The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

When you get tired of playing in the sandbox let me know.

 

No, you frighten me because not only could you not clarify your position, but you did not even consider your position in any way. Looks to me like you refused to think. Stupid people scare me.

 

You'll need to qualify that statement for it to have any relevance but I think you know instinctively that it's been spun/tweaked.

 

Let's not gloss over this "if there were no guns" theory. If there was no USA, there would be no U.S. politics to argue over. That's a sound solution, eh Bob?

 

From now on I will only respond to you if you post something sensible so this is the last time I am going to point out that "my position" is crystal clear but you prefer to make up your own cockamamy conclusions rather than look me in the eye man to man.

 

Maybe things aren't as sparkling crystal clear as you would like them to be, Thingamabob.

I asked for clarification on "no one".

Do you mean like if guns were removed from all mankind, or do you mean if government rounded up all the guns out of private hands and kept government guns?

I'm just trying to acertain if your statement was a pipe dream or a crackpot delusion.

 

The numbers are readily available from government sources, there's nothing to spin. There ARE approximately double the firearms in civilian hands than 30 years ago. And, there IS approximately half the violent crime during that same time period.

If you ONLY look at "gun violence", and do not take anything else into your analysis, then you are the one spinning and tweaking. If you are interested in honestly assessing the overall impact anything has on peaceable society, you have to weigh ALL the parameters. Not just the ones that lead you to the conclusion you want.

Consider this hypothetical: A strong-arm robber gets shot in the face by a shopkeeper. Statistically, the "shootings" number that you find tragic goes up by one, and you come on the forum posting about how bad it is. But, since we know that strong-arm robbers typically commit numerous robberies over their career, the number of robberies goes down by how ever many this now-deceased robber would have committed in the future, but now can't.

That is a net-positive for society, whether or not you think a robber getting shot is a bad thing. And that reflects exactly what we see in the data; twice the guns, half the violent crime.

Whether or not a direct causation can be shown is irrelevant, the fact remains, there ARE more guns, and there IS less violence over the last 30 years. What you are ignoring in your analysis is that defensive use of firearms has a positive effect on overall violent crime.

 

I respectfully disagree on one point; the AR-15 is not technically a "weapon of war", in my opinion. In order to be called a "weapon of war", it would have had to be issued to a military at some point, and/or have been used in a war. The AR-15, to my knowledge, has never been issued to any military, and has never been used, as a primary weapon at least, in any war.

That is not to say that it couldn't be used that way, it just hasn't yet. A militia can, and will, use anything; hammers, knives, automobiles, fists, etc. That does not make all of them "weapons of war".

 

My post stipulates their claims to be true, and then demonstrate said claims do not matter.

Note the absence of meaningful response from those who make those claims.

 

Interesting perspective.

In other words: "So what if it's a weapon of war?"

It's a legally protected weapon of war just as the flintlock muskets in the homes of early Americans were the same as the flintlock musket carried by America's early G.I.s.

The point is that at the time the Bill of Rights was being composed, American civilians could own precisely the same firearms that were issued to each early American soldier.

Thanks,

 

Glad you finally came around.

Give them a chad yes and move on with your life.

 

I can't possibly be spinning or tweaking anything at all. Have I made any statement? No. What I am saying is that I am certain that I can find some quote that refutes yours ..... you'll find another one that refutes mine ..... then me .... and you again .... and we'll never resolve the issue. Common sense, however, doesn't leave very much in doubt that gun violence in the US is atrocious and increasing the number of guns cannot possibly result in a decrease in shootings. Logic, you know what I mean?

 

1993-2017: # guns in the US increased >25%
1993-2017: US gun-related violence rates fell 55%

 

You nailed it!

 

white folks in the USA have the highest percentage and amount of guns owned legally in the world. Yet white Americans' rate of gun violence is no higher than white living in gun banning countries. Go figure

 

If you cared to read, you will see that I actually agreed with you. I said, any time you increase the number of ANYTHING, you will get more misuse/abuse of that thing. So, yes, the more guns the more gun related misuse. The more cars, the more car crashes... the more hammers, the more squashed thumbs.... etc. Cars add more value to society than the damage they cause. They are a net-gain. Same with hammers...

When you zero in on exclusively "gun violence", you are dishonestly dismissing most of the equation. If you want to honestly analyze the impact that "more guns" have on our society, you MUST weigh the positive against the negative. The 2021 National Firearms Survey estimates 1.67 million DEFENSIVE uses of firearms. Even so, the vast majority of defensive uses go unreported, so there is no way to know the actual number, but it's certainly north of there.

There is NO disputing or spinning the data. We do have nearly double the firearms from 30 years ago. And we do have nearly half the violent crime during the same time span. More guns, less violent crime... demonstrably. ONLY those who want to spin the narrative, will limit their scope to only "gun crimes" when examining the effect guns have on our society.

 

... and ....

What are you talking about? What is it you think you are debating? I made my initial statement and you have only proved that I am right. Anything else you tossed into the ring is absurd conjecture and your imagination in an attempt at fluffing your ears. Are you just making things up as you go along to side-step the issue? It can't work. It wouldn't work. It didn't work. Deal with it.

 

You challenged my honesty with this post:

That is what I am debating. You asked me to qualify that statement, that's what I did.

 

Read it again. I never challenged your honesty. I challenged the source.

No, that's not the debate. It's just a minor footnote. The debate is about the relationship between the number of guns to the number of shootings.

Well, you tried to qualify your statement (based upon your source) but you lost your way and missed it. Anyway, I not only questioned the source (before you even cited it) but I elaborated on it and actually proved my point thanks to the unwitting contribution by TOG 6 in his post #38. So far, I have proved every point I've made from the beginning ..... 3 or 4 of them. Your problem is that you have an absurd notion as to what I've said and what is actually being debated. See posts #3, #10, and #23.

 

My statement, that you challenged me to qualify is this: "More guns, less crime, demonstrably."

The source is the FBI's "Uniform Crime Report", which is a report they do annually about crime in our country, in a uniform way, so as to be able to compare statistics year over year. That report shows that "violent crime" is about half what it was 30 years ago.

So, since no one can dispute that there ARE more guns, and the UCR shows there IS less crime, my statement has been qualified. You're welcome.

 

So, you think questioning your source of info is the same as "challenging your honesty"? Ohhhhhh, and the rest of this response of yours (above and below in quotes) is meant to motivate that absurd conviction of yours? Coo-coo.

And that is what you call a "uniform report" worthy of "statistic comparison". Gulp! I'd have more faith in the National Enquirer. Shall I list all of the mis/dis-information the FBI-CIA has gloated out in the past few years? Naw, it would take a week just to tally them off from memory alone. Did you find those WMDs, by the way? They must be somewhere. After all, you had proof upon proof of their existence.

Half of "what" appears to be left out of the 'report'. This is like "9 out of 10 doctors recommend" drinking a case of beer and snorting a kilo of cocaine every day. Let me guess, you don't know what I'm talking about. Right? I can help you understand (and I will if you like) but I feel certain you'll try to weasel out of it.

I wouldn't anyway.

Less crime in what capacity? You're still leaving that part out of it but you don't know because that info wasn't provided to you.

again. again. AGAIN. All you have done is proved (well, I'll take your word for it) that you read a "report" that makes an incomplete claim. But ..... I never challenged your honesty .... can you get that through your head? It's the report (MUST I REALLY AND TRULY KEEP REPEATING IT?) that is in doubt.

I believe the bogus "report" is dumbing you down by way of the term "more guns" and that is the very reason it is cryptically evasive. Plus, you display a tenacious insistence on confusing "shootings" with "violent crime" Why is that? Think about it first before you answer me.

 

Are you being selectively absurd?

You've been responding in this thread, as we can all see what you've written.
But have you actually addressed the particulars of the OP?
-Obviously- not

So, here's the choice I put to you:

1). Are you avoiding the OP because you know you do not have a meaningful response?
... or ...
2). Are you avoiding the OP because you do not understand the facts presented and/or argument made?

 

I have made a statement. That statement is true. It is factual. It cannot be denied. Even you cannot deny it. Am I right? EVERYTHING to do with guns, ownership of guns ..... mass shootings, or otherwise, must obey my initial statement. It is a fundament fact. Those who think everyone should own a gun or have the right to own a gun are doing their damnedest to avoid meeting my statement face to face. There can be no remedy to gun violence unless you admit that my statement is true. Without addressing that one fact nothing can ever be accomplished. Are you avoiding it because you do not understand the facts presented and/or the argument made pertaining to it or are you avoiding it because you know you do not have a meaningful response?

 

In doing so, you failed to address the facts and arguments found in the OP.
And, having been given another chance to address those facts and that argument, you chose not to.

Given the choices presented, I can only conclude:
You avoided addressing the facts and argument presented in the OP because you know you do not have a meaningful response.

Concession accepted.

 

You are unable to appreciate the wisdom in my words presumably because you are not at an adequate level of understanding and therefore it is causing you a lot of anguish. I suggest you avoid reading my posts.