Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2117695)

Did I say anything about justifying children dying every year? Is getting rid of guns going to stop children from dying every year? I think that the idea of children dying by being shot in schools is just an excuse for those that wish to impel their personal fears and beliefs on others. If they really cared about children they would not be so cavalier about ignoring the majority of citizens rights. If they really cared about the children's safety, they would protect them at the schools instead of attempting to change the masses to their will. Like I said before, harden the physical security and get over the idea of being able to stop mental illness. Murders have been committed since the beginning of mankind and it will never stop. Best way to stop murderers is to put them down when they commit the crime. The best way to protect is physical security. The best way to deter is to put fear into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. If someone wishes to break into my home to steal, they will NOT do so if they know I am home and armed. Why do they prefer females over males when they carjack? Because they fear strength in any form. They are cowards by nature and prey on the weak.
Like I said before, when you can show me where more folks are killed by guns than saved by guns, we can have an honest discussion on the subject of firearms.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117640)

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117744)

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2117670)

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2117521)

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Originally Posted by montysl (Post 2117747)

You assume, wrongly I believe, that our current armed forces (citizens all) would use weapons like this against other citizens of their own country, even if ordered to.
When sworn in, we swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. NOT the government. And especially not a government (or individuals) gone haywire enough to consider killing its citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2117733)

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117744)

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 2117752)

"1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that." Look at the methodology, a person "goes away" gets out of the joint and goes back to criminal activity , obviously punishment doesn't do any good, but the longer they are "away" the more society saves by keeping them out of circulation . cheaper to lock some people that have them walking free

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117777)

I agree with you, but the post I was referring to said that laws would stop/slow down the problem since people would be deterred by going to jail. That does work that way, as you say.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2117314)

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2117371)

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...