Bowen arrow is a sport. Stressful and competitive is anything where you are going against someone else. There is a lottttt of things you can shoot/throw accurately in a stressful and competitive environment. Doesn't make it a sport. Basketball, bowen arrow, football, baseball.....probably a lot of other shit. Being good at shooting a gun if you aren't in Iraq killing bad guys....who gives a fuck.
I'm talking about this because it is a fucking disgrace to advertise AR 15 as a sporting item. In a business sense it is fucking genius, but still a disgrace.
Lots of good discussion but not a single explanation as to why citizens need to have automative weapons. I get that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, but make it harder for these people that might snap to do so much damage. Again, I'm not saying to outlaw all guns, just automatic weapons (maybe semi-automatic, I don't really know the difference - all the ones that can kill a lot of people in seconds).
Not the first time you've said this. Gotta be your coldest take ever.
If you walk into a crowded location and start killing babies, you are a fucking psychopath. Or at a minimum having some sort of psychopathic episode.
Stop making it out like this is some decision that normal people make. Well-balanced people with normal functioning brains just do not do things like this. Period, end of story.
Yeah, I take a conservative stance on most things, but I'm with you on this one. Do something. Try something. Take some common sense steps.
Outlaw semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
Have a penalty-free trade-in period.
After that, increase the penalty for possession of these types of firearms to something ridiculous. A criminal might think twice about illegally owning an AR-15 if the penalty is life in prison.
Devote more resources to attacking the black market for these types of things.
Again, I'm not smart enough to have all the answers, but I know it's probably not a good thing that these types of people can walk into fucking Academy and buy this type of weaponry. What is the counter argument to this by the gun folks? What is the need for a civilian to be armed with an AR-15?
The Truth About “Assault Weapons”
In the United States today Americans lawfully own an estimated 20-30 million rifles which are commonly used and often misconstrued by the media, politicians, and gun control advocates as “assault rifles”.
Here are some facts about these rifles. Thanks to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) for some of the facts below: (note that the NSSF has labeled these rifles “Modern Sporting Rifles” (MSR).
Also note: there is an estimated 100 Million lawfully owned rifles of all types in the United States.
Since 2004 and especially since 2008 there has been a nationwide MSR sales boom; they have literally been flying off of the shelf. As noted above, nearly 30% of all legally owned MSR’s have been purchased since 2009. During this time period the almost non-existent crime rate has continued to drop. Early crime statistics released for 2010-2011 show another 18+% drop in homicides committed with firearms. The axiom once again holds true, more MSR’s = less crime.Â
Millions and millions of MSR’s have been sold to lawful owners across the country and are in common use on a daily basis. They are used for the action sports, target shooting, plinking, hunting, and legal defense inside the home. Â
Over the last few months there has been a lot of talk about renewing the “Assault Weapons Ban”. The chatter started anew moments after the smoke cleared in the Colorado movie theater and soon television sets across the country and the iternet were buzzing.
As usual those who wish to control us by denying our Second Amendment freedoms were on the pulpit before grieving families had a chance to make plans for funeral arrangements. Led by Mayor Bloomberg and a host of others, they seized the moment to jump in front of the klieg lights and preach the evils of “Assault Weapons designed for the battlefield.” What they didn’t talk about though, was the “Assault Weapon” jamming early on, as that factoid would have gone against their agenda.
Summer has turned to Fall and here we are, in the midst of what is undoubtedly the silliest election season in history. During the second presidential debate, one which was a “town hall” style in which “undecided voters” were handpicked by an “unbiased” moderator to ask questions, a woman, who as it turns out used to work for the Obama campaign was selected to ask a question. She got up and asked the candidates what their thoughts on Americans owning AK47s was. In a rare moment of honesty, President Obama had yet another of his “off the prompter” moments and said what he actually believed;   Â
“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.”
“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Once again “Assault Weapons” were all the talk, and suddenly every politician who thought they needed a few more votes was taking a stance against them.
The President, in his comment was purposefully deceitful as he blended the facts about what exactly is being used by violent criminals while committing deadly acts of crime. As to the “automatic weapons on the street”, this is simply not true either as a miniscule percentage of “automatic weapons” are used to commit these deadly acts on American streets or elsewhere in America for that matter.
Two issues are at play here:
First: Politicians who campaign on failed social programs and don’t want to reform our often failing criminal justice system need something to point the finger of blame at. As MSR’s bear a resemblance to military arms, it’s easy for these same politicians to blame the object, especially to a nation that for the most part doesn’t know the difference between an AR15 and an M16. By speaking with conviction in regard to banning these rifles they present themselves as being for public safety. As we know, that is disingenuous as the statistics prove otherwise.
Second: There are typically two groups at work here, there is a cadre of very well funded factions of “concerned citizens” and elected officials who wish to control the population by disarming them. These are your George Soros types. The other group typically consists of people who have a direct, very negative personal connection via relationship to a victim of a violent criminal. As a coping mechanism they, like the gun grabbing politician, places the blame on the object and seeks closure via banning the object to insure that the crime is not repeated. Unfortunately this is not realistic.
There is no correlation between regulation and crime reduction. Looking at the continued decade by decade drop in violent crime, the surge in sales, the millions of MSR’s which are currently lawfully owned, and the ever dropping miniscule % of them used in crime it’s pretty easy to conclude that there is no real issue in the United States with these rifles in regard to crime. Therefore a ban of any kind is by default needless legislation looking to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
Bottom line, the numbers don’t lie, the gun grabbers do, and that is the truth.
In the United States today Americans lawfully own an estimated 20-30 million rifles which are commonly used and often misconstrued by the media, politicians, and gun control advocates as “assault rifles”.
Here are some facts about these rifles. Thanks to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) for some of the facts below: (note that the NSSF has labeled these rifles “Modern Sporting Rifles” (MSR).
Also note: there is an estimated 100 Million lawfully owned rifles of all types in the United States.
- AR-15 and other MSR style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
- AR-15 and other MSR style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic and more commonly referred to as a machine gun. Machine guns have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934, obtaining a permit to own one is an arduous, time intensive and expensive process.Â
- There are many civilian variants of MSR’s that resemble the famous AK-47. Just as the AR-15 is semi-auto only, these AK type MSR’s are also semi-automatic, they are not fully automatic machine guns and are no more powerful than any other common rifle.
- The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
- MSR style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16 and AK-47 but function like any other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
- Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
- These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms and are very fun to shoot.
- These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
- AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. Lawful gun owners in the U.S. own an estimated 5-10 million of them.
- Depending on the definition there are an estimated 20-30 million lawfully owned Modern Sporting Rifles in the U.S. These include AK’s, HK’s, SKS’s, and all other types of modern sporting rifles.
- Nearly half (44 percent) of MSR owners are current or former military or law enforcement members.
- 30 percent of all MSR owners purchased their first rifle in 2009 or 2010.
- 99 percent of all MSR owners owned some type of firearm prior to their first MSR purchase.
- The typical MSR owner is 35-plus years old, married and has some college education.
- Since 1980 there has been a steady decade by decade drop in violent crime in the United States.Â
- In the last year reported - 2009 there were a total of 13,636 murders in the United States; this reflects a total drop of 59% from 1980.
- Rifles of all types were used for less than 2.5% of the total murders.
- Of this >2.5% it is not known how many included MSR’s as that is not reported. Based on simple math we can conclude that approximately 25% of all rifles owned in the U.S. are MSR’s. Therefore we can guesstimate that number at approximately .625%.
Since 2004 and especially since 2008 there has been a nationwide MSR sales boom; they have literally been flying off of the shelf. As noted above, nearly 30% of all legally owned MSR’s have been purchased since 2009. During this time period the almost non-existent crime rate has continued to drop. Early crime statistics released for 2010-2011 show another 18+% drop in homicides committed with firearms. The axiom once again holds true, more MSR’s = less crime.Â
Millions and millions of MSR’s have been sold to lawful owners across the country and are in common use on a daily basis. They are used for the action sports, target shooting, plinking, hunting, and legal defense inside the home. Â
Over the last few months there has been a lot of talk about renewing the “Assault Weapons Ban”. The chatter started anew moments after the smoke cleared in the Colorado movie theater and soon television sets across the country and the iternet were buzzing.
As usual those who wish to control us by denying our Second Amendment freedoms were on the pulpit before grieving families had a chance to make plans for funeral arrangements. Led by Mayor Bloomberg and a host of others, they seized the moment to jump in front of the klieg lights and preach the evils of “Assault Weapons designed for the battlefield.” What they didn’t talk about though, was the “Assault Weapon” jamming early on, as that factoid would have gone against their agenda.
Summer has turned to Fall and here we are, in the midst of what is undoubtedly the silliest election season in history. During the second presidential debate, one which was a “town hall” style in which “undecided voters” were handpicked by an “unbiased” moderator to ask questions, a woman, who as it turns out used to work for the Obama campaign was selected to ask a question. She got up and asked the candidates what their thoughts on Americans owning AK47s was. In a rare moment of honesty, President Obama had yet another of his “off the prompter” moments and said what he actually believed;   Â
“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.”
“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Once again “Assault Weapons” were all the talk, and suddenly every politician who thought they needed a few more votes was taking a stance against them.
The President, in his comment was purposefully deceitful as he blended the facts about what exactly is being used by violent criminals while committing deadly acts of crime. As to the “automatic weapons on the street”, this is simply not true either as a miniscule percentage of “automatic weapons” are used to commit these deadly acts on American streets or elsewhere in America for that matter.
Two issues are at play here:
First: Politicians who campaign on failed social programs and don’t want to reform our often failing criminal justice system need something to point the finger of blame at. As MSR’s bear a resemblance to military arms, it’s easy for these same politicians to blame the object, especially to a nation that for the most part doesn’t know the difference between an AR15 and an M16. By speaking with conviction in regard to banning these rifles they present themselves as being for public safety. As we know, that is disingenuous as the statistics prove otherwise.
Second: There are typically two groups at work here, there is a cadre of very well funded factions of “concerned citizens” and elected officials who wish to control the population by disarming them. These are your George Soros types. The other group typically consists of people who have a direct, very negative personal connection via relationship to a victim of a violent criminal. As a coping mechanism they, like the gun grabbing politician, places the blame on the object and seeks closure via banning the object to insure that the crime is not repeated. Unfortunately this is not realistic.
There is no correlation between regulation and crime reduction. Looking at the continued decade by decade drop in violent crime, the surge in sales, the millions of MSR’s which are currently lawfully owned, and the ever dropping miniscule % of them used in crime it’s pretty easy to conclude that there is no real issue in the United States with these rifles in regard to crime. Therefore a ban of any kind is by default needless legislation looking to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
Bottom line, the numbers don’t lie, the gun grabbers do, and that is the truth.
To me, you simply don't take the guns away from millions of law abiding citizens in an effort to stop criminals, in large part because criminals don't give a fuck about obeying the laws
they'll find a gun, they'll use it, and the law abiding citizens will pay for it (as always)
they'll find a gun, they'll use it, and the law abiding citizens will pay for it (as always)
Here are some facts about these rifles. Thanks to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) for some of the facts below:
^^^^^ your first mistake is it is based off of their "own facts"
How is that independent non biased research?
Stop kidding with us bro. You are much smarter than that.
A few thoughts about this common argument, and also your previous post.
1) Just because someone breaks other laws doesn't mean they "don't give a fuck about any laws period", and will automatically go out and buy assault weapons. Any deterrent is good. Totally feasible that common gangsters and drug dealers will stick to a handgun because if they get caught with an AR it is life in prison, even if they flaunt other laws. In other words, I'm not convinced there is a correlation that people who break other laws (i.e. "criminals") would automatically break this law, if the deterrent is strong enough.
2) Most of these mass shooters are not career criminals anyway. The fact that these people are walking around with a screw loose, able to legally build a pile of arms capable of killing thousands, is mind-boggling. How can we, as a country, justify or explain the fact that someone like Stephen Paddock was able to legally stockpile what he stockpiled? You have to try to stop these people. Make it more difficult. I can't see how you can just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well".
3) I'm so sick of these fucking hunting arguments. Maybe this type of hunting is a "sport" this country is better off without. I don't know much about hunting, but why do they need more than a rifle in a stand?
I guess bottom line to me is this. If (God forbid) your family was wiped out in one of these types of events, don't you think you would WISH we had done everything possible to keep that whacko from acquiring the means necessary to carry that out? That some sort of resistance was offered? Some sort of roadblock put up?
Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "yep, he got us. oh well, at least law abiding US citizens didn't give up our freedom to stockpile a large arsenal for ya know, hunting".
I guess I just don't get it.
why haven't the democrats stopped murders in Chicago, a city they've controlled for centuries, it's up to 600 already which dwarfs these mass murders which get so much attention
doesn't Chicago have tough gun control laws? how can they be failing so miserably?
Personally I don't give a shit about any of that. Criminals killing criminals.
I think it's obvious why mass murders get all the attention - because of the fear factor that it can happen to any innocent person minding their own business. Those 600 murders you're talking about, the vast majority of those people put themselves in that situation.
I just have a hard time accepting that we are going to let civilians build massive arsenals under the guise of protecting personal freedom. It's like getting screened at the airport. It sucks and its intrusive, but vast majority just STFU and do it because they know it reduces their chance of dying that day.
