OK LIb s, let's think this "assault weapons" ban through with math and logic...

According to the FBI, 323 murders were committed with rifles in 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Slate Magazine, a pretty liberal online publication, estimates there are 196 million rifles in the US.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

So let's do the math. 323 / 196,000,000 equals a 0.00000164795% chance a rifle will be used in a crime in a given year, based on the latest statistics.. But let's do you a favor and only count the 1.4 million assault rifle Slate says are in the country. 323 / 1,400,000 equals a 0.00023071428% chance an assault weapon will be used to murder someone in a given year. Does it sound like an assault weapon ban will be an effective tool for reducing crime?

Please make your case, based on facts and logic.

Those of us who walk upright, don't drool and can actually think can see quite simply that statistically speaking, the likelihood of an assault weapons ban preventing ONE SINGLE MURDER is extremely unlikely.

That leaves us to wonder to consider why so many politicians want these weapons banned. One possibility is that they think it will prevent crime. Based on the numbers, one can see only a fool would believe that. Clearly, there must be some other reason they want to disarm citizens. Any of you liberals wanna take a shot at why?

 

It is about disarmament of the Right not protection from the weapons.

Inner cities would need to be approached first if it were about preservation of life!

The Actions our military is ordered to take would be on the table if it were about preservation of life.

Tightening the border security would be a priority if it were about preservation of life.

Alcohol would be a controlled substance and one would need a permit to purchase it if it were about preservation of life.

...

It is a strictly political move.

 

The left doesn't care about logic, if they did they would be on the right.

They are purely emotional based in their decisions.

 

The weapons ban has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with feel good legislation. Our government has no solutions on how to reduce crime, and all it can do is make you feel better about it. This is not about your rights, your safety, it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with their power, and more importantly their hold on power.

If they actually wanted to do something about crime, about mass murders, they would pass legislation that truly helped, but they know as well as everyone else that it would be unpalatable to the American people. They do not care if you shoot up your schools, your neighbors, they just want to make sure they can keep power.

 

Gotta ask why Obama and the democrats have been pretty much dead silent on this issue the last 4+ years but after the Sandy Hook thing its now time to take action.

They are milking this for as much political gain as they can and that's all.

If they really cared they would have been harping for gun legislation for years which they haven't. They even let the previous assault weapon ban quietly expire. Guess what? Feinstein never muttered a word when that happened but now all of a sudden she is outraged?

Give me a break. This is so obvious its pathetic.

 

If you use numbers, my leftist brothers and sisters disappear from these threads.

However, they will appear to tell you than you AR-15 is more powerful than a .300winmag.

I am embarrassed to see the blatant and aggressive stupidity demostrated by my fellow lefties on this issue.

 

A symbolic gesture showing you care about a bad situation is better than nothing at all. In the 1970s the NHL started requiring new players to wear helmets. A few veterans also started wearing helmets. By the late 1980s only a handful of veterans were still helmetless. The league dropped the helmet requirement and only one player took his helmet off.
A few years later the last helmetless player retired and all players have worn helmets since without a rule.
So the goal is to have no one use the rifle in question within about 90 years.
It would also be nice if someone stops killing people because he ran out of guns and bullets then has to surrender to cops who were too scared to enter a room and shoot at him.
Here's a math question: if all Obama's proposals pass as presented, what is the maximum number of bullets a person could reasonably carry with him along with any combination of legal guns?

 

Get rid of the helmet law in California and see how many bikers still wear them. That argument is just way out there. How about we tell Hollywood they can no longer show guns in movies simply because its a gesture to show we care.

LOL

And if all of these gun propositions pass a person could still easily carry hundreds of bullets. All they have to do is reload which a non-professional shooter can do in about 2 seconds. Utterly pointless.

 

Will you admit that Wayne LaPierre's "armed guard in every school" is equally ludicrious and illogical and mathmatically unsound?

 

Not at all.

Its the best solution overall.

You got a better one then lets hear it.

 

Wrong, many on the Left believe in the right to bear arms, so by making blanket statements such as yours you prove you are doing exactly what you claim an entire or group does.
NEXT!

 

If you believe in the right to bear arms then your not on the left, your in the middle.

The left doesn't believe in the right to bear arms and would toss it out in a heartbeat.

 

Ayuh,.... Sorry Ace,... Ya blew 'em outa the water, Right there,....

As proven by Captain Scorn...

 

Fine, let's run some numbers as the OP did. (BTW, when I finish, you'll be very hard-pressed to refute the findings....just to give you a heads up).

90,000 public schools.....requiring 90,000-plus armed guards (some larger schools may need more than one).

Let us suppose an EXTREMELY low figure for "The number of undiagnosed psychopaths in the United States"....0.1% (Actually some put it closer to 1%, but let's be "conservative").and half of that are able to evade THE most rigorous screening process devised by psychological science...again, very low.

90,000 times 0.05%....is FORTY-FIVE armed lunatics in an equal number of schools.

All thanks to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.

 

So according to your logic we should disband all law enforcement and military personel because a portion of them fall into your lunatic category?

Interesting. I love that liberal logic.

 

No, according to my math and statistics....Wayne LaPierre wants to enact a plan that would INCREASE the likelihood of a school shooting....by a person WITHIN the school supposedly protecting it.

And when, not if, that happened....even ONCE?...what would LaPierre's "solution" be then? "Armed guards to guard the armed guards"???

 

Yes, let's think this thing through with logic.

No one is calling for a ban on weapons. There is no proposed law to take away your guns.

There may, and should, be a proposal to limit the capacity of firearms. This is not banning guns.

In any argument about this I have never heard a logical reason not to eliminate high capacity magazines. What is their purpose?

There has been a lack of logic among fervent gunners. This tendency to compare automobile deaths to gun deaths ignores the fact that there are restrictions on autos. An auto maker cannot sell cars without seat belts and other safety devices. There are highway speed limits.

So why is there not a restriction on firearm capacity? Already duck hunters are limited to 3 rounds in the gun. They are also restricted in the use of ammo.

You can do anything you want with 5 round mags. Except maybe go bang, bang, bang until you get off or kill scores of children.

 

The part of your equation that's being left out is how many school shooters these guys would prevent? If that is greater than your number of 45 guards then it is a positive not a negative, correct?

Your also not considering the fact that if they wanted to shoot up schools they could do that now. Putting a uniform on them isn't going to make them do something that's not already there.

 

Nope.

What about my politics being:

Pro-choice
Pro-gay rights
Pro-union
Pro-collective ownership of the means of production
Redistribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat
The eventual abolishment of the monetary economy in favor of a resource based economy

Is even remotely centrist?

Sorry, but your two dimensional view of politics is silly and demonstrates a poor understanding of politics.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL What is is the "assault weapons" ban then? If not a ban on firearms, what is it?

Be explicit in your answer!

 

Libertarian-socialist that wants to defend his right to be that way!

 

How many security guards go on shooting sprees.

Answer the question explicitly, or simply refrain from posting further.

 

"...Wayne LaPierre's "armed guard in every school" is equally ludicrious and illogical and mathmatically unsound?"

Taxcutter says:
LaPierre's proposal is lifted straight from Israel and from a number of inner-city schools. It seems to work.

 

More if you have more. Logically. If there is a 0.1% chance per decade of 1000 individuals doing something, that means it, you would get ONE person doing that every decade.

Now add 10,000 individuals to the mix....0.1% chance per decade of 11,000 individuals doing something....you get?

ELEVEN individuals every decade. Is eleven more than one?

Now, Mr. LaPierre is suggesting ADDING 90,000 more armed security guards (placing them within schools no less). Mathmatically, will the possibility of an "incident" with those 90,000 NEW additions increase or decrease from their current status at a few dozen that are in schools today?

Also you have to explain how you will develop THE world's most perfect psychological screening system...so that NOT ONE psychopath is given a weapon and assigned to a school....FOREVER.

Because if it happens EVEN ONCE....LaPierre's "solution" just killed children that in a different circumstance would not be killed or atleast have a much lower chance of being killed.

And at that point, as I asked above, what would Wayne's NEXT "solution" be????

- - - Updated - - -

How many public schools in Israel?

 

No, violating the Constitution based on flawed logic, with said ban having no effect on crime whatsoever is NOT better than doing nothing at all.

As to your question, it's hilarious. What makes you think a person will be able to carry any lower amount of bullets with Obama's proposal than with nothing at all? The answer: it won't matter one bit.

Thanks for proving what I thought would happen. No logic. Nothing but nonsensical babbling about the NHL and a "thought" that with a particular law passed, a person will be able to carry less bullets.

Comical.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: I have no facts or logic whatsoever to present here. Would you settle for a subject change instead? Hey look, there goes a squirrel!

 

I think we need an additional number to consider your numbers. The number I want isn't pulled out of my ass like you just did, it's a number based on something we who walk upright call REALITY. How many armed school guards have gone beserk so far, and what is the death toll? Upon you answering that, I think we can give your desperate subject change a good looking over.

Of course, then using that same logic, we're going to have to disarm policemen as well, right?