Please Help Me Craft A Response To A Tea Bagger
This was posted in a FB thread where another tea bagger posted: 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. In response I posted this link
http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/ then tea bagger two posted the below comment.
Is STANLEY gonna be limited to the # of HAMMERS each year....NO. Are Baseball Bat manufacters gonna be fined for making too many BATS.
Not worth your time.
My answer to those stupid comments is "Can't win a reasoned debate with facts about guns, so you resort to namecalling anything and everything ever used as a weapon. Let's go all the way back to the beginning of man and ban bones turned into weapons and utensils."
Rifles account for fewer murders than clubs, or bare hands.
Which is why it perplexes some of us that gun control focuses so strongly on rifles.
Why not focus on the weapons that are actually used in 75% of murders and 95% of murders by firearm? Why this obsession with rifles that have grips perpendicular to their bodies?
That is, if you wish to solve it.
I am not for banning any guns just for the sake of banning. The most horrific crimes are these mass gun murders and the military style weapons, designed for no other purpose than to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, is the weapon of choice.
On the other side of that, no one actually needs these military style weapons with the only real exception being the police. For people who want the occasional experience of shooting targets with these weapons, you can have them in some kind of club environment where they can be rented and used to shoot targets.
So there's your starting point.
With respect to handguns, that is a separate argument and in my opinion a little more difficult.
Nearly. Every. One.
This isn't some fringe gun-nut/collector population, this is just about everyone who buys a rifle. And frankly, part of me feels like that is what really bothers a large proportion of gun control advocates: they know as well as I do that the shape of a rifle doesn't affect its ability to be used in a mass shooting, they just really hate that people like rifles of that shape, and want to get some sort of culture war victory here.
I don't care what every rifle is sold with. I don't care if it is a fringe gun collector population. I don't care if it's everyone who buys a rifle. I don't care what feel like it really bothers. I don't care what they know or hate. I don't care about any culture war.
I see examples of nations that have stricter gun laws and fewer mass gun murders. I see no reason why people should have military style weapons. I see no reason why we should not have stricter gun laws, including military style weapons and high capacity magazines.
Do you have anything relevant to add to that?
and it's a silly thing to obsess over. That's why I said "semi-automatics with detachable magazines" because that's what actually matters.
You are either interested in solving the problems or you aren't. Clearly you aren't.
You're getting distracted by the least relevant aspects of the weapon. Stop making shit up about me and my motivations.
If so then there must be a corollary prohibition against telling me that I am "hung up."
It should be on handguns and automatic weapons which are designed only for shooting people. Rifles and shotguns are at least sporting or target weapons and can be used for home protection.
Funny the teabaggers did not include handguns in their comparison.
I think there have been a half dozen murders with them in the past 60 years or so.
Rifles and shotguns are almost never used in crimes, though mass shootings like Newtown (rifle) and Aurora (shotgun) may magnify their apparent use.
Murders are almost entirely done with handguns.
Take a look at these videos and tell me if this "rifle (AR-15, used in Newton)" and an improvised Glock, a handgun, are automatic weapons or not. Both have been used many times in killings.
The first one shows how easy it is to "bump" fire the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, one of the weapons used at the Newtown shooting. Look at this video and tell me this semi-automatic is not easily converted to an automatic weapon.
A semi-automatic Glock was also used at Newtown. This handgun can also be "bump" fired. Look at this video.
That's why I'm including automatic weapons, as being used in crimes. They are military weapons designed to kill many people as quickly as possible. And why does any civilian need an automatic weapon unless he/she plans to use it to kill people? And handguns are, as I said, designed to kill people.
Hunting rifles, without large volume clips and shotguns should be enough to protect someone's home, hunt and do recreational target shooting.
Neither of those videos contradicted what I said. Glad to know we agree!
The AR-15 was used in Newtown. You said automatic weapons were hardly ever used in crimes. What's up with that?
There are "trick" ways to (inaccurately) fire *any* semi-automatic weapon rapidly. The AR-15 is no exception.
I ignored it but if I were to dumpster dive I would say: Baseball bats and hammers are not guns. Baseball bats and hammers have a purpose other than to kill people. The discussion is about guns, not baseball bats or hammers.
RW types don't respond to evidence in a rational way but that doesn't mean it's not important.
The man who shot up the movie theater in Colorado had 3,000 legal rounds of .223 ammunition, including a 100-round drum that he had purchased online. The police chief of Aurora estimated he could fire between 50 and 60 rounds per minute, one trigger pull at a time.
In the weeks after that shooting, some lawmakers proposed limits on high-capacity magazines. That proposal went nowhere, of course. Who determines what high-capacity is? Luke ODell, of the National Association for Gun Rights, asked at the time. Its a slippery slope we start walking when we start picking and choosing what rights of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were going to follow.
The Bushmaster .223 is one of a few versions of the demilitarized M16 rifles known as AR-15s. It can only be called a little twenty-two a little rabbit plinker if youre trying to fool someone you think is dumb. While the ammunition for the assault rifle and the plinker may be the same diameter, the .223 has a longer projectile and much more power a lot more gunpowder behind it.
It is an excellent sniper rifle. It was the weapon used by the Beltway Snipers in 2002.
Ads for the rifles make this moronic appeal: Consider your Man Card reissued.
"It is an excellent sniper rifle."
You responded by pointing out the (very high) rate of murders with firearms.
How did you think that was a response to his point?
run away from, nor "rush" an assailant who is using a gun with a high-magazine capacity. if someone comes at you with a blunt object, you might have a chance to run away or to fight back; not so with guns.
with a hammer or club? That's the big difference. Weapons that can injure and kills scores of people within a few seconds--that's the problem.
NRA and gun manufacturers make money by passing rumors that Democrats will take their rifles. Suddenly, guns and bullets fly off shelves making more money for suppliers and more ad money for gun magazines. All we need know about this that fools and their money are soon parted.
Everyone I ask about felons having guns say: no, felons should not have guns. I tell them that they just said they want gun control. That's everyone so far. Let's regulate our militia as the 2nd amendment tells us.
He killed them with a semi automatic assult rifle that never should have been legal. If it had not been legal, those kids and teachers would be alive today.
There. That ought to do it.
It is a stupid comparison with stupid rhetoric from a stupid person.
for some time now.....
the rifle thing is an apples to organes type of thing.
should an individual have the right to quantites of nerve gas for his private use?
should an individual have the right to nuclear weapons?
clearly we outlaw and control some things
It proves that guns far and away outnumber all other weapons combined.
For instance, in 2009 there were 641 murders with blunt objects (all blunt objects, not just hammers) and 9,146 murders with guns.
Is your teabagger friend so dumb that the simple graph that he/she posted is beyond their comprehension?