What will you do when the Chinese invade to take our land? Will you stand with those who will defend it; or will you bow to their will, and pray that your life might be spared in captivity?
While veterans are more likely to be supportive than nonvets of expanding civilians’ gun carrying rights – including supporting open carry laws – veterans with combat experience are 78% more likely than nonvets to favor banning AR-15s and other military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips, Dr. Ellison and his colleagues concluded in their subsequent study, which was published in April in Social Science Quarterly.
www.pewresearch.org
Do we want to save more lives or do we want to appear like we are saving more lives? You are right ars and other such weapons may tend to be more deadly PER event, BUT if I am going by just total body count those are not the weapons used no it is handguns which already have stricter regulations.
Well at that point civilians are going to die anyway war is just that way. Not that having firearms would not offer some protection, but at that point whether you are armed or not may not matter quite as much. More civilians than combatants die in war at this point, but that has more to do with the fact that civilians usually do not have equipment safety wise than it does with the fact that combatants are walking around randonly killing every civilian they see.
Fair enough. It's just that people sometimes carry 3-4 30 rounders and I guess I'm wondering what they expect to find that would need so much firepower. Still, I understand when law-abiding citizens would rather be safe than sorry so to speak. I just recognize that these heavily ammo'd up weapons are often stolen or sold on the black market to people who shouldn't have them.
I would probably sign up to be a nurse or a driver frankly. I'm just not clear when the Chinese are planning to land on our shores and why. I believe with the active levels of military, state, county, and city police, we can drive them out. I surly would contribute to the effort but I'm not prepared to take a life at this point. Like I said, maybe if I had young children or a wife I was responsible for I may have a different perspective.
I haven’t seen any evidence of this being a common issue. Especially when we have over 7,500 homicides committed with pistols each year as opposed to 500 with all rifles combined. Rifles just aren’t as feasible for most criminal applications. They’re not concealable, they’re slower to maneuver, they’re louder, they’re more expensive to buy. In most criminal applications concealment is crucial. It’s a lot harder to walk into a 7eleven with an AR without drawing attention before you even get in the door, or walking up to a potential robbery or rape victim without alerting them before you get close enough. Even in a drive by situation rifles aren’t as effective because you want your shooters on the passenger side of the vehicle and most people are right handed which makes them very awkward to aim and shoot from the passenger side of the vehicle because of the seat. In most criminal situations the criminals are on the offensive which mean they’re going into an environment where there can be potential threats all around in all directions which is where maneuverability comes into play. This makes a pistol more effective because you can swing it around faster than a rifle. In a home defense situation the defender knows his environment and can take a position where he only has to worry about defending one direction while he waits for the police to arrive. I would think that most criminals would never want to buy an AR and use it in a crime because once you shoot somebody with a gun you have to get rid of it. You can’t keep a gun that has been used to murder somebody. An AR is more of a prized possession than a disposable firearm. To most people who own an AR that’s their baby and they’re not going to want to risk losing it to go out and kill somebody when they can just use something else that they don’t care as much about throwing away. There are so many reasons why criminals don’t use ARs, they’re just not the preferred weapon for their particular applications. Thats why they typically prefer a pistol because it’s an all around better option for their particular needs.
That’ll never happen. There’s too many guns in America for an invasion and they’re way too far away to deploy enough assets on the ground quick enough to mount a ground assault. Red Dawn was such a ridiculous movie, like Russia would ever be able to invade Colorado smack dab in the middle of the country with air drops and paratroopers. A state that has virtually no strategic advantage where they’d be having to defend from all directions in a state that probably has the most high caliber firearms in the country. They basically dropped into a place surrounded by trained snipers. Now I’m not saying the Chinese or anyone else would choose this particular location but no matter where they tried to land they’d be wiped out in no time because every redneck in the country would hop in their Chevy truck eager to squeeze off a few rounds at ‘em not to mention the entire US military constantly bombarding them before they could even get near our boarders. With the radar we have surrounding the states we’d see an offensive like that coming long before they got here. They can’t come by sea because ships are too big and too slow so they’d have to come by air. They can’t occupy Mexico or Canada with a force large enough to make even the tiniest scratch in America without us knowing about it which means an air assault is the only option and if the government saw such a huge force of planes headed towards America we’d hear about it on the emergency broadcasting system and I highly doubt any of them would reach the ground alive.
I don’t believe that article about veterans for a second. I know a lot of veterans and all of them prefer high capacity magazines not one of them wants their high capacity magazines taken away from them.While veterans are more likely to be supportive than nonvets of expanding civilians’ gun carrying rights – including supporting open carry laws – veterans with combat experience are 78% more likely than nonvets to favor banning AR-15s and other military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips, Dr. Ellison and his colleagues concluded in their subsequent study, which was published in April in Social Science Quarterly.
The opinions of military veterans without combat experience, by contrast, “were not all that different from the general population,” he notes.
“These are people who know the most about the capacity of these firearms – and the damage they can do.”
Congress acts on guns, with military vets among the vocal backers
Military veterans in some ways trend conservative. Yet they share wider public concerns about gun safety – and can wield influence in policy debates.www.csmonitor.com
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
66% of Americans support a ban on high Capacity magazines and 64% support a ban on assault style weapons.
Key facts about Americans and guns
Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022.
No matter what weapon you ban there will always be another weapon at the top of that list. If you ban anything at the top of any list the second place on that list then becomes the top of the list. It’s a never ending battle until all weapons are banned. The fact is that pistols account for 15x more gun related homicides than ALL rifles combined. This is not referring to just the number of gun related incidents but the actual number of people killed by guns each year. This type of argument is never ending because like I said no matter what gun is at the top of the list as soon as it’s removed the next gun becomes at the top of the list, and then the next gun, and the next gun. And all of this is because people are overreacting because of very rare incidents of people being killed each year by rifles in comparison to the 15 times more people being killed each year by handguns.
Have we ever had a child get an assault rifle from their parents and actually take it to school and begin shooting people? That’s NEVER HAPPENED. There are several cases of kids bringing their parent’s pistols to school and only ONE CASE where a student brought an AR and he never fired a single shot. If you're going to use this ONE INCIDENT as a reason to ban ARs when we have MULTIPLE incidents where they brought pistols to school then obviously the next thing on the list, which should logically be the first thing on the list according to the statistics, would be to ban all pistols. One kid brought an AR to school in the last 70 years since they started being made while numerous kids have been bringing pistols to school since the beginning of time so we should ban ARs. This is astronomically illogical reasoning.
Your own argument is that they get guns from burglaries.
Now you’re saying they don’t burglarize homes. You’re twisting the facts to support your agenda. Your not being consistent in your argument.
A shotgun has a maximum of 5 shots and most school shootings are again pistols. Where are you getting this false information that AKs and ARs are responsible for most school shootings? It’s completely false, it’s actually extremely rare that these rifles are used in school shootings.
Smaller magazines wouldn’t have made much of a difference because he had 22 AR rifles and a 308 bolt action. Even with 10 round magazines he could’ve injured way more than 220 people without having to reload because of bullets penetrating thru the targets. He had 100 round drum magazines and never had to reload. He didn’t even empty the guns he had. The crowd was so huge and far away that nobody even knew they were being shot at or where to run once they finally realized they were being shot at. 413 people were injured and 60 killed. 19 people armed with box cutters killed 3,000 people and took down two skyscrapers, but they’re still sold in every Walmart and hardware store.
I know a lot of veterans who love their high capacity magazines and don’t want them taken away. I don’t believe your article for a second because it doesn’t even remotely correlate to what I’ve actually witnessed with my own experiences with veterans on the subject. Not to mention the exaggeration of a person feeling that she had to move all the way to the Netherlands to feel safe because there was a shooting incident in her neighborhood. That’s just beyond ridiculous which is another reason why I think the article is stupid. I’ve had to endure two lockdowns at my kid’s schools. One because there was an active shooter in the area, not at the school and another because someone was shot with a shotgun at my daughter’s high school. Neither me nor anyone else in my family or my community considered moving because of these incidents because there’s no where to go. No matter where you go there’s always an element of danger. You’re more likely to die in an auto accident than get shot in America and that’s a statistical fact. There’s over 42,000 people killed in auto accidents every year, that’s 5 times more than the total number of gun related homicides of which around 500 are committed by ALL RIFLES, not just assault rifles. Unfortunately I can’t find an actual number of homicides committed by “assault rifles” each year. I’m guessing it’s so low that they only incorporate them in with all rifles because they don’t want to post the facts about “assault rifle” homicides because they’re so ridiculously low that they don’t want to admit it.
Never say never. The Japanese invaded and held a few Aleutian Islands for about a year in WWII. That said, the Chinese have long held the principle of vassal states, longer than there's been a US, which is different than occupation. A state that has vassal status is as desirable, perhaps more so, than possessing territory. Given how US companies kowtow to China in hopes of preserving market access, we may already be well on that path.
I’ve never been killed in an auto accident therefore I don’t need to wear a seatbelt. Sound logical?
