In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Unfortunately, it's harder to hear the manipulation when you're listening on an Obamaphone
I gave up an up vote for your giving a down vote.
There is no chance that Obama will get much because
Just curious. Are liberals really that stupid? Do they actually believe that new laws to regulate and/or ban assault weapons will actually reduce violent crime? I hope not. I hope they know that they are doing it just to appease their base of morons and that new laws won't do anything to reduce crime. Then I could respect their rationale for doing it. If they really think that such laws will reduce crime, well then they really are morons.
I have a security system and video cameras around my house. I don't have any fire arms, but I am seriously thinking of getting some. I like the idea of putting these signs up around my house.
A lot of liberals know nothing about firearms. That's why they think an "assault weapons" ban is going to solve something. They have no idea that "assault weapons" is a political term thought up by their party leadership based on guns that look scary. It really comes down to that....the appearance of the weapon.
If there really is an assault weapons ban, I'm buying this (see photo). Larger caliber round than an AR-15 so more likely to kill, and not considered an assault weapon because there is no pistol grip or other "evil feature" like a flash suppressor or bayonet hook (oh no...those bayonets sure are dangerous).
Gun laws are written by people who know nothing about guns. Sad.
What do you base this post on? Your love of guns? Do you have any facts to back it up? There was an assault weapons ban and it expired. Mass shootings have skyrocketed since the ban expired. We have strong evidence that the ban helped save lives. What is your evidence that the ban will not help? What is your evidence regarding the state of mind of liberals? Have you toured the craniums of liberals?
And what data do you have?
Violent crime and gun deaths have fallen since. So even if there was (there wasn't) more mass killings the net numbers of deaths from guns is down.
You realize that Columbine was dead center in the middle of the assault weapons ban (AWB)? The single year with the most deaths from mass shootings was during the AWB? And it wasn't the Columbine year. That no assault weapons were used at Columbine or New Town?
That there were 32 mass shootings in the 1980's, 42 in the 1990's and only 26 in the first decade of this century? The 90's had 5 years of the AWB and the 2000's had 4 years of the AWB. With the single highest year of victims, offenders and shootings being while the AWB was in effect. So mass killings were increasing not declining during the AWB.
Even though violent crime is down what has happened as of late? I'll tell you. 1) The media has sensationalized these shootings. 2) The liberals have USED the sorrow and emotion to extend their agenda against guns and 3) sick people have found a way to get their FAME and have attacked "gun free" zones. Statistics show that less people are dying because of guns after the expiration of the AWB yet we are going to push an agenda that takes guns out of the hands of good people... because we know that the bad people will follow suit?
So tell me, what strong evidence do you have that the old ban helped save lives overall?
This post was edited by sec13graphics 18 months ago
"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK
I base it on our experience with our previous assault weapons ban and common sense. "Mass shootings" have been accomplished with pistols and rifles alike. Banning rifles with pistol grips isn't going to solve it. It certainly didnt work the last time there was a ban. Not to mention, the number of people killed in so called mass shootings is infintecimal compared to deaths by all sorts of other vices - cars, alcohol, tobacco, swinging pools. You're really talking about a handful of incidents that have been sensationalized as a reason to infringe our constitutional rights. I guess that's "skyrocketing.". My opinion of liberals on this subject comes from people like Leland Yee and Diane Fianstein. Their policies on guns are nonsensical grandstanding to get votes.
Didn't even read this before I replied. You did a much better job of bringing the facts, but we definitely think the same on this issue.
It's sad because this really shouldn't be a liberal versus conservative argument. That's like saying freedom of speech is a liberal or conservative idea. The right to beat arms is so intrinsically American it's insulting that it's being assaulted for the sake of gaining votes. And the Democratic law makers refuse to have an honest discussion about an "assault weapons" ban. They've got their political buzz word and won't let it go.
Your statistics are wrong. Gun deaths by year are:
Notice that 2012 had 151 deaths by mass shootings. More than the decades that you cite. It is by far the most in history. This has nothing to do with media sensationalism. It has to do with facts. The facts speak for themselves. They have nothing to do with politics. Sick people did find a way to get their fame, assault rifles with large magazines. Unfortunately, conservatives will not allow government to try to prevent sick people from obtaining such weapons and magazines.
I love the argument that the number of people that are killed in mass shootings is small compared to deaths by other means (e.g. cars). On that theory, we should have done nothing about terrorism after the 9/11 attack. Far more people die each year from cars than terrorism. Why didn't we just ignore the attack? What a silly argument. I bet the families of the dead do not care about the statistic. By the way, cars have a purpose other than killing people. Guns don't.
What does one have to do to senationalize the killing of 20 children and 6 adults at a school? Aren't the facts sensational on their own? Everyone is going nuts over 4 people dying in Benghazi. 4 people that volunteered to work in a very dangerous place. However, we should ignore the killing of 26 people in a school, the mass killings of people at a couple of colleges, and the mass killing of people in a theater?
From the same link
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
2009: 3.756 7 9
2003: 4.116 9
2002: 4.116 13
1999: 3.886 8
2005: 17,0026 22
2001: 16,8696 19
Thank you! I was about to post the same and accidentally clicked out of 247 and lost the data. Violence and death from gun violence are in fact DOWN.
Also, I'm seeing articles (like the one included) that show 68 or 88 deaths in 2012 from mass shootings. There was 130 in 2003 while the AWB was in effect.
Notice that suicides are way up since Obama took office too!
Indiscriminate gun violence happened at a wide variety of different places—the only thing predicable is the frequency. Today’s nearly indescribable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 27 people including 18 children were shot to death inside an elementary school, is at least the 15th mass shooting to take place in America this year. The death toll is now at 84.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by sec13graphics 18 months ago
Wow -- that rate is almost half over a 13 year period
I wonder why 1993 was so high?
New Kids On the Block released a "comeback" album...
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
That is too large a difference. There must be a glitch in the accounting causing that number to be there.
Based on quick research, there was a spike in overall homicide rate in the early 90s. I think gang activity was pretty high at that time, which would account for both a high overall rate and a high rate of gun homicides in particular. The rate at that time was the highest it had been since the 70s when NYC and other urban centers were having major gang issues.
Overall homicides are at a low rate not seen in the US since the very early 60s.
I saw an interesting theory the other day that correlated the drop in violent crimes with the reduction of lead contamination. I know that lead contamination has previously been associated with societal problems (ancient Rome, for example) but this was the first time I've ever seen it tied to modern society.
If I am reading this right, doesn't it look like the Assault Weapon Ban that went in to place in 1994 did have an impact?
And wait...I just saw something on TV that went by too fast for me to fully catch it. Was there in fact an assault rifle used at Sandy Hook?
That "glitch" is that the assault rifle ban occurred in 1994.
I bought a pre-ban AR-15 semi-automatic rifle prior to the ban. You already know who gave it a name as an 'assault rifle'. It was a so called assault rifle because it has a flash suppressor, pistol grip, and detachable magazine w/ greater than 10 rounds. After the ban I bought the same......same....same......did I say the same rifle but without the flash suppressor so it was legal. As long as you only have 2 of the three configurations you are golden.
After the ban expired you can now buy a rifle with all three configurations again...... My question is what the hell does these rifle configurations have to do with the stats listed? I want to know how many deaths are a result of an 'assault rifle' (e.g. configuration) versus hand guns - for example?
I know I'm being simplistic but targeting so called 'assault rifles' is not the solution or answer. Yeah I know, it sure makes people feel better.
Dead serious question: What does the "AR" in AR-15 stand for? Does it mean "Assault Rifle"?
I am not a gun guy, so I my knowledge is somewhat limited here.
No. The gun was originally designed by ArmaLite (the first two letters being Ar) as a military weapon before being sold to Colt.
Got it. Thank you for the information.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports