msstate7
Well-known member
If they did, the union would fight it tooth-and-nail to keep them a job
Gun Violence
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
If they did, the union would fight it tooth-and-nail to keep them a job
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/
The largest and most comprehensive survey of American gun owners ever conducted suggests that they use firearms in self-defense about 1.7 million times a year. It also confirms that AR-15-style rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, frequent targets of gun control legislation, are in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said is the test for arms covered by the Second Amendment.
The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners. Georgetown University political economist William English, who commissioned the survey as part of a book project, presents its major findings in a recent paper available on the Social Science Research Network.
...
The survey results indicate that Americans own some 415 million firearms, including 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns. About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had ever owned AR-15s or similar rifles, which are classified as "assault weapons" under several state laws and a proposed federal ban. Such legislation also commonly imposes a limit on magazine capacity, typically 10 rounds. Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) said they had ever owned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Those results underline the practical challenges that legislators face when they try to eliminate "assault weapons" or "large capacity" magazines. The survey suggests that up to 44 million AR-15-style rifles and up to 542 million magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds are already in circulation.
...
Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder.
...
Owners of "large capacity" magazines likewise cited a variety of lawful uses. Recreational target shooting (64 percent) was the most common, followed by home defense (62 percent), hunting (47 percent), defense outside the home (42 percent), and competitive shooting (27 percent).
Politicians who favor a 10-round limit argue that no one except for criminals and police officers really needs a larger magazine. Yet respondents described various situations, based on their personal experiences, where "it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds." These ranged from muggings and home invasions by multiple attackers to encounters with wild animals.
Maybe these gun owners were wrong to think the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading was important in those situations. But judging from the responses that English quotes, they had cogent reasons for believing that. Bans on "large capacity" magazines routinely exempt current and retired police officers, on the theory that they are especially likely to face threats (such as multiple assailants) that may require more than 10 rounds. It strains credulity to suggest that ordinary citizens never face such threats, and this survey provides further reason to doubt that assumption.
Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.
The largest and most comprehensive survey of American gun owners ever conducted suggests that they use firearms in self-defense about 1.7 million times a year. It also confirms that AR-15-style rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, frequent targets of gun control legislation, are in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said is the test for arms covered by the Second Amendment.
The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners. Georgetown University political economist William English, who commissioned the survey as part of a book project, presents its major findings in a recent paper available on the Social Science Research Network.
...
The survey results indicate that Americans own some 415 million firearms, including 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns. About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had ever owned AR-15s or similar rifles, which are classified as "assault weapons" under several state laws and a proposed federal ban. Such legislation also commonly imposes a limit on magazine capacity, typically 10 rounds. Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) said they had ever owned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Those results underline the practical challenges that legislators face when they try to eliminate "assault weapons" or "large capacity" magazines. The survey suggests that up to 44 million AR-15-style rifles and up to 542 million magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds are already in circulation.
...
Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder.
...
Owners of "large capacity" magazines likewise cited a variety of lawful uses. Recreational target shooting (64 percent) was the most common, followed by home defense (62 percent), hunting (47 percent), defense outside the home (42 percent), and competitive shooting (27 percent).
Politicians who favor a 10-round limit argue that no one except for criminals and police officers really needs a larger magazine. Yet respondents described various situations, based on their personal experiences, where "it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds." These ranged from muggings and home invasions by multiple attackers to encounters with wild animals.
Maybe these gun owners were wrong to think the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading was important in those situations. But judging from the responses that English quotes, they had cogent reasons for believing that. Bans on "large capacity" magazines routinely exempt current and retired police officers, on the theory that they are especially likely to face threats (such as multiple assailants) that may require more than 10 rounds. It strains credulity to suggest that ordinary citizens never face such threats, and this survey provides further reason to doubt that assumption.
Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2022/09/28/president-biden-lies-about-guns-again/
"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times—is lighter—and can pierce Kevlar?" he insisted on August 30 while touting his administration's "Safer America Plan," which includes tighter firearms restrictions.
Really? Well, no.
"President Biden's statement that a bullet shot from an AR-15 travels 5x faster than a bullet shot out of 'any other gun' is false," Greg Wallace, a Campbell University law professor who focuses on Second Amendment issues, told The Washington Post early in September. As for bullets fired from AR-15s piercing Kevlar, "that is true of almost all centerfire rifle bullets. Body armor protection against rifle bullets require steel, ceramic, or composite plates."
"Biden was clearly wrong in his statement this week," the Post's Glenn Kessler concluded.
In fact, the 5.56x45mm round most commonly fired by an AR-15 (which can be chambered in multiple calibers) is faster than many rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity of roughly 3,100 feet per second, but slower than others (a few exceed 4,000 fps). And speed only partially measures the lethality and utility of a cartridge. Military types, hunters, and enthusiasts are forever debating the issue. So is Biden.
"A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," the president improbably claimed in May about the popular handgun cartridge, again while touting gun restrictions. Knowledgeable people had fun pointing out that Biden seemed to have confused the round with a cannon. But Biden lies about cannons, too.
"When the amendment was passed, it didn't say anybody can own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon," Biden insisted with regard to the Second Amendment in February. "You couldn't buy a cannon in—when the—this—this amendment was passed."
"As other fact-checkers noted when Biden made versions of this claim at least twice before, nothing in the Second Amendment said that citizens could not own cannons, and there is no evidence that any federal or state laws barred possession of the weapons at the time," the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org pointed out.
Biden had been called out on precisely that point the previous year, by The Washington Post, and in 2020 when PolitiFact rated his claims as "false." So, the fibs appear deliberate, not just slips of the tongue. So are his misstatements about legal protections for the firearms industry.
"Repeal the liability shield for gun manufacturers," Biden demanded in February. "They're the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. The only one."
But "the 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design," Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA, told NPR about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a nearly identical claim in 2015. "Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."
"Gun manufacturers are not completely shielded from civil lawsuits, as we have written before," FactCheck.org added with specific reference to Biden's claim. "Also, the gun industry is not the only industry that federal law protects from at least some kinds of tort lawsuits, which allow plaintiffs to try to recoup money from defendants for damages."
"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times—is lighter—and can pierce Kevlar?" he insisted on August 30 while touting his administration's "Safer America Plan," which includes tighter firearms restrictions.
Really? Well, no.
"President Biden's statement that a bullet shot from an AR-15 travels 5x faster than a bullet shot out of 'any other gun' is false," Greg Wallace, a Campbell University law professor who focuses on Second Amendment issues, told The Washington Post early in September. As for bullets fired from AR-15s piercing Kevlar, "that is true of almost all centerfire rifle bullets. Body armor protection against rifle bullets require steel, ceramic, or composite plates."
"Biden was clearly wrong in his statement this week," the Post's Glenn Kessler concluded.
In fact, the 5.56x45mm round most commonly fired by an AR-15 (which can be chambered in multiple calibers) is faster than many rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity of roughly 3,100 feet per second, but slower than others (a few exceed 4,000 fps). And speed only partially measures the lethality and utility of a cartridge. Military types, hunters, and enthusiasts are forever debating the issue. So is Biden.
"A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," the president improbably claimed in May about the popular handgun cartridge, again while touting gun restrictions. Knowledgeable people had fun pointing out that Biden seemed to have confused the round with a cannon. But Biden lies about cannons, too.
"When the amendment was passed, it didn't say anybody can own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon," Biden insisted with regard to the Second Amendment in February. "You couldn't buy a cannon in—when the—this—this amendment was passed."
"As other fact-checkers noted when Biden made versions of this claim at least twice before, nothing in the Second Amendment said that citizens could not own cannons, and there is no evidence that any federal or state laws barred possession of the weapons at the time," the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org pointed out.
Biden had been called out on precisely that point the previous year, by The Washington Post, and in 2020 when PolitiFact rated his claims as "false." So, the fibs appear deliberate, not just slips of the tongue. So are his misstatements about legal protections for the firearms industry.
"Repeal the liability shield for gun manufacturers," Biden demanded in February. "They're the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. The only one."
But "the 2005 law does not prevent gun makers from being held liable for defects in their design," Adam Winkler, professor of law at UCLA, told NPR about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a nearly identical claim in 2015. "Like car makers, gun makers can be sued for selling a defective product. The problem is that gun violence victims often want to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product."
"Gun manufacturers are not completely shielded from civil lawsuits, as we have written before," FactCheck.org added with specific reference to Biden's claim. "Also, the gun industry is not the only industry that federal law protects from at least some kinds of tort lawsuits, which allow plaintiffs to try to recoup money from defendants for damages."
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-u-s-news/ap-seller-exploits-gun-buyback-loophole-with-help-of-3d-printer/amp/
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s attorney general has changed the rules of a state gun buyback program after a participant exploited the system by using a 3D printer to make firearm parts in bulk that he then turned in for $21,000 in gift cards.
The seller, who identified himself by a pseudonym, said he traveled from West Virginia to a gun buyback Aug. 27 in Utica, New York, to take advantage of a loophole in the program — and to demonstrate that buybacks are futile in an era of printable weapons.
At the buyback, he turned in 60 printed auto sears, small devices that can convert firearms into fully automatic weapons. Under the rules of the buyback, hosted by Attorney General Letitia James’ office and city police, that entitled him to $350 for each of the printed parts, including a $100 premium, since they were deemed “ghost guns” lacking serial numbers.
The seller, who declined to provide his real name, said in an email to The Associated Press on Monday that the prospect of making money was enticing, but that the big reason he took part in the buyback was to send a message.
He called the idea of buybacks “ridiculously stupid,” adding that “the people running this event are horribly uneducated about guns, gun crime, and the laws surrounding the regulation of guns.”
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s attorney general has changed the rules of a state gun buyback program after a participant exploited the system by using a 3D printer to make firearm parts in bulk that he then turned in for $21,000 in gift cards.
The seller, who identified himself by a pseudonym, said he traveled from West Virginia to a gun buyback Aug. 27 in Utica, New York, to take advantage of a loophole in the program — and to demonstrate that buybacks are futile in an era of printable weapons.
At the buyback, he turned in 60 printed auto sears, small devices that can convert firearms into fully automatic weapons. Under the rules of the buyback, hosted by Attorney General Letitia James’ office and city police, that entitled him to $350 for each of the printed parts, including a $100 premium, since they were deemed “ghost guns” lacking serial numbers.
The seller, who declined to provide his real name, said in an email to The Associated Press on Monday that the prospect of making money was enticing, but that the big reason he took part in the buyback was to send a message.
He called the idea of buybacks “ridiculously stupid,” adding that “the people running this event are horribly uneducated about guns, gun crime, and the laws surrounding the regulation of guns.”
57Brave
Well-known member
one more from Jo.
Odd after all of the terrible thngs we have heard come out of GOP mouths these past 7 or 8 years how
insulting a Lebanese vegetarian can be.
In the words of Lou Reed
"oh baby your so viscous "
Jo ��
@JoJoFromJerz
·
21h
Your right to own a gun does not supersede
a student’s right not to get shot at school.
Odd after all of the terrible thngs we have heard come out of GOP mouths these past 7 or 8 years how
insulting a Lebanese vegetarian can be.
In the words of Lou Reed
"oh baby your so viscous "
Jo ��
@JoJoFromJerz
·
21h
Your right to own a gun does not supersede
a student’s right not to get shot at school.
sturg33
I
I mean... It literally does
57Brave
Well-known member
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
It is addressed in the first sentence, as the 3rd aim of this endeavor.
so no, you are wrong ----------------- on about 25 levels
It is addressed in the first sentence, as the 3rd aim of this endeavor.
so no, you are wrong ----------------- on about 25 levels
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...
It is addressed in the first sentence, as the 3rd aim of this endeavor.
so no, you are wrong ----------------- on about 25 levels
That sounds terrible. Definetely dont want any of that.
She’ll win that’s the ****ed up part
Fighting poverty?
Also, I’m not a “get rid of the guns” guy, but I don’t believe the ones who are think it should only be the white people whose guns are taken.
Also also, congrats to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for solving gun violence, particularly amongst black people apparently.
Last edited: