Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Quote of the Day

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine -- and a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

-- Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal on MSNBC's Morning Joe today

Posted without comment -- because one isn't needed.


Anonymous said...

A typical hunting rifle (say, a .30-06) fires a larger bullet at over 3,000 FPS, yet nobody would argue that this is an assault weapon. This argument doesn't really jive with me.

Prophet of Ra said...


A typical hunting rifle isn't a semi-automatic built for the single purpose of mowing down people. The M16 and M4 are just that.

Anonymous said...

Rifles of all kinds -- the semi-automatic M16, M4 AR15 (used to kill the children in CT) and even single-shot hunting rifles -- account for 3 percent of murders in the U.S.

Yes, 3 percent.

To be clear, in 2010 about 400 people were killed using some type of rifle (including those "assault rifles") out of the 14,800 murders in the U.S. ...

which means that "assault rifles" are not the problem.

If a complete ban on such weapons and seizure of these was done, that would, at best, preventing 3 percent of murders, and likely far less since rarely are rifles used to "mow down" people. Rather most of those 400 were killed individually, not as part of a mass murder. And the root of the problem is not the gun but the criminal who has easy access to many deadly weapons.

So perhaps these weapons are potentially dangerous, and thus should be banned, but such a ban would not reduce crime rates, or prevent a large number of murders.

We're focusing on the wrong thing. If you want to have a real impact on crime, solve the poverty and educational, cultural and professional crises in those inner-city neighborhoods where the vast majority of that violent crime happens.

Anonymous said...

Another set of striking statistics from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and other places:

3 percent of murders were comitted with a rifle (semi-automatic or not),

6 percent of murders were committed with no weapon but bare hands,

47 percent use a handgun,

13 percent use a knife.

Mass murders ("mowing down people") account for less that one-tenth of a percent (543 out of 564,452) of murders since 1982.

The Virginia Tech massacre (the deadliest in U.S. history) was committed with two handguns (which the Supreme Court has clearly ruled cannot be banned).

"Assault rifles" may be a bad idea and perhaps should be banned, but it is not because in doing so we will significantly stop violent crime or school shootings.

Anonymous said...

You people are ALL insane ... you're arguing about which gun is deadlier.


ORDINARY PEOPLE DON'T NEED GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Americans .. they just ... it's ... christ ... you'll never understand.

Tuba Terry said...

I'm all for the right to bear arms, provided it's well-regulated, like the friggin' Constitution says. Right now, it's anything but.