Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2013, 06:57 PM   #41
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Someone else's thoughts on this matter.
----------------



Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle

Posted 12/28/2012 06:57 PM ET
Email Print License Comment

inShare

Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.

The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.

The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.

When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?

Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.

Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.

In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.

The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.

In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.

Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.

The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.

Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.

But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?

None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.

It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.



Read More At IBD: Here's One Reason Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle - Investors.com http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2M8nk2iy3
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
That's just a bunch of anecdotal evidence and uncontrolled statistics.

Science tells us - conclusively - that guns don't protect you from anything:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2008.143099
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-27-2013, 11:27 PM   #42
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Ouch. Just...ouch. I genuinely pity the person who believes that article passes as honest argument. Ouch. Would take a long time to figure out where to begin...
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:56 AM   #43
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Lets just cut to the chase here....

I am really tired of laws that limit the murdering of people. Because, lets face it... the bad people are going to just keep on murdering anyway, whether it is legal or not. Right?

We just need to end this silly notion that some "rule" or "regulation" will stop bad people from doing what they do best, being bad. We just need to better empower the good guys, so that they are on a level field with the bad guys. If we just make it legal to murder peoplem then that will free the hands of the good guys, and some of the people that SHOULD get murdered, WILL get murdered.

who is with me?
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:05 PM   #44
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Na let' just leave the big issues alone and try to play governmental control over the issues that are tiny. As long as it gives the government more power and removes a few more freedoms from the people.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:16 PM   #45
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Is there somewhere between "no regulations" and "soviet style command economy"?

or is this a binary choice exercise?
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
false dialectics abound, seanlogicalfallacy, strawman vs strawman

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.