The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[OftenWrong]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

People can work on changing the system and politicians but that must be considered a very long-term goal.  In the meantime, better prepare for continuation of around 14,000 gun deaths a year and over 20,000 injuries, even with no war.  That will continue as a fact of life.   

In the meantime, Canada can continue to confiscate any illegal firearms being brought across the border and try to confiscate illegal handguns in Canada.

I take an even more cynical view. I suggest these things will never happen, and nothing will change the road we are on short of absolute catastrophe, or a miracle.

Edited February 25, 2018 by OftenWrong

[Hal 9000]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

How do you propose to take it out when it actually exists? I'll get the popcorn.

Well, stats used are on a national average.  Take the 30 murders per 100,000 people (Chicago) out of the national average, take away the 60/100,000 in other gang communities such as Baltimore or St. Louis and voila, the national average seems to fall in line to within a half a point of nearly every other country in Europe or Canada.  That said, I don't plan to find myself in gangland Chicago anytime soon, therefore when I'm in the USA, I feel quite safe.  

Let's face it, just like Dana Loesch said, the media and the politicians don't care about black hoodlums shooting each other (there has been as many black murders in Chicago since 2/14 as there was at that school), but a school shooting of white kids causes all sorts boycotts, protests and calls for changing laws.  Seems that this is the perfect time for BLM to say something about racism.

Nothing about changing gun laws or taking away AR-15's will bring down gun violence in any meaningful way if one looks at national averages, and the only thing that will solve school shootings is security in schools. 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Take the 30 murders per 100,000 people (Chicago) out of the national average,

What kind of math is that? You can't deduct from an average. There were a total of 650 murders in Chicago last year, some of them attributed to gang violence. If you want to ignore the gang violence in Chicago then you first need to figure out how many of that 650 were due to gang violence and deduct that number from the national total of 17,250. Of course pretending that has any validity is ludicrous, other nations also have gang violence issues and you are not deducting them either.

[Omni]

17 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well, stats used are on a national average.  Take the 30 murders per 100,000 people (Chicago) out of the national average, take away the 60/100,000 in other gang communities such as Baltimore or St. Louis and voila, the national average seems to fall in line to within a half a point of nearly every other country in Europe or Canada.  That said, I don't plan to find myself in gangland Chicago anytime soon, therefore when I'm in the USA, I feel quite safe.  

Let's face it, just like Dana Loesch said, the media and the politicians don't care about black hoodlums shooting each other (there has been as many black murders in Chicago since 2/14 as there was at that school), but a school shooting of white kids causes all sorts boycotts, protests and calls for changing laws.  Seems that this is the perfect time for BLM to say something about racism.

Nothing about changing gun laws or taking away AR-15's will bring down gun violence in any meaningful way if one looks at national averages, and the only thing that will solve school shootings is security in schools. 

Yep, you're just fiddling numbers now. The fact is you have a better chance of being shot to death in the US than you do of dyeing in a car accident in  Canada. And your "head in the sand" approach that gun laws won't bring down gun violence has been totally refuted by what happened in Australia. 

[Hal 9000]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What kind of math is that? You can't deduct from an average. There were a total of 650 murders in Chicago last year, some of them attributed to gang violence. If you want to ignore the gang violence in Chicago then you first need to figure out how many of that 650 were due to gang violence and deduct that number from the national total of 17,250. Of course pretending that has any validity is ludicrous, other nations also have gang violence issues and you are not deducting them either.

I don't think you understand, you have a variety of problems and you people are putting forth a solution for a different problem. 

[Hal 9000]

Just now, Omni said:

Yep, you're just fiddling numbers now. The fact is you have a better chance of being shot to death in the US than you do of dyeing in a car accident in  Canada. And your "head in the sand" approach that gun laws won't bring down gun violence has been totally refuted by what happened in Australia. 

So, are you now saying that all guns should be banned?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not the way you and Hal use facts. And while my question was not directed at you the silence of the masses suggests you are fairly representative.

   

Your cryptic utterances are nothing short of beffudling to me. Tell you what, once you start questioning the way leftists give unsubstantiated, baseless opinions on virtually everything, you might have a sensible point to make. Sorry fella

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

So, are you now saying that all guns should be banned?

I am not, and neither are many of the people who are responding to the Parkland shooting. but they are talking about tightening up the laws for owning such crazy deadly weapons as the AR 15. You are aware of what the "A" stands for I suppose. Most states you don't even need a background check. Cruz bought his legally without one. Up to the Lakeland shooting there was one somewhere in the US on an average of every 2.5 days. People are getting a bit fed up finally. If you're taking your lead from Dana Loesch then I can only roll my eyes. Her ridiculous comments in her speech at CPAC made me want to shoot her. 

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

I am not, and neither are many of the people who are responding to the Parkland shooting. but they are talking about tightening up the laws for owning such crazy deadly weapons as the AR 15. You are aware of what the "A" stands for I suppose. Most states you don't even need a background check. Cruz bought his legally without one. Up to the Lakeland shooting there was one somewhere in the US on an average of every 2.5 days. People are getting a bit fed up finally. If you're taking your lead from Dana Loesch then I can only roll my eyes. Her ridiculous comments in her speech at CPAC made me want to shoot her. 

Yes, I believe the "A" stands for "Armalite".

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yes, I believe the "A" stands for "Armalite".

Technically that is correct, but that would be tactic Dana types would use to hide the other "A" word pertaining to the weapon.

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Technically that is correct, but that would be tactic Dana types would use to hide the other "A" word pertaining to the weapon.

 

I'm pretty sure it's exactly the other way around, people like you see the "AR" and some anti-gun group without actually looking into "AR", assumes something and voila, now you people have bought the idea "Assault Rifle".  Admit it, you actually think it was named "Assault Rifle - 15".

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'm pretty sure it's exactly the other way around, people like you see the "AR" and some anti-gun group without actually looking into "AR", assumes something and voila, now you people have bought the idea "Assault Rifle".  Admit it, you actually think it was named "Assault Rifle - 15".

 

Are you unaware of what the gun was designed for. Hint: it wasn't so you could go into the woods to get a rabbit for your supper.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Your cryptic utterances are nothing short of beffudling to me.

That's just you.

Quote

Tell you what, once you start questioning the way leftists give unsubstantiated, baseless opinions on virtually everything, you might have a sensible point to make. Sorry fella

You mean like that other befuddled idiot Hot Enough? There was little point in questioning him too as I recall.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

 I think the US has about 30 times the rate of gun deaths of the UK.  The countries you point out as being bad, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil are bad choices because they in drug wars or in some anarchy and not models of anything.  Again you lose on that comparison.

 

...and Canada's firearms homicide rate is about 20 times that in the UK.

I don't "lose" on anything...facts are what they are....Mexico, Brazil, and Russia are "major" OECD nations, with populations much larger than Canada.

So why does Canada have so many more firearms homicides than the United Kingdom (or Australia) per capita ?

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-Kingdom/Crime

Edited February 25, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I don't think you understand, you have a variety of problems and you people are putting forth a solution for a different problem. 

What solution that "you people" are putting forth are you referring to. I am simply pointing out that your exercise in manipulating statistics doesn't hold true. Take away gangland Chicago, and the rest of Chicago as well and you still have 16,600 murders to deal with. Yes, you are fairly safe in the USA but you are far far safer elsewhere.

 

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yes, I believe the "A" stands for "Armalite".

The AR-15 design by Eugene Stoner was a selective fire weapon, known in the US military as the M16. The Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation established the Armalite division to create rifles for the military market. They sold the rights to the AR-15 (and others) to Colt in the early 60's,  spun off the Armalite division which eventually went out of business in the early 1980s. The name Armalite was purchased in the 1990s but branding is the only relationship between the current company and the old one. Colt started using the brand AR-15 for its civilian version of the M16 (ie. not selective fire).

• The Armalite selective fire AR-15 is an assault rifle
• The M16 is a generic armed forces designation for that design
• The current Colt AR-15 is a M16 assault rifle less the selective fire capability
• The current company Armalite makes the claim that the AR designation in the original company (starting with the AR-1) means Armalite Rifle although I have not seen any product literature (engineering, marketing, etc.) from Fairchild to that effect.

[?Impact]

58 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So why does Canada have so many more firearms homicides than the United Kingdom (or Australia) per capita ?

Good question.

• UK - low firearm ownership (6.6), low firearm homicide rate (0.06)
• Canada - high firearm ownership (30.8 - five times), medium firearm homicide rate (0.38 - or six times)
• US - very high firearm ownership (101.5 - fifteen times), very high firearm homicide rate (3.6 - or sixty times)

But no, there couldn't be any correlation the NRA have drilled that into my head.

Edited February 25, 2018 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Good question.

• UK - low firearm ownership, low firearm homicides
• Canada - medium firearm ownership, medium firearm homicides
• US - high firearm ownership, high firearm homicides

But no, there couldn't be any correlation the NRA have drilled that into my head.

 

There is no NRA in Mexico, Brazil, or Russia.    All these OECD (major countries) have higher firearms homicide rates than the U.S.

However, Canada does have the NFA....and 20 times the firearms homicide rate than the United Kingdom.

 

[?Impact]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

There is no NRA in Mexico, Brazil, or Russia.    All these OECD (major countries) have higher firearms homicide rates than the U.S.

However, Canada does have the NFA....and 20 times the firearms homicide rate than the United Kingdom.

Reload you page, I put the numbers in my previous post. Canada is 6 times the UK, and the US is 60 times the UK.

Yes, Mexico, Russia and Brazil have big problems. You are right that the NRA is not their issue, it is rampant crime and corruption.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yes, I believe the "A" stands for "Armalite".

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21915-what-are-you-listening-to/?do=findComment&comment=1263005

 

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Reload you page, I put the numbers in my previous post. Canada is 6 times the UK, and the US is 60 times the UK.

Yes, Mexico, Russia and Brazil have big problems. You are right that the NRA is not their issue, it is rampant crime and corruption.

 

As discussed in the link below, one of the reasons UK gun homicide rates are so low is because of how the UK counts homicides (and arrests/convictions).   The UK is probably not 6 or 20 times better than Canada, or 60 time better than the U.S.

Further, the U.S. is an outlier with far higher gun ownership per capita, and fewer homicides per number of guns owned compared to some other OECD nations.

The U.S. is not the worst, and Canada is certainly not the best.

Quote

Many gun control advocates prefer to look at only firearm homicides, not total murders. The United States has neither the highest firearm homicide rates for all countries or for developed countries.

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The United States has neither the highest firearm homicide rates for all countries or for developed countries.

But you are getting there rapidly.

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What solution that "you people" are putting forth are you referring to. I am simply pointing out that your exercise in manipulating statistics doesn't hold true. Take away gangland Chicago, and the rest of Chicago as well and you still have 16,600 murders to deal with. Yes, you are fairly safe in the USA but you are far far safer elsewhere.

 

The AR-15 design by Eugene Stoner was a selective fire weapon, known in the US military as the M16. The Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation established the Armalite division to create rifles for the military market. They sold the rights to the AR-15 (and others) to Colt in the early 60's,  spun off the Armalite division which eventually went out of business in the early 1980s. The name Armalite was purchased in the 1990s but branding is the only relationship between the current company and the old one. Colt started using the brand AR-15 for its civilian version of the M16 (ie. not selective fire).

• The Armalite selective fire AR-15 is an assault rifle
• The M16 is a generic armed forces designation for that design
• The current Colt AR-15 is a M16 assault rifle less the selective fire capability
• The current company Armalite makes the claim that the AR designation in the original company (starting with the AR-1) means Armalite Rifle although I have not seen any product literature (engineering, marketing, etc.) from Fairchild to that effect.

Thanks for the lesson, I'm sure Omni should read it more than I, however the question posed was basically, what does the "A" in AR-15 mean, and regardless of your post, It means Armalite.  No matter how you and Omni defend the arrogant smugness of his post, it is what it is...Armalite.

[?Impact]

44 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

regardless of your post, It means Armalite

Great, can you substantiate it? I gave you detailed history. One additional fact is the owner of the AR-15 trademark, originally applied for in August 1966, do not call it Armalite Rifle they simply call it AR-15.

[Hal 9000]

Just to be clear, I have no qualms with more regulations.  I think that something like Canada, where you take a course and get an approved background for a gun before you even consider walking into a store to purchase one is a good start.  In fact, I cant believe that the US and NRA hasn't considered this as a revenue stream for the NRA.  You get called racist for even suggesting "stop and frisk", yet shutting down legal gun owners is almost expected.  My issue is that the solutions from the left seem to punish the law abiding citizen but not the outlaw.   

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

My issue is that the solutions from the left seem to punish the law abiding citizen but not the outlaw.   

Solutions like a registry that allows tracking a weapon back from a crime? I don't consider people who sell or give away weapons to improperly licensed folks to be law abiding, neither do I consider people who are lax in storing and securing their firearms.