A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Can someone make an articulate argument that is pro-assault rifles?

Posted: Jan 25, 2013

and the high-capacity ammunition magazine clips? Just wondering.

;

Is this a rhetorical question? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You're not being disingenuous, are you?

(I do believe it's genuine) - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

I do wonder if there can be a logical argument - but do not expect one

[ In Reply To ..]
It seems like a no-brainer. Of course, they should not be allowed. But I hear the arguments all around this, but no one addresses this basic issue. I do not believe the pro-gun people are up to a verbal challenge on this.

sometimes just posing the question is a good thing - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

There is no point, to keep trying to explain over and over. - Owner, shooter

[ In Reply To ..]
Much has been posted on here already about the designation "assault rifle" and how the AR15 does not possess magical powers that cause people to go out and commit murder with it. It *looks like* the rifle our military carries, but there are very important differences.

For one, it is only semi-auto. The M16, the military version, is (usually) selective fire: 1 round, or a burst of 3, or full-auto (like a "machine gun"). It is extremely difficult, and very expensive, for civilians to legitimately own full-auto weapons, btw. Naturally, full-auto guns are available on the black market without a background check.

In other words, the Extreme Danger of these rifles is highly exaggerated. More people are killed with handguns than so-called "assault rifles" - a designation which is meaningless, unless you're using the definition of the old Assault Weapons Ban, which mostly banned cosmetic features like folding or telescoping stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors (silencers have long been illegal, and they don't "silence" much, anyhow). Is that what we are discussing when we refer to an "assault rifle"? Because despite the fact that the AR15 looks like a military rifle, it is not one. Not Even Close. However, the cosmetic military styling IS part of its appeal to some buyers - in much the same way a sporty-looking economy car will usually be more appealing to buyers than a clunky-looking boxy car that gets the same mpg.

The AR15 is not unique or uniquely "deadly" in being semi-auto, either. Most of the guns in the U.S. are semi-auto.

To repeat, yet again. The AR15 is not "designed to kill people." It is a sporting gun, highly customizable and very versatile. People use them for all kinds of legitimate activities: Sport shooting. Plinking. Varmint control. The vast majority of AR15 owners don't use them for murder, mass or otherwise.

Please, go back through the archive and read the threads in the last such huge discussion.

The answer then is to limit the amount of bullets - in clips or drums. NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Maybe. Or maybe not - ..

[ In Reply To ..]
It takes but a second or 2 to change out an empty magazine for a full one. I have doubts if that will make much if any difference. If you have one 30-round magazine or three 10-round magazines, you can shoot 30 rounds with the former somewhat faster than with the latter. But not a whale of a lot faster.

Plus, as I wrote in another reply, there are probably tens of millions of 30-round magazines for the AR15 already in private hands. They last a long time. The last Assault Weapons Ban wasn't retroactive, so "assault weapons" already in private hands were not required to be given up (there is a problem in the US with retroactive laws, sometimes). So we can wait decades while all those 30-round magazines that already exist eventually wear out/fall apart, and we won't know by then if that ban saved anybody's life.

Let's not engage in this kind of magical thinking, where we go "Oh, that shooting wouldn't have happened if that type of gun hadn't existed." We can't know that.

The CT shooter could have easily carried 5 pistols, each with one 8-round magazine, and had 40 rounds to shoot.

Articulate, yes, but not convincing - drawing the line.

[ In Reply To ..]
I guess you can have just as much "fun" sport shooting with a regular hunting rifle then. As far as your suggestion about reading the archives, all I can say is that there is a lot of side-stepping of the issues. My conclusion is there is no need for assault-style rifles and we would be better off without them. You have to draw the line somewhere.

"Assault-style" rifles have no special capabilities. That is - what you and others don't understand. Or won

[ In Reply To ..]
..

Or won't understand. - .. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
..

I just don't find this argument very compelling - and I don't think you do, either...sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't want to start naming gun types, or using words like "assault-style". I am not familiar with guns, and I don't pretend to be. But since you are more knowledgeable about guns than I am, I am sure you would agree that some guns do have special capabilities. Not all guns can be customized to fire 30 rounds without reloading, for example.

I don't think "cosmetic features" is a fair characterization - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't think extreme danger is really the issue here. If it were, all guns would be banned, since all guns are inherently dangerous, and all guns can kill purposely or accidentally. All guns are not being banned.

I think the issue is more one of lethal capacity. Someone facing a crowd with a handgun is going to have a hard time killing 20 people at a clip (if you will). Folding or telescoping stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors elevate a weapon's lethal capacity. That's why I don't think it's fair to call gun-control criteria "cosmetic".

Despite the fact that most AR15 owners do not use them for murder, I can assure you of this: whatever the AR15 was designed for, it was not designed for varmint control.

I once made an argument that whales - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
would build technology, architecture and art if they had hands.

So, assault rifles should be easy. I'll just repeat the arguments I see on the internet.

Reasons for assault rifles (disclaimer: Satire ahead):
1. The Avid Hunter: Deer run really fast and I'm too lazy to aim.
2. The Narcissist: I've built up so many enemies who want me dead, I may well need to fight off hordes of angry killers.
3. The Street Soldier: The Second Revolution is about to start and the only sane thing to do is to fill the streets with the blood of the guilty and innocent alike because nothing says democracy like killing the elected government and then re-establishing authority centered around a paramilitary organization. Also, I'm so sure of my ability to fight that I know I'll be able to match the U.S. military in strength despite the fact that they have the largest and most advanced arsenal in the world.
4. The Artist: I think ARs are aesthetically pleasing. I built my entire house out of M4 carbines.
5. The Gun Idealist: I plan on peacefully overthrowing the government with my guns. Don't think about it. Just believe...
6. The Anti-Commie: I don't believe the government can successfully run any social program or rebuild infrastructure, but I know for a fact that they can round up 100 million Americans and force them to work in the mines.
7. The Xenophobe: The movie Red Dawn was a documentary from the future and one day the Russians will paradrop into my small mountain down.
8. The Second Amendment Enthusiast: First you darn liberals said we can't have tanks or fighter jets and now assault rifles!?!
9. The Evangelical: What if Jesus had had guns? He could have shot his way to freedom and then overthrown the Roman government, which by all accounts was a 100 times more oppressive than our own.
10. The Historical Revisionist: Every country that enforces stricter gun control has become a dictatorship and/or more dangerous. Except almost every other developed nation in the world.
11. The Amateur Statistician: Guns make us safer. Except statistically. They also lower crime. Except statistically.

Yeah, that's all I can think of.

TY FH, now where would your draw the line? - Martha Stewart with homemade

[ In Reply To ..]
shoulder-mounted missile launcher? I take it you do not feel a personal tank or fighter jet appropriate.

As long as you promise - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
to use it only for hunting;)

Terrific, Fan!! Faces of practically everyone I know flashed - as I moved down the list. A dem (in Georgia). :) n

[ In Reply To ..]
x

I'm not sure there is an arguement pro-assault rifles... - ZvilleMT

[ In Reply To ..]
but there is an argument that banning weapons of any kind just isn't going to make a difference. It really has to do with some people not having any kind of respect for the sanctity of life. We have the death penalty, abortion, gang members whose initiation involves killing someone, suicide, and the first thing some do when they don't like what you say or do is make a death threat.

Banning these weapons really does nothing to people who don't care about your life or mine - they'll either find a way to get one illegally or they'll figure out something else. Would we even be having this discussion if that kid from Connecticut had used a homemade bomb? The results would have been the same.

your assertion is ludicrous - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
...for so many reasons, it makes my head spin. First of all, in spite of what you may think, it's not so easy to make people unequivocally dead with bombs, so it is silly at best - totally disrespectful at worst - to speculate that the result in Sandy Hook would have been the same. Second of all, using bombs is...wait for it...ILLEGAL!

Do you not recall that we started a war based on the premise that someone was holding weapons of mass destruction?

There is nothing wrong with placing limits on lethal capacity in our society.

Ludicrous? - message

[ In Reply To ..]
You really think that if that kid had thrown a bomb in that classroom that it wouldn't have killed every person in it? Or made a bomb in his car and parked it right out front - if you don't think that would do some damage, tell it to the people in Oklahoma City.

I understand that using bombs is illegal, but so is...wait for it...KILLING PEOPLE!!

The poster isn't saying there's something wrong with placing limits, but until our society gains a better respect for life, the bad guys who want to kill will find a way to do it, no matter what we decide to ban them from using.

Gunshot wounds are often survivable. - ..

[ In Reply To ..]
It seems there are some people that are posting as though *shooting* is the absolute ultimate in deadliness. Uh, no. Most of us are medical transcriptionists. All of us should know that people are shot and survive - often with no permanent or disabling damage. If we don't know that from our work, we should know that from our injured soldiers.

As a bit of an aside, years ago there was a cop who talked on TV about women's safety issues. And one of the things he said was, if some bad guy tried to force you into a car to take you away, NEVER GET IN THE CAR EVEN AT GUNPOINT. Because you have a pretty good chance of surviving the gunshot, but you have absolutely NO chance of living through whatever's at the end of that ride.

Let's not talk about being shot as though it instantly ends the life of everyone who suffers it. It doesn't. (Neither do bombs).

and are often deadly - your point?

[ In Reply To ..]

Uh, not ludicrous at all. You might be thinking about the big boy bombs - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
I think the other poster was referring to pipe bombs that anyone can make very easily AND HAVE BEEN USED by others to destroy and kill. Directions can be found anywhere for any type of homemade bomb.

It is not ridiculous or ludicrous as you stated.

You have a valid point - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
Evidence about restricting guns isn't as conclusive as we'd all like (one way or the other) and there will never be a way to prevent murder, not even mass murder. And as you said, if it had been a bomb, we couldn't really be here saying "We have to ban explosives." Because explosive compounds are everywhere and necessary for modern life. So that's another very valid point. Though, if bombs ever do become more popular, we'll all have to put our heads together again and figure out new ways of fighting that. Life is an endless series of problems... :(

However, in the case of the Connecticut shooting and all mass shootings, we have a single culprit: Guns. Now, banning all guns would be ridiculous and oppressive and is never going to happen in a country as big as America. But guns designed specifically for mass murder are in a whole different category in my opinion.

Now, banning assault rifles alone wouldn't do much. What we need are sweeping changes to the way in which we handle guns. Specifically we need serious crackdowns on illegal guns at the same time. Many mass shootings are committed with perfectly legal guns, but illegal guns are part of the same problem.

To my mind, the measures we need including giving the ATF sharper teeth. They basically have the legal power to do what is necessary most of the time, but lack the resources. Beyond that, all gun dealers need to be held accountable. They should be required to keep complete records on every gun that comes to them and then every gun that they sell and who now owns it. Greater punishments for owning an unregistered firearm. Unspeakable punishments for running guns. Universal background checks, no exceptions, especially gun shows. However, no one but law enforcement, the gun dealer and the gun owner should know who owns guns (none of this posting who does and who doesn't online.) Limits on the number of guns and ammo you can buy within a certain time period. I have yet to see a decent defense of buying dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition over a weekend. I'd even consider a limit on the total number of guns a person can own at one time. Nothing too low as I know a lot of people with a decent amount of guns. I'm just saying a way to prevent people from single-handedly equipping a small army.

The problem is that due to the serious number of legal ARs in circulation, cracking down on illegal ARs will have little effect. As I said, many of these shootings were done with legally obtained ARs and ammunition. Also, tons of people have their legal guns stolen, turning them into more illegal guns. In fact, firearms have a pretty high rate of being stolen because they are very valuable, in high demand and easy to render unidentifiable.

I do believe that an AR ban combined with a blitzkrieg against gun running can have a positive effect. While, again, I'm not advocating banning all weapons, countries like Britain and Japan that did outright ban firearms saw drastic decreases in gun violence that was never fully replaced by other forms of murder and mayhem.

I just want to even up future firefights. Give the victims and the police the chance to bring these people down without facing someone with superior firepower. It won't end violence. It won't even end gun violence. But it could lower them and every life saved is worth it. At the very least, we won't all have to carry ARs everywhere we go to match the bad guys.

Did you ever stop to consider - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
that some people like to collect guns? Just because someone has or wants an assault rifle doesn't mean they are plotting to take down as many people as they can. In many cases it merely means it is collectible and they want it in their gun safe. They even take them out and shoot them. How many shows on TV do we see (Pawn Stars for example) where they get a gun and what is the first thing they do...they go out and shoot it. Some people just enjoy that...particularly men. There is just something about blowing up and shooting something at a range that they enjoy. My older brother is like that. He loves to collect guns and loves to shoot them. He has never plotted any attack on any group of people nor has he shot anyone on purpose or accident for that matter.

But no matter what I saw or how I say it, some of you are just gonna ridicule me for my opinion on this matter. Not every person who owns a gun is a crazed psychopath wanting to murder people just for fun.

thank you for an honest and thoughtful response - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
you'll get no ridicule from me. I understand that enthusiasts enjoy these firearms, and that your brother, and many other people, are not the bad guys. Perhaps, as we improve gun control measures, we can find ways for enthusiasts to enjoy the firearm hobby.

I am all for sane responsible gun ownership. The issue...sm - VTMT

[ In Reply To ..]
is the security of said guns. Lock your damn guns up so they cannot be stolen and used to commit a crime. Is that so hard? When people refuse to be responsible it is sometimes necessary to pass a law to make them responsible for their actions or lack thereof.

You're right. If they were, we'd be in a whole lot of trouble. - Owner, shooter

[ In Reply To ..]
Calling any gun an "assault rifle" makes it sound as though those who own one are compelled to go out and shoot others with it.

The AR15 is built along the same *cosmetic appearance* lines as the rifle our military uses. It is highly customizable. You can buy other styles of stocks, barrels, all kinds of sights for it, etc. People who enjoy sport shooting like them. The ammunition isn't expensive, as those things go. It's quite useful as a varmint gun.

I have an adult son, and boys do like to shoot guns and blow stuff up. It's in their nature.

There are literally millions of AR15s and clones in private hands in the US - along with untold millions of over-10-round magazines.

If every owner of an AR15 were inspired to mayhem, we'd be in a much worse place than we are now, that's for sure. That gun seems to be imbued with almost magical powers, to hear some people speak of it.

Oh, I definitely have - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
and I totally get it. As a guy, I must admit I do love weapons. I'm personally more of a sword guy though. I've also always wanted a handgun. These are both potentially deadly weapons and have to be handled with care and responsibility and every day millions of people do. My problem with collecting ARs is that because this particular type of weapon is so dangerous and can be used to kill whole groups of people, I simply don't trust most people to have them. In the same way I don't trust other people to own their own nerve gas canisters or nuclear weapons. Sure, some people would never use such terrible weapons, but then why would they need such terrible weapons anyway?

I might really enjoy shooting an AR down at the range or into some target dummies in my backyard, but if I don't trust other people with such a weapon, why should I get it? Plus, a little bit of enjoyment isn't worth the risk. I can find other less dangerous games to play.

I don't even trust people to drive cars and trucks. It's necessary for civilization to do so. ARs are not necessary. I feel that, in the same way that the DMV frowned on my suggestion of attaching a harpoon to the top of my Buick (I tried explaining to them that it would cut down on road crime, but their all Nazis), the use and ownership of our deadliest weapons should be restricted for everyone's safety.

I hope you don't see this as ridicule because it isn't meant to be. I really do understand your position and I wish I had the trust in mankind to believe that everyone who legally obtained an AR would treat it with care it requires, but I simply don't.

Most people who drive are okay. So are most gun owners. - ..

[ In Reply To ..]
There are quite literally millions of AR15s and their clones in private hands already. Obviously, most people treat them respectfully and handle them safely.

Despite the recent shootings, the majority of murders aren't committed with rifles but with handguns. So the enormous danger of this mass-murder weapon, as people are calling it, is exaggerated.

And, btw, the AR15 was NOT "designed to kill people." It's a sporting gun, for sport shooters. It's also very useful as a varmint gun. There are people who hunt with it, too. Our military carries a rifle that superficially looks like the AR15, but it *was* designed to kill people, and it has very importance differences from the AR15 - differences that the people who are afraid of Scary Black Rifles don't seem to understand.

That's a good point too - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
Considering how popular an item they are and how widespread their ownership is it does say something that there are relatively few deaths by them. It is also true that it is illegal to own a fully automatic, which many people do seem to get wrong. I use the term "assault rifle" as it has been popularized, not as it really is. Normal citizens cannot (and should not) be able to own true ARs.

As for varmints, how big are your varmints? Mine are ground squirrels (can we agree on a ban on ground squirrels?) and I use a simple air rifle or shovel. I just think a semiautomatic is pushing it for varmint control.

I do feel that they are designed to kill people. You don't need a 30 round mag for anything else. If you're hunting, you'll scare off the animals. If you're sporting, you'll scare off the sports:)

Still, you bring up very interesting concerns about the statistics of ARs and the potential efficacy for a ban. How would you feel about limits on mag size, amount of ammunition within a certain time-frame (absurdly high amounts) and limits on the number of guns you can buy in a certain time? Also, what about a compromise for ARs in the form of an extra requirement for licensing that requires a psych eval. Just brain storming here. While it wouldn't eliminate crazies from getting guns because many act normal, at least it would weed out many.

Also, do you support universal background checks, including closing the gun show loopholes?

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for presenting a reasoned debate. Lately, this deep into a discussion, we've already hit the tinfoil hat crowd who want an AR because their dog told them the CIA's coming. But this is very interesting. I'll have to think about it and research it more later.

Mag size and ammo - ..

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't think a magazine size limit will do any good, but I don't much care if it is passed. There are probably tens of millions of 30-round magazines out there already for the AR15. They don't wear out real quickly, so they'll be around for decades longer. You and I won't live long enough to see any good effects from such a ban.

It'd be fine with me if private sales were outlawed and all gun sales run through dealers who could do background checks. I think the worst problem is the info that should be reported, but isn't consistently reported (witness the mom-murderer and his arsenal in, where, Minnesota?). Gun dealers will surely like that law, though - more business for them, heh.

AFAIK, there is not a real Gun Show Loophole; dealers at gun shows still do background checks, but private sellers, of course, are not required to, generally speaking. There are dealers who cheat, of course.

I don't know what amount of ammo should be banned or limited. I would prefer no limits. Sport shooters can run through hundreds or thousands of rounds in a week. So how safe would limiting ammunition make us anyway? Would it matter if the potential mass shooter had to wait 2 months to get all his ammo? In the US, cops are armed and get to the scene pretty quickly. Might not matter if most shooters had 100 rounds or 30 rounds, know what I mean? Would this simply start a black market in bullets, and increase gun shop break-ins? Compared to the total number of murders, mass shootings (over 4 at a time) are pretty rare. I don't know that trying to gear laws to stop those will be effective, or if we'll even be able to tell if we are successful.

Our varmints are coyotes and wild hogs (& sometimes feral dogs). The AR15 is good for coyotes, but I'd want a 12-gauge with slugs or a deer rifle for hogs; they're a little harder to kill.

Mostly what I want is for people to be less emotional about the Scary Black Rifles, which really are just guns. And since enforcement of more laws costs money, we should consider very carefully whether or not a law will have the intended effect, or whether it's more likely to make us feel better, as though we've Done Something and Made A Difference, without having much if any effect at all. I think the former Assault Weapons Ban could fall into the category of a feel-good law without much effect.

We aren't the same as England. With our legal rights, and our 2 very porous borders and thousands of miles of coastline, we can never make guns disappear in the US, imo. We need to leave the emotionalism in a box, and be careful to strike a good balance between legislating for safety, and not unduly limiting our citizens' freedoms and rights.

If I had wild hogs where I lived - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
I'd probably want an RPG! For many years, when people said they had a wild hog problem I laughed and thought it was one of those imagined threats like wolves. Boy was I wrong!

I see what you mean about the sport shooting and ammo limits. I didn't realize it was common for people to use so many bullets in such a short time frame. That would make it tough to impose a safe limit. Part of my ignorance with this is that it's not a hobby I share and whenever you deal with another person's hobby, it always seems weird and boring. Like Nascar. If I was at a Nascar track, I'd way rather throw myself into the oncoming cars than watch them drive in a circle for hours.

On the flip side, I'm a nerd. My main hobby has always been video games, including the violent ones. So I have a hobby that lots of people consider boring and that lots of people consider destructive. Those two groups overlap heavily I find. And as far as I'm concerned, you can pry my games from my cold dead fingers. It's also a hobby that's very misunderstood. Despite having played these games all my life, I've never had violent tendencies. All my friends play them, none of them have ever hurt anyone or demonstrated any inclination towards violence. Statistics also disprove that games lead to violence. So, I guess I can relate to having a hobby that other people think is contributing to the problem.

Still, despite this natural empathy, I can't help but feel in my gut (not the best method of navigation, mind you) that ARs are dangerous and that if a sport is preventing us from reining in ammo purchases, then perhaps the sport is wrong. It probably doesn't help public opinion with all this recent talk of overthrowing the government and gun owners talking about killing everyone who disagrees with them. Guys like Jones and Yeager contribute to the poor public image.

It's a tough subject for everyone. Innocent people are dead. It riles us all up and it's hard to address things with a cool head. We're all sad for the victims, angry at the perpetrators, sympathetic to the families and scared for ourselves and our own loved ones.

I do feel that more important than any weapons ban is that we deal with the underlying causes of violence: Injustice, untreated or poorly treated mental illness, poverty and inequality. Having lived in San Diego in a neighborhood that went from quiet retirement community to combat zone in the space of 5 years, I saw first hand that there are two kinds of people out there: People with hope and people without hope. If a country so vastly rich and powerful as America can't even feed and house its own, we may not deserve safety in the first place.

Anyway, I'm getting to bed. Thanks for the food for thought. I'm not quite swayed from wanting a ban, but my doubts about its efficacy, at least at this point in our social development, have risen a bit.

I was going to "like" your answer until the very last paragraph - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
You just couldn't stop sinking into ridicule and so the dislike.

Serious question-what would you do if they wanted to ban swords? - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
You stated you're a sword guy. They can be just as dangerous as guns, depending on the sharpness.

A really good sword handler could probably take out a few people with a long machete or other sword, although the deaths might be less, depending on if a group of people are close together or spread apart with a swinging motion using a razor sharp sword before being subdued or shot by someone with a gun.

So my question to you is really serious and not intended as ridicule either. Would you care to answer?

Machetes were an effective weapon in Africa. - (not the sword guy, here)

[ In Reply To ..]
Genocides have been conducted with machetes. I wouldn't discount them as less deadly than guns, necessarily.

Re: Swords and machetes - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
There's no question that bladed weapons are dangerous. If I did own a sword and I had children, I would lock it up. I'd probably lock it up anyway because they're expensive and I wouldn't want it stolen.

As for its comparison to ARs or even handguns, I'd say there's no question it is far less dangerous. Anyone with an AR can commit a massacre and not even have to reload before dozens of people are dead. While I'm sure every now and then some modern day swashbuckler will kill people, it's a weapon that can be easily countered. You can theoretically outrun it, which you can't from a constant stream of bullets. Also, anyone in the crowd with a handgun or any nearby police officer could just shoot you. Your reign of terror ended before it really began.

Also, a sword isn't particularly more dangerous than a blunt weapon like a board with nails in it or a sledge hammer. It's impossible to ban blunt weapons because they can be anything and, like the aforementioned cars and trucks, are necessary for civilization. Also, where would we draw the line? Long knives could end up being counted in a sword ban. What would the maximum length be?

While I'm uncertain how effective an AR ban would be, we can be absolutely certain a sword ban is useless.

That being said, if I woke up tomorrow and they were illegal. Well, I'd have to move on with my already swordless life. At least I won't end up cutting my legs off accidentally while showing off my new sword.

As to the post below this one about machetes and African genocide: Those are typically done against completely unarmed populations who can't afford guns after dismantling the military and law enforcement with guns. Africa is actually a great example of a whole continent with little to no gun laws and the effects these policies have on a society. However, the primary reason every form of murder is more effective in Africa is because of poverty.

Not going to riticule you but I think you are missing - the whole point. NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

EVERYONE knows some people collect guns. SM, maybe stop to - think of ALL valid arguments for & against?nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Similar Messages:

Feb 03, 2013
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/257441/ "As we were finishing our basic training, we were briefed on new military research coming from data about soldiers in combat in Korea. The research found that most soldiers trained like me rarely remembered to fire more than one shot in a combat firefight. The brain freezes under high stress. Trained routines like aiming a gun and firing an aimed shot at an enemy rarely kick in. Young soldiers panic; they freeze. They don’t remember ...

Nov 11, 2013
40 Gunmen Armed with Assault Rifles Terrorize Gun Control Group at a Texas Restaurant Bob Cesca on November 11, 2013 2447 Views This should’ve been one of the biggest domestic news stories of the weekend, but as a sense of futility sweeps nation in the face of increasingly commonplace incidents of gun violence followed by aggressive, defiant reactions from the gun lobby, it went sadly ignored. A gun control activist group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in Ameri ...

Sep 06, 2011
he had with another boy over a girl. My son is 18yo. The fight occurred in February of 2011. He was charged with felony assault because he brought a baseball bat to the fight becaused he feared he would be jumped by more than one guy. He immediately discarded the bat in a snow bank when he arrived and saw it would be one on one. Here's my question, is it appropriate for me to contact the judge on his case just to voice my concerns about the prosecuting attorney?&nbs ...

Mar 19, 2010
Health Overhaul's Assault On Business Posted 07:07 PM ET Taxes: If ObamaCare becomes permanent, no one will suffer more than U.S. businesses. They'll face higher taxes, more regulations and a higher cost of capital. But don't take our word for it. Go ask Caterpillar. The heavy-equipment giant reckons its insurance costs will go up 20%, or $100 million, the first year after the health care system is overhauled, and may go even higher. Multiply that by literally tens of thousands ...

Dec 16, 2012
I agree with you that there is nothing "magical" about these guns and that all guns can kill. However, the "assault weapon" term is as real as real gets and is specifically defined in the Assault Weapons Ban that expired 8 long years ago: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescopic lens. Pistol grip. Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more ...

May 25, 2017
been overstated. ...

Jul 01, 2017
A doctor who apparently harbored a longstanding grudge opened fire with an assault rifle at the New York City hospital where he used to work Friday, killing one and injuring several others before taking his own life, according to police sources. In the wake of what New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called a "horrific" instance of what appeared to be workplace violence just before 3 p.m., the suspect, Dr. Henry Bello, who hid the AR-15 under his white lab coat, tried to set himself on fire an ...

Jun 10, 2015
nm ...

Nov 11, 2009
The other day, I got a bill for an ambulance. I got charged the entire $700+ dollars. Don't get me wrong - those paramedics were fantastic. I was having severe chest pain and within seconds, they had an IV inserted, my BP checked, nitro sprayed into my mouth and 1 mg of morphine plus some atrophine in my IV and a nasal cannula. However, I'm being billed the entire amount because the ambulance company is "out of network.". This will not do. I dealt with in ...

Jan 09, 2013
"Justice" course and practice on-line discussion with other students. No cost. No finals. No books to buy. Starts some time this spring. Sit in on your own schedule. Offered through edx.org. ER22x: JusticeHarvardX REGISTER FOR ER22X overview ABOUT ER22X Justice is a critical analysis of classical and contemporary theories of justice, including discussion of present-day applications. Topics include affirmative action, income distribution, same-sex marriage, the role of ma ...

Jan 11, 2013
In 2nd Look, Few Savings From Digital Health Records In part: The [2005] report predicted that widespread use of electronic records could save the United States health care system at least $81 billion a year, a figure RAND now says was overstated. The study was widely praised within the technology industry and helped persuade Congress and the Obama administration to authorize billions of dollars in federal stimulus money in 2009 to help hospitals and doctors pay for the installation of ele ...

May 03, 2013
Why didn't she borrow her mother's/father's/grandmother's car? Because it would have been linked right back to her! I actually feel kind of sorry for these defense attorneys. They have little to work with. ...

Oct 15, 2013
"When we label someone, we do two things. We exert control over another person and assume our own superiority and power. We also dismiss or relegate the person being labeled to a status that is less fully human than our own. It is a combustible mix. The need to label typically emerges from our own insecurity, despair about our situation or a perceived threat from another." ...

Jan 23, 2016
His stand on the issues of illegal immigration and importing "refugees" (nearly anyone can get "refugee" status by this State Department's relaxed rules) would be a sufficient reason in my opinion to vote Trump for President. Others may play their PC games and ignore the stark realities of this issue, but I have grandchildren and will not do so. This is THE number one issue facing America during the coming President's term of office, with the economy second and radical Isla ...

Feb 10, 2011
I'm trying to figure out which would be the best for coverage and make me look 10 years younger. lol. Okay, maybe not 10 years.............. ...

Mar 16, 2010
Arnauz is blind. His mom died when he was very young. His dad is in jail. Doesn't matter. He keeps on singing. Arnauz is waging a Youtube campaign to gather 10,000 subscribers by April. The record companies are watching. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArnauz#p/u/16/6C2OyPpxV_4 ...

Jul 17, 2017
Let's increase the number of HB2 visas from previous years. I do wonder what those workers are paid. Is the real reason that there are not enough workers or is that just the excuse these companies get to use for paying less wages? Maybe if the places like Mar-a Lago would pay a decent wage (no, I'm not talking about $20 an hour), which I am sure they can afford, maybe they would be able to get Americans to work these jobs. ...

Oct 22, 2009
The so-called racist Republican justice of the peace who refused to perform an interracial marriage was really a lifelong democrat UNTIL 2008, when he switched parties. He was STILL a DEMOCRAT when he refused to do the ceremony and three other interracial marriages as well. The media ONLY got on this one when they thought they could say this guy was a racist republican. They ignored this story when he was a raaaaacist DEMOCRAT, which he was when he refused to do these ceremonies! How t ...

Feb 19, 2011
A couple weeks ago I cooked some ground turkey and added a can of white beans to it and I absolutely loved it but it seemed like lt was missing something. I served it with some brown rice (which I didn't like at all - seemed bland) and I had steamed brocoli on the side. I'd like to do the ground turkey with white beans again, but just seems like something is missing. What would you add to it to make it better? ...

Feb 10, 2010
I love the little boy at the beach. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On0kOAelMVI&feature=channel ...

Oct 29, 2011
My speech recognition wrote this below: Allergies to penis. It was supposed to be Allergies to peanuts. LOL ...

Sep 20, 2012
"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Now just hang on a second...Obama, Hillary, et. al continued to tell us it was a "spontaneous" act in response to a video that no one saw. Which is it - terrorism or a few angry punks (who just happened to have RPGs and tortured our Ambassador before killing him)? Tell the truth, Mr. President. ...

Mar 06, 2013
A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama's political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans. The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent qu ...

Oct 01, 2013
such as cutting living expenses, groceries, quality of life maybe just to work less and enjoy life more. I have been an MT for 18 years and feel like I am wasting precious life and things I really want to do by sitting in this chair from sun up to sun down. I personally think by re-budgeting things and working less would be so worth it in the long run. Right now, I have plenty of work and supplement my husband's income and can make all my bills, eat out, buy clothes, shop, ...

Oct 15, 2013
COMMANDER IN CHIEF says NO! and then he said 'what part of we won't pay your ************ did you not understand?' ...

Mar 19, 2014
xx ...

Jan 24, 2017
On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the happiest), how happy does it make you to know there are no more Obamas AND Clintons in Washington? ...

Mar 30, 2015
especially Liberals, who just love bringing people together and being tolerant. This just makes me feel all warm and toasty inside. Read it and retch. Link ...

May 01, 2017
This is the president at his finest. I read it and just about laughed through the whole thing. His grandiose statements and mumbled mess are not very encouraging to me. ...

Oct 28, 2009
VAN NUYS, Calif. (KABC) -- Like many other soldiers, a Southland-based Iraq war veteran is fighting post-traumatic stress disorder. But he's also facing a bigger battle trying to keep his young family together, as his wife faces deportation. Twenty-six-year-old Army Specialist Jack Barrios can barely talk about the time he served in Iraq. "I'll skip talking about that," he said.But what he can speak about is the battle his family is going through now. His wife, 23-year-old Frances, is ...