bank-robbery-846793
point-bank-robbery-846793
- EXTXOILMAN
- 01-18-2013, 08:17 PM
- Old-T
- 01-18-2013, 08:43 PM
Typical brainless analogy from someone who wishes the world was simplisticly Right and Wrong. All government is abot finding the acceptable mix of freedom and conceeding freedom for something else--often security in some form.
The freedom/security mix for guns and hammers is gust a little bit different don't you think? Your exact same "logic" would lead me to the following:
--Hammers can kill, but banning personal ownership of hammers is dumb
--Therefore since guns can kill, banning personal ownership of guns is dumb
--Therefore since nukes can kill, banning personal ownership of nukes is dumb
It doesn't follow in either direction--from guns to hammers or guns to nukes--because the freedom/security equation is very different qualitatively. Allowing wide, untracked ownership of guns causes more potential risk to society than the wide, untrackedownership of hammers. That doesn't mean that guns should or should not be registered/lisenced/banned or some combination thereof--but quit the stupid analogy to hammers.
How many homocides by hammer per 100,000 hamers? How many homocides by gun per 100,000 guns? Not every non-zero number is the same, no matter how you want to argue it.
The freedom/security mix for guns and hammers is gust a little bit different don't you think? Your exact same "logic" would lead me to the following:
--Hammers can kill, but banning personal ownership of hammers is dumb
--Therefore since guns can kill, banning personal ownership of guns is dumb
--Therefore since nukes can kill, banning personal ownership of nukes is dumb
It doesn't follow in either direction--from guns to hammers or guns to nukes--because the freedom/security equation is very different qualitatively. Allowing wide, untracked ownership of guns causes more potential risk to society than the wide, untrackedownership of hammers. That doesn't mean that guns should or should not be registered/lisenced/banned or some combination thereof--but quit the stupid analogy to hammers.
How many homocides by hammer per 100,000 hamers? How many homocides by gun per 100,000 guns? Not every non-zero number is the same, no matter how you want to argue it.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-18-2013, 09:58 PM
Boy are YOU a day late and a dollar short, Yappy Lap Dog. You'd be much better off taking your daily ass whipping from Slunty Kayla than trying to talk when grown ups are having a discussion!
- satexasguy
- 01-18-2013, 11:50 PM
The statistics don't favor gun bans. Chicago has seen a 40% INCREASE in gun related homicides AFTER their gun ban went into effect. And statistics show that more crimes have been twarted by use of guns than the number of crimes committed by the use of guns. http://www.infowars.com/statistics-p...ns-less-crime/
Recent events (while definitely tragic) have been used to appeal to the "emmotional" desire to ban certain guns (which I personally see no problem reimplementing the assault weapons ban). However, the reality is that if someone wants to use a gun to kill others, they will find a way to get those weapons. Gangs across the country have access to and use FULLY AUTOMATED rifles such as AK-47's which are ILLEGAL. Criminals will find a way to get a hold of ANY type of gun they want. Some will use the argument that banning assault weapons will prevent mass killings. I say it doesn't matter. Each of the people involved in these events were MENTALLY ILL. If they could not have obtained assault type or high capacity weapons they would have simply carried more weapons and more clips. Or even like the Oklahoma Bomber, they would have created home made bombs (you can find ways to make pipe bombs on the internet, no secret there).
IMO the reason most people are against reimplementing the ban on assault type weapons is that they fear the government will use that as a stepping stone to eventually try to ban all firearms ... which will result in criminals and LE being the only ones with firearms. I for one would rather keep the right to bear arms so I can defend myself in the event someone tries to do harm to me (either legally or illegally carrying a firearm).
Recent events (while definitely tragic) have been used to appeal to the "emmotional" desire to ban certain guns (which I personally see no problem reimplementing the assault weapons ban). However, the reality is that if someone wants to use a gun to kill others, they will find a way to get those weapons. Gangs across the country have access to and use FULLY AUTOMATED rifles such as AK-47's which are ILLEGAL. Criminals will find a way to get a hold of ANY type of gun they want. Some will use the argument that banning assault weapons will prevent mass killings. I say it doesn't matter. Each of the people involved in these events were MENTALLY ILL. If they could not have obtained assault type or high capacity weapons they would have simply carried more weapons and more clips. Or even like the Oklahoma Bomber, they would have created home made bombs (you can find ways to make pipe bombs on the internet, no secret there).
IMO the reason most people are against reimplementing the ban on assault type weapons is that they fear the government will use that as a stepping stone to eventually try to ban all firearms ... which will result in criminals and LE being the only ones with firearms. I for one would rather keep the right to bear arms so I can defend myself in the event someone tries to do harm to me (either legally or illegally carrying a firearm).
- joe bloe
- 01-19-2013, 12:16 AM
It won't be long before they start doing background checks for people who want to buy hammers. I'm going to stock up now before they start registering everyone.
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles
By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
- Yssup Rider
- 01-19-2013, 12:20 AM
How unhappy are you fuckers with your miserable bitter little lives?
were coming for LL your pointy things. Except your dicks. COG will come for those!
were coming for LL your pointy things. Except your dicks. COG will come for those!
- SinsOfTheFlesh
- 01-19-2013, 12:24 AM
Yssp, please explain in detail - use visual aids if necessary - precisely how banning assault rifles will in any way make even the slightest dent in the more than 10,000 homicides committed each year using hand guns - most of which were obtained illegally.
I anticipate a detailed and highly informative reply.
Cheers.
I anticipate a detailed and highly informative reply.
Cheers.
- CJ7
- 01-19-2013, 12:35 AM
yeah assup how will banning AR 15's effect pistols
ROFLMAO
I wouldnt answer the question either ... if anyone can call that mumbo jumbo a question
ROFLMAO
I wouldnt answer the question either ... if anyone can call that mumbo jumbo a question
- SinsOfTheFlesh
- 01-19-2013, 12:44 AM
CJ, the premise is quite straightforward. My apologies if the question was too complex for you.
If the intent of legislation banning assault weapons is to reduce gun violence, I merely want to know exactly how banning assault rifles will reduce the more than 10,000 homicides involving hand guns that occur every year.
Feel free to bow out and allow someone else to respond if the answer is beyond you.
If the intent of legislation banning assault weapons is to reduce gun violence, I merely want to know exactly how banning assault rifles will reduce the more than 10,000 homicides involving hand guns that occur every year.
Feel free to bow out and allow someone else to respond if the answer is beyond you.
- CJ7
- 01-19-2013, 12:54 AM
CJ, the premise is quite straightforward. My apologies if the question was too complex for you.
If the intent of legislation banning assault weapons is to reduce gun violence, I merely want to know exactly how banning assault rifles will reduce the more than 10,000 homicides involving hand guns that occur every year.
Feel free to bow out and allow someone else to respond if the answer is beyond you. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh
consequently, youre on two different weapons for whatever reason or vapid point youre trying to make
but to give you a very detailed answer to an obtuse question.
NOTHING.
- CuteOldGuy
- 01-19-2013, 01:04 AM
Don't bother with CBJ7, SOTF. He's like the fly at the picnic that is so annoying, but overall harmless. No matter how hard you try, you can't get him to go away.
It's not unusual for him to not understand what is going on. He has a severe comprehension deficit, and refuses help.
I would also like an intelligent response from our friend, Assup. After all, he has some responsibility as our new . . .
DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013
ASSUP!!!
It's not unusual for him to not understand what is going on. He has a severe comprehension deficit, and refuses help.
I would also like an intelligent response from our friend, Assup. After all, he has some responsibility as our new . . .
DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013
ASSUP!!!
- CJ7
- 01-19-2013, 01:09 AM
Don't bother with CBJ7, SOTF. He's like the fly at the picnic that is so annoying, but overall harmless. No matter how hard you try, you can't get him to go away.
It's not unusual for him to not understand what is going on. He has a severe comprehension deficit, and refuses help.
I would also like an intelligent response from our friend, Assup. After all, he has some responsibility as our new . . .
DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013
ASSUP!!!
by all means provide a detailed answer explaining how banning an AR will stop handgun homicides
- SinsOfTheFlesh
- 01-19-2013, 01:13 AM
- CJ7
- 01-19-2013, 01:16 AM