BAN semi-automatic weapons

[killthesunshine]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

so you are saying the facts stated are incorrect? if not then WHY not? you have yet to respond to the actual facts, other than to say they are "stupid". can you please make a factual rebuttal of the facts , instead of calling them names? it would help the debate along. thanks.

ok. despite the fact that we all know that broad statistics can be fraught with error and misinterpretation let's assume for the moment your stats reflect some truth...

How do you explain it? More use leads to less rate of death or injury?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from killthesunshine:

that's like saying higher rates of auto ownership lead to less rates of AUTO accidents. it's patently stupid on its face

Translation:

Don't give me facts.

JUST AGREE WITH ME, EVEN IF I"M WRONG!

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

so you are saying the facts stated are incorrect? if not then WHY not? you have yet to respond to the actual facts, other than to say they are "stupid". can you please make a factual rebuttal of the facts , instead of calling them names? it would help the debate along. thanks.

It is illegal to own gernads in America and there are no grenade crimes and deaths in America which disproved your point I believe. But I am with you and for grenades for everyone because the constitution tells me so.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from Lucrum:

Translation:

Don't give me facts.

JUST AGREE WITH ME, EVEN IF I"M WRONG!

No, give me facts but explain those facts especially when they seem at odds with reason.

why would MORE use result in LESS injury??

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from killthesunshine:



why would MORE use result in LESS injury??

I think the statistic was more ownership in the rural areas vs more criminal use in the cities with more restrictive gun laws.

IOW no one said more use results in less injury.
To the contrary more use by criminals in cities (with more gun control) results in more injury.

I'll assume "why is there less use of firearms by criminals in rural areas" to be your next question.

No doubt there is more than one simple reason. But lets say you're a burglar/rapist/mugger. Given a choice do want to assault an armed citizen with no qualms about defending themselves? Or would you prefer a unarmed cosmopolitan type who is so dead set against firearms and the idea of self defense that they would actually prefer to be a victim?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

i am against federal regulation whenever possible of any kind.

How stupid is this statement? LOL

"I don't care what it is I'm against it!"

F^ck that's dumb thing to say

Your a freaking caveman

 

[rcaldwell]

Quote from Trader7793:

No my argument is exactly in line with the times. Think about it for a moment. Armies cannot control a land mass as large as the United States by flying overhead and dropping bombs. They have to occupy neighborhoods and control the people. That is the key. If you argue that 20,000 citizens with rifles could not hold off the Armed Forces of the United States then you are correct. However if you consider the enormous amount of armed citizens in this country (80 to 100 million) do not kid yourself, even with the sophisticated command and control the US Military employs they would not be able to hold and control the US mainland while fighting such enormous numbers of armed citizens. The US Army, National Guard and Marine Corps simply is not large enough. All the Command and Control in the World will not help you assert control over an armed populace unless you have troops on the ground. Yes they could employ tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, but they would have a hollow victory.

I was referencing Mutual Assured Destruction to highlight the power of deterrence. First and foremost the 2nd Amendment was created as deterrence against Tyranny. For that Deterrence to be effective the citizenry needs to be allowed to own weapons such as the AR-15.

Do not think for a second that having millions of Americans owning weapons like that would create a hell on earth for any individuals trying to oppress the citizenry by force of arms. Back in 1967 during the riots in Detroit the National Guard was not really able to control things against even small groups of mostly criminals rampaging with .38 specials and a few shot guns. They eventually had to call in the 82nd Airborne to assist. Now this was not the population in rebellion as a whole on a nationwide basis...that would be completely overwhelming.

During World War II one of the reasons that the Nazis decided not to invade Switzerland was because of the armed citizenry and the enormous difficulty of subduing the population. This is also why the Nazis instituted very strict gun laws in the areas that they conquered.

Back during the Clinton Administration I remember watching C-Span and seeing the State Department ask some Generals why they could not invade the former Yugoslavia after bombing the heavy weapons of the Serbian Army out of existence. The generals said that without a peace accord if they went into that area by force they would need at least 800,000 men due to so many Serbian partisan fighters in the mountains. As far as invading even a place like IRAN the military is telling the congress about the enormous numbers of troops needed and the Iranian civilian population is not armed. Remember command and control is not enough without boots on the ground.

furthermore if those citizens lost their gramps, grannies and other loved ones on native soil to "collateral damage", there would be hell to pay...............

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

so you are saying the facts stated are incorrect?

No. Simply that any nod/wink causal implication or inference is either naive or nonsensical in isolation, and does not account for other potentially relevant demographic variables. And so, the statistical gymnastics continue. A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing. Or useful, depending on your intentions.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

No. Simply that any nod/wink causal implication or inference is either naive or nonsensical in isolation, and does not account for other potentially relevant demographic variables. And so, the statistical gymnastics continue. A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing. Or useful, depending on your intentions.

Translation:

Whenever Gaby has been spanked with the facts, he resorts to obfuscation.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from killthesunshine:


why would MORE use result in LESS injury??

Quote from Lucrum:

I think the statistic was more ownership in the rural areas vs more criminal use in the cities with more restrictive gun laws.

IOW no one said more use results in less injury.
To the contrary more use by criminals in cities (with more gun control) results in more injury.

I'll assume "why is there less use of firearms by criminals in rural areas" to be your next question.

No doubt there is more than one simple reason. But lets say you're a burglar/rapist/mugger. Given a choice do want to assault an armed citizen with no qualms about defending themselves? Or would you prefer a unarmed cosmopolitan type who is so dead set against firearms and the idea of self defense that they would actually prefer to be a victim?

Crickets