We're in a crazy period. Home values have been rising and "flipping" is starting up again in places like Miami and Las Vegas, today the stock market is going through the roof, setting a new record. The jobs report tells us that jobs are being created at a very slow pace and that new unemployment claims are down.
At the same time, the new jobs don't pay as well as the jobs they are replacing and the income gap is wider than ever.
Is it time for a revolution?
Then there's still the fact that even if AK-47's and their ilk were to disappear overnight, the effect on gun crime would be minimal since most gun crimes are perpetrated using handguns or shotguns, not assault weapons or guns looking like assault weapons. Handguns and shotguns will never be eliminated because they have too many legitimate and legal uses.
RE: "some people DO actually hunt with AKs and other 'assault style' weapons" - and do they still have the audacity to call it, "sport"? What's next, rocket launchers? Or do they already use those too?
RE: "so, extending this logically, you are advocating disarmament of ALL guns from ALL citizens (since at least 95% of these crimes are committed with handguns" - your extension, not mine - I never advocated total disarmament.
Neither am I sidestepping your idea of banning cars, by far, the majority of car deaths are accidental, few ever decide to use cars as a murder weapon, can you say the same about guns? When cars edge out guns as the murder weapon of choice, we should certainly consider banning those that serve no other useful purpose than murder.
RE: "We are wasting time trying to blame and control a tool rather than actually addressing the root problem." - there's no reason we can't do both, and while the socio-economic solution can be a long, drawn out one, many lives can be saved in the interim.
Yes, it is still a sport because it is a rifle. You completely miss the point. And adding in "rocket launchers" as a hunting tool is a strawman argument and has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about. Once again, the only difference between what you call "assault weapons" and a hunting rifle is aesthetics. I just don't understand why you are having such a hard time getting your mind wrapped around that concept.
Yes, total disarmament was my extension and never said you were trying to advocate that, but it IS (as I said) the LOGICAL extension since most crimes are committed by handguns and you are advocating gun control specifically for crime control (which is proven NOT to work, by the way).
By far the gun related deaths are suicide - so what? Just saying car related deaths are accidental doesn't mean those deaths didn't happen. You are trying to subvert the subject. You mention "murder rate" like somehow those deaths are more tragic than accidental deaths. Maybe to you they are. But that doesn't change the numbers. It also doesn't change that you are once again talking about a TOOL. I agree with you - cars shouldn't be ban. But neither should any other tool.
There IS a reason we shouldn't do both. Do you not care about the constitution? Do you not care that banning weapons CAUSES more victims? There is a very good and distinct reason NOT to impart gun control. Dude, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! GUN CONTROL CREATES MORE VICTIMS AND MORE CRIME!!!!!
Wow, an all-caps finish, indicating approaching hysteria - that is so unlike you, Keith.
RE: "Yes, it is still a sport because it is a rifle." - is that what makes it a sport? I always thought that when one hunted, sport involved giving your prey a "sporting" chance to kill you or escape, not gunning down an animal in cold blood - I'd guess, with enough funds, one could create a home zoo for that, just shoot them in their cages, and say, "Look what I bagged!"
As for the, "difference between what you call 'assault weapons' and a hunting rifle," - how many rounds per second can we expect from an "assault rifle," versus a .30-06 lever action? And with which, would a deer, or a liquor store clerk, have the most sporting chance?
RE: "By far the gun related deaths are suicide - so what?" - who said that? I didn't. Are you arguing with me regarding things another member said?! I can't hope (nor intend) to defend the statements of others.
RE: "Just saying car related deaths are accidental doesn't mean those deaths didn't happen. You are trying to subvert the subject." - no, I'm trying to derail YOUR subversion of the subject by introducing accidental car deaths. Check the definitions of "accident," vs "pre-meditated," then get back with me.
It was all caps to try to get your attention. I've been trying to say this over and over and yet you don't seem to get it. I can't quite understand what part of more gun control = more crime you aren't getting.
Yes, it's a sport. Using an "assault weapon" only makes it easier to hold. It appears you don't understand what we're talking about here. You do realize that we are NOT talking about fully automatic weapons, right? You say you are a hunter, but you don't seem to understand the first thing about wildlife. You say you were in the Army, but you don't seem to understand the first thing about even semi-automatic weapons. Even of you fired a full 30 rnd mag as fast as you could at a deer, your first 2 rounds are the only ones that have a chance of hitting. After that, your aim is so far off there is no chance of hitting anything but trees.
And why are you fixating on hunting? What difference does it make? So you "disapprove" of people hunting with a magazine of more than 7 rounds (the law, as least in the western states only allows 3 rounds to be loaded into a weapon, by the way, and not even one in the chamber). Are you now advocating that all semi-automatic weapons should be ban and only lever actions allowed to the citizenry? If not, why bring it up? I don't understand how we got on this topic at all. As I said, this conversation has nothing to do with hunting or even personal protection.
Bring up auto-related car deaths and injuries is not subversion or derailment. We are talking about preventing deaths, right? isn't your argument for gun control specifically centered on doing so because of the "dangers" of firearms? All I'm trying to do is point out that it's irrational to fixate on a single symptom simply because you, personally, don't see the "value" in it. That's why you want to avoid the analogy. We all see value in owning cars and we wouldn't give them up for the world, but some people have an irrational fear of firearms, so they are willing to allow other people to have their civil rights to be mangled because it doesn't effect them.
RE: "And why are you fixating on hunting?" - because you said we needed those weapons for self-preservation and hunting, did you forget?
RE: "Bring up auto-related car deaths and injuries is not subversion or derailment." - in a sense, you're right, it's a total obfuscation, smoke and mirrors, trying to tie something indispensable with something we can all do without - automatic weapons and StreetSweepers - is nothing more than that. The vast majority of auto-related deaths are accidental, while the majority of gun-related deaths are deliberate. Electricity can kill, as can a dozen or more conveniences I could name off the top of my head, and I must assume, in order to cloud the issue, you would suggest banning those as well. Your effort to tie guns that no one needs with transportation we can't do without, is a really weak argument, surely you can see that..
Please re-read my posts. I have NEVER said that we "need" those weapons for hunting. What I said was Hunting and self-protection has nothing to do with this debate. The right to bear arms is ONLY about the citizenry protecting itself against threats, both foreign and domestic. I have repeatedly said that hunting is a complete sidetrack that is completely immaterial.
Actually, just the opposite. You are actually making my point for me. I am NOT advocating banning those things that you can think of off the top of your head. What I am saying is that firearms falls into that same category. I don't understand why you claim the argument against cars is an obfuscation. You keep claiming that they have nothing to do with each other, but your whole point behind guns is their death rate. You insist that it is the gun that facilitates these murders, as if eliminating firearms would eliminate all these crimes. That is why I keep trying to get you to understand that a gun is a tool and do not actually commit these crimes themselves, nor would not having a gun stop the criminal. Why do you insist on ignoring the evidence?
Here's what you said, exactly: "If people want to stress out because I own a gun for hunting / self-protection, that's their problem." If hunting is such a "sidetrack," it makes me wonder why you brought it up, I didn't.
RE: "I don't understand why you claim the argument against cars is an obfuscation." - As I've already said, you are trying to compare apples with oranges.
I'm not "comparing" anything. My point is that we shouldn't be blaming cars for auto accidents just like we shouldn't be blaming the aesthetics of a firearm for gun violence. It's really no more complicated than that.
RE: "It's really no more complicated than that." - you mean other than the former dealing with accidental behavior and the latter, with deliberate and malicious behavior, then I suppose not.