What does gun violence really COST

ElCubano · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
Just a quick question to all you AR loving people. How many of you, while not in uniform, defended a single person that has been attacked by one of these warped people? Of the 300,000,000 guns owned in this country, how many in percent terms have been used for self-defense by non-military or non-police officers?

You are seven times more likely to get struck by lighting than to have to use an assault rifle to defend yourself.
More...

I wonder how many in turn have used the gun in an instance of rage just because they were carrying.

nitro · Dec 3, 2015

ElCubano said:
I wonder how many in turn have used the gun in an instance of rage just because they were carrying.
More...

Exactly.

ElCubano · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
Of those 300M only a tiny fraction are ARs. I didn't say it is against the law to own guns. On the contrary, it is a constitutional right. I say it is illegal to own an AR, and probably a semi-automatic handgun although I am willing to live with those.
More...

oh ok.

CaptainObvious · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
Two steps, make assault rifles (AR) illegal to own, and I think there has to be a financial incentive for people to give ARs back voluntarily by giving them the market value of their AR back. Then, those ARs might be replaced by plain old hand guns - POHGs, and preferably not semi-automatic. But there are two components to a gun, and maybe number of rounds purchased is where people should be concentrating on not just type of weapon.

I see no reason other than that it might be cool to be able to own an assault rifle to have one. For hunting, a standard rifle is more than adequate. I am not suggesting people should not own gun since it is a constitutional right. I claim that we are all safer if we make assault rifles illegal to own for non military or police officers.

If you are a registered owner of an assault rifle and you have not turned in your rifle by a certain amount of time, you will be getting a house call from the army. If you want to get in a war with your assault rifle them, may you vaya con dios.
More...

I thought handguns were the problem. Now we have a couple incidents with rifles and suddenly it's rifles. Can't you guys make up your mind? OH wait, you already have. In the end they all gotta' go, don't they?
One more thing. You might want to define what an assault rifle really is. If it doesn't fire full auto, it's not an assault rifle however much it may look like one.

ElCubano · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
Exactly.
More...

Like the guy that gets home from work to find his wife pinned up against the backboard..lol

gwb-trading · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
Two steps, make assault rifles (AR) illegal to own, and I think there has to be a financial incentive for people to give ARs back voluntarily by giving them the market value of their AR back. Then, those ARs might be replaced by plain old hand guns - POHGs, and preferably not semi-automatic. But there are two components to a gun, and maybe number of rounds purchased is where people should be concentrating on not just type of weapon.

I see no reason other than that it might be cool to be able to own an assault rifle to have one. For hunting, a standard rifle is more than adequate. I am not suggesting people should not own gun since it is a constitutional right. I claim that we are all safer if we make assault rifles illegal to own for non military or police officers.

If you are a registered owner of an assault rifle and you have not turned in your rifle by a certain amount of time, you will be getting a house call from the army. If you want to get in a war with your assault rifle them, may you vaya con dios.
More...

Well I will give you credit. You have provided guidance on your basic proposed plan.

I disagree with your proposal, but at least you made your position and basic steps clear.

Later in this thread (when I get some time) I will ask questions about two basic scenarios about gun owners and ask the guidance from you and others on how to handle the two situations.

nitro · Dec 3, 2015

CaptainObvious said:
I thought handguns were the problem. Now we have a couple incidents with rifles and suddenly it's rifles. Can't you guys make up your mind? OH wait, you already have. In the end they all gotta' go, don't they?
One more thing. You might want to define what an assault rifle really is. If it doesn't fire full auto, it's not an assault rifle however much it may look like one.
More...

I define an "AR" as a long gun with automatic capabilities. Not sure the caliber of the bullet matters. That is why I did not include standard rifles that you have to pull the lever back on to eject and reload as an AR. Hunters should be allowed to kill their own food.

I never said people shouldn't own guns and in fact stated the opposite since it is a constitutional right. Look at the VERY FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD. I do question the wisdom of making semi-automatic weapons legal. I am very clear that there is no need to own an AR and that they only help the bad guys. In addition, I have not heard a SINGLE instance where some civilian with an assault rifle defended themselves or another victim.

CaptainObvious · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
I define an "AR" as a long gun with automatic capabilities. Not sure the caliber of the bullet matters. That is why I did not include standard rifles that you have to pull the lever back on to eject and reload as an AR. Hunters should be allowed to kill their own food.

I never said people shouldn't own guns and in fact stated the opposite since it is a constitutional right. I do question the wisdom of making semi-automatic weapons legal. I am very clear that there is no need to own an AR and that they only help the bad guys. In addition, I have not heard a SINGLE instance where some civilian with an assault rifle defended themselves or another victim.
More...

Every single rifle is semi-automatic, other than some single shot musket. Some can be fitted or retro fitted into full auto capabilities. Nearly all shotguns are semi-auto. Most hand guns are semi auto. Even a revolver can be considered semi auto, though more time consuming to reload. If you're going to make all semi-automatic weapons illegal you are essentially saying nearly every rifle and hand gun will be illegal. So other than a double barrel shotgun, what would you have to be legal?

nitro · Dec 3, 2015

CaptainObvious said:
Every single rifle is semi-automatic, other than some single shot musket. Some can be fitted or retro fitted into full auto capabilities. Nearly all shotguns are semi-auto. Most hand guns are semi auto. Even a revolver can be considered semi auto, though more time consuming to reload. If you're going to make all semi-automatic weapons illegal you are essentially saying nearly every rifle and hand gun will be illegal. So other than a double barrel shotgun, what would you have to be legal?
More...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/semi-automatic-gun-assault-weapon-definitions

As I said, I can live with semi-automatic guns because it would probably be overwhelming to gather them all and go back to colt-45s.

CaptainObvious · Dec 3, 2015

nitro said:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/semi-automatic-gun-assault-weapon-definitions

As I said, I can live with semi-automatic guns because it would probably be overwhelming to gather them all and go back to colt-45s.
More...

Then you have me confused. You say " I do question the wisdom of making semi-automatic weapons legal" in a previous post, and now write you can live with semi autos.