In the previous pictures, the correct order of danger is the pictured Mini-14, AR-15, Bolt action rifle.
Why, might you ask?
Because the AR and Mini-14 are functionally identical, but the ‘tacticlol’ or ‘tacticool’ AR in the above picture is equipped with a long range scope, which makes it ridiculously difficult to use in short range – like within a mall.
So, while you might believe that the scarier looking weapon is always, or even typically, more dangerous – often times it’s quite the opposite.
Nice try. Didn’t bite that bait a bit, I’m staying with the original answer:
The order of the identifications is the order of the images provided, not the order of dangerousnessosity. As clearly stated in the text, the most dangerous weapon - to the operator, the only person I, as the operator, would care about - is the AR, due to its reputation for unreliability. I’m tellin’ ya, ya’ want the AK *.
Now, what do I win? **
for shooting zombies. We don’t have much of a zombie problem, again, probably due to our excellent health care - really, you should try it. Hell, send up Glenn Beck, he’s apparently got health issues, or, if you prefer, Ann Coulter, she’s apparently a zombie.
**on a serious note, we gun-control oriented Canadians are very aware of the lethality of the Mini-14.
Equating the wants of terrorists and pedophiles with those of law abiding, upright citizens who support RKBA renders anything you have to say on this topic devoid of value.
That’s the problem, right there. The antis know that they haven’t anywhere near the support to do that. Thus, the creeping incrementalism bullshit and the questionably legal tactics employed by wealthy antis like Bloomberg. This bunch has already awarded themselves the moral high ground and would place themselves above the Constitution itself as supreme law of the land.
Where in the world of rational thought do any of you get the ridiculous idea that you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate guns? Either guns are or are not regulated right now. Many of us disagree on the scope of those regulations, but regulation has been part of the law for a long long time now. That very fact demonstrates clearly that regulation is within the Constitutional powers of government today.
Sure, if you want to ban all guns, you would have to do that, but that is an extremist position that I see little support for.
As I have said here many times, if the Second Amendment allows people to have a pistol, rifle or shotgun for protection or hunting or target shooting, that is more than fine with me and I support that. What I do not support is an every increasing ramping up of weaponry making them more powerful and more deadly simply because technology is able and the gun makers can sell them.
I don’t see why, but if you do the comparisons you find that the US and UK crime rates are broadly comparable except for murder and rape, which are much higher in the US.
Why is this relevant to the point that there are many more gun murders in the US, both in total and as a proportion of the weapons used?
In the UK, about 30% of murders are with a knife. There are about 800 murders a year in the UK, giving a knife rate about half of that in the US, when corrected for population.
You can find a cite for feet and fist crime statistics.
Well, yes, unless you correct for population differences…
You don’t need a constitutional amendment to regulate guns, you need one to ban them, any of them.
Because if you don’t correct for overall crime, the entire conversation is without a baseline.
If you’re 10 times more likely to be murdered in New York than Nebraska, and there are 7 times as much gun crime in New York, guns aren’t really an issue.
My point, ignoring my poor comparison, is that it’s not gun crime, it’s overall crime that should be tackled.
Exactly. A lot of people take what they know about the US and try apply it to the UK, but they do not know the culture or background and so draw strange conclusions. (I know you are from down under, and am not accusing you of such.) That is the main reason for the statistics and history I have been putting into this thread.
Everyone in the US knows that the UK instituted a “gun ban” and view that in terms of what it would mean to them in the culture that they know. My point is that the gun ban occurred a long time ago (mostly straight after WWII) and the UK citizenry have lived very happily in this state since. In 1997 there was a minor irrelevance (unless you were a pistol target shooter) added to gun control.
You haven’t read a word that anybody has written here that counters this absurd view that you have. As it has now become an exercise in futility, I’m done here. Banging my head against the wall until it bleeds is not my idea of fun.
Not true. As long as people have access to arms, the Second Amendment is alive and in effect. Certain guns have already been banned for use or sale to the public. The 1994 law was not overturned by the Supreme Court but simply expired due to a sunset provision.
There is no unlimited, unrestricted, unregulated right to have any damn powerful weapon you want to have just because it can be manufactured.
You know, it’s damned hard to take you seriously when it’s clear you didn’t read any of the articles I linked. Since you’re the one moaning about weapons being too powerful, how about you just tell us where the “sensible” limit on weapon power should be placed? I breathlessly await your answer.
Why is this my obligation? I am not an expert and do not paint myself as one. This is the typical trick that is employed by supporters of the gun lobby to always make it about technical knowledge of weaponry and nothing else. You have technical knowledge because you are a gun… fan… to be polite.
I am simply expressing the view that I suspect is held by many Americans – we just do not want certain weapons in our society. You asking me this question is some sort of semantic trick like asking someone to define pornography.
Like I have alreadly said, you want to have a handgun that can fire six shots or a rifle for deer hunting or a shotgun for home protection, thats fine with me. I do not want anyone outside of the military or law enforcement in our society to be able to have the type of weapon that was used in the Ft. Hood murders.
Why, despite the multiple posts attempting to steer you in the right direction, do you insist upon instilling magical properties to the gun used at Ft. Hood? You keep claiming that those of us on the other side are trying to “trick” you or something, so you purposely ignore readily available information?
I have more substantive conversations with my four year old. Sooner or later, she takes her fingers out of her ears and listens.
Bottom line, since you cannot be bothered to learn about what it is that you view with such disdain, I, and I’m sure others, will not be bothered to consider your points at all. You want compromise? Get a fucking clue and then come back.
What is difficult to believe is that someone could hold beliefs such as yours, and assume they are right, all the while keeping their held firmly entrenched in the sand.
You say I am not listening. Why cannot you accept that I did listen, I did read, and then rejected your line of reasoning? Is that such a remote possibility that somebody could indeed listen to you but reject what you believe? Are you that egocentric and such a True Believer that you cannot comprehend that someone rejects your line of reasoning?
