Terminology for firearms and how the media uses it???

Here’s a question… why would someone steal a gun when they could just use a knife or an automobile? Are guns more effective or something?
[/quote]

Yes they are more effective, obviously….. That’s not a good reason to single them out though. My Corvette is more effective at covering miles on the freeway but I choose a less effective way nearly every day.
Guns are also much more valuable which makes them more popular targets for thieves than knives. Guns are easy, thieves/ killers are lazy cowards. It takes a lot more effort and personal risk to kill with a knife vs a gun. It’s the path of the least resistance. That being said, if nobody else had a gun, the risk in using a knife would be much less, therein making a knife or any other weapon or object a much more logical choice in a world without guns. A killer will kill with what’s available, especially if they feel they have the advantage.

Laws have never stopped criminal activity and never will.

grubson wrote:

Here’s a question… why would someone steal a gun when they could just use a knife or an automobile? Are guns more effective or something?

Yes they are more effective, obviously….. That’s not a good reason to single them out though. My Corvette is more effective at covering miles on the freeway but I choose a less effective way nearly every day.
Guns are also much more valuable which makes them more popular targets for thieves than knives. Guns are easy, thieves/ killers are lazy cowards. It takes a lot more effort and personal risk to kill with a knife vs a gun. It’s the path of the least resistance. That being said, if nobody else had a gun, the risk in using a knife would be much less, therein making a knife or any other weapon or object a much more logical choice in a world without guns. A killer will kill with what’s available, especially if they feel they have the advantage.

Laws have never stopped criminal activity and never will.
[/quote]

I’m glad we cleared that up.

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
Had they not been able to buy a gun I’d bet they would steal one like the others did.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>suzuki wrote:</div>
Address the behavior, not the tool. That guy could have used a knife or an automobile to do the same thing.

Here’s a question… why would someone steal a gun when they could just use a knife or an automobile? Are guns more effective or something?

If you think the problem is guns then you’re part of the problem. The problem lies in the person. Not the item used to commit the crime. To think that banning firearms or certain firearms to prevent these shootings is an extremely simplistic way of thinking.

Ever heard of the prohibition? That worked well didn’t it? Nothing illegal happened in result of that. We better ban cars because people drive drunk in them and kill other people.

Guns are guns. They’ve been here for an awful long time, and aren’t changing. Yet somehow the number of active shooters is going up… Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe it’s the people! Maybe it’s violent video games, maybe it’s violent TV shows, maybe it’s the increase in mental illness…

Blaming the gun for someone’s actions is like blaming the spoon for making someone fat.

rjthehunter wrote:

If you think the problem is guns then you’re part of the problem. The problem lies in the person. Not the item used to commit the crime. To think that banning firearms or certain firearms to prevent these shootings is an extremely simplistic way of thinking.

Doesn’t sound any more simplistic than making bets based on your gut feeling but that’s besides the point. I never said “the problem is guns” and I never said we should ban anything. All I’ve done is point out arguments that aren’t supported by facts. How much weight do you think your voice carries if your arguments are easily proven to be based on falsehoods? Well, probably a lot more than it should lately but that’s also besides the point.

rjthehunter wrote:

We better ban cars because people drive drunk in them and kill other people.

Maybe instead of banning them they could just be heavily regulated, registered, taxed, and you need a license to operate one. Are you saying we should do that for guns too? I think you could find some support for that if that’s what you are advocating.

rjthehunter wrote:

Guns are guns. They’ve been here for an awful long time, and aren’t changing. Yet somehow the number of active shooters is going up… Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe it’s the people! Maybe it’s violent video games, maybe it’s violent TV shows, maybe it’s the increase in mental illness…

Maybe it is the guns, sales have been going up too. If you don’t think that’s the case then show us something to support your point. A bunch of maybes isn’t going to protect gun rights.

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
So right off the bat, why is this based on 63 shootings?

46% of the guns were obtained in likely an illegal way. Had they not been able to buy a gun I’d bet they would steal one like the others did.

Gun control isn’t the answer, criminals will still get guns.

Well, your bet is all the data I need!

You forgot to include the whole portion of the paragraph. “A significant number of active shooters (35%, n = 22)
already possessed a firearm and did not appear (based on longevity of possession) to have obtained it for the express
purpose of committing the shooting.”

blackbay wrote:

You forgot to include the whole portion of the paragraph. “A significant number of active shooters (35%, n = 22)
already possessed a firearm and did not appear (based on longevity of possession) to have obtained it for the express
purpose of committing the shooting.”

You’re right. Since we were discussing whether they were illegally obtained or not that’s another 35% that don’t appear to have been. So that’s 75% that weren’t illegally obtained. Thanks!

I think the interesting thing is Colorado has basically every gun law that is being pushed which yet still failed.

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
If you think the problem is guns then you’re part of the problem. The problem lies in the person. Not the item used to commit the crime. To think that banning firearms or certain firearms to prevent these shootings is an extremely simplistic way of thinking.

Doesn’t sound any more simplistic than making bets based on your gut feeling but that’s besides the point. I never said “the problem is guns” and I never said we should ban anything. All I’ve done is point out arguments that aren’t supported by facts. How much weight do you think your voice carries if your arguments are easily proven to be based on falsehoods? Well, probably a lot more than it should lately but that’s also besides the point.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
We better ban cars because people drive drunk in them and kill other people.

Maybe instead of banning them they could just be heavily regulated, registered, taxed, and you need a license to operate one. Are you saying we should do that for guns too? I think you could find some support for that if that’s what you are advocating.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rjthehunter wrote:</div>
Guns are guns. They’ve been here for an awful long time, and aren’t changing. Yet somehow the number of active shooters is going up… Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe it’s the people! Maybe it’s violent video games, maybe it’s violent TV shows, maybe it’s the increase in mental illness…

Maybe it is the guns, sales have been going up too. If you don’t think that’s the case then show us something to support your point. A bunch of maybes isn’t going to protect gun rights.

What arguments do I have that are based on falsehoods?

How would taxing guns heavily prevent a criminal from committing crimes with it? For one, they aren’t known for following laws and regulations. Secondly, these psychopaths don’t care if it’s taxed heavily? They’re not planning on being around long.

Gun sales are at record highs because people like you are pushing for more strict gun laws. People like you are the best salesmen for gun companies. Look at Chicago. Strictest gun laws anywhere and still the highest gun related deaths anywhere.

A bunch of maybes isn’t going to take our gun rights. I’m not worried about losing any of my gun rights. There’s enough people out here who can think logically.

Youbetcha wrote:

I think the interesting thing is Colorado has basically every gun law that is being pushed which yet still failed.

Chicago is in the same boat. Highest rate of gun violence. Strictest gun laws in the country. Explain that!

Youbetcha wrote:

I think the interesting thing is Colorado has basically every gun law that is being pushed which yet still failed.

I agree with your point. That being said, CO is actually an open carry state – everywhere except Denver and Boulder.

rjthehunter wrote:

Chicago is in the same boat. Highest rate of gun violence. Strictest gun laws in the country. Explain that!

Easy,
The more gun violence, the more laws that don’t prevent it.

Randy Wieland wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
On the wolf hunt, I do think it was rushed a bit. The Wisconsin DNR was planning a season this upcoming fall and the one that was held in February seemed to be put together rather hastily.

It was. I don’t recall the organization that led the charge, but there was a court order for the Dnr to hold a season within that management year. It was thrown together based on the (in my opinion) grossly low estimates of the states packs. To cap quota in 3 days just proves the packs are much larger than estimated

You nailed it Randy wolf numbers are grossly underestimated . Don’t have anything against the wolf, just do not want them in my back yard ! My neighbor across the road knows first hand what wolves do to milk production .

Reef W wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blackbay wrote:</div>
You forgot to include the whole portion of the paragraph. “A significant number of active shooters (35%, n = 22)
already possessed a firearm and did not appear (based on longevity of possession) to have obtained it for the express
purpose of committing the shooting.”

You’re right. Since we were discussing whether they were illegally obtained or not that’s another 35% that don’t appear to have been. So that’s 75% that weren’t illegally obtained. Thanks!

The point is that no one can tell what is in another persons mind from one minute to the next. 20 years from now Ol’ Joe from work may just say to them self enough is enough and he’s on the news.

Weigh the amount of firearms in the US vs the amount used to commit a crime.

Please, alert me when you reach anything over 0.001%

Focusing in only on guns used in crimes, excludes the overwhelming vast majority of information that doesn’t support that agenda.

I bought 3 in the past year. Committed no crime.

blackbay wrote:

The point is that no one can tell what is in another persons mind from one minute to the next. 20 years from now Ol’ Joe from work may just say to them self enough is enough and he’s on the news.

So true.

Back to the original point of the topic,
Terminology DOES matter and perception is everything, especially since the media and politicians are grooming us to accept certain phrases and words as evil, which just so happens to correspond with the current gun control legislation in the house. Banning of specific makes/models, & features deemed scary.

deertracker wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ranger Johnson wrote:</div>
you seem to believe that restrictions of firearms won’t effect criminals ability to get them.

Correct, it won’t.
DT

Exactly, since the beginning of time when cavemen were acquiring oversized clubs. If it exists there’s a way to get it.

I saw this yesterday for the first time. I doubt non gun people will understand.

Attachments:

1. 

   ziEq5T1.jpg
   

I will consider a national policy on gun cotrol, when we have national policy on abortion. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

To the original theme of the post. I agree, the media is wrong to use overly secretory adjectives while describing anything it is against, but “softening” the language on other topics. That practice, however very effective in debate, should not be used, unless the bias of the reporter spelled out with 100% transparency.

jbg1219 wrote:

I will consider a national policy on gun cotrol, when we have national policy on abortion. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

I will consider a national policy on gun control, when we have national policy on Cigarette’s. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbg1219 wrote:</div>
I will consider a national policy on gun cotrol, when we have national policy on abortion. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

I will consider a national policy on gun control, when we have national policy on Cigarette’s. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

I would agree, but just to strengthen my point… honest question. When did cigarettes ever kill an otherwise healthy person in 5-10 minutes?

jbg1219 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbg1219 wrote:</div>
I will consider a national policy on gun cotrol, when we have national policy on abortion. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

I will consider a national policy on gun control, when we have national policy on Cigarette’s. Of the 2, I know which one will save lives if something were to be banned.

I would agree, but just to strengthen my point… honest question. When did cigarettes ever kill an otherwise healthy person in 5-10 minutes?

Agreed. Cigarettes are a choice. I’d say just tax the chit out of them! Do them at your own risk. Banning the killing of babies would do a lot more for this country than banning Firearms…

blackbay wrote:

I saw this yesterday for the first time. I doubt non gun people will understand.

It’s the perception that a big bad black AR is a weapon of war while in reality it’s exactly the same firearm as those other two.

If gun control advocates wanted to go after the weapon responsible for the majority of firearm related violence, they should go after the handgun. All that constant violence in Chicago on a frequent basis is mostly from handguns.

gimruis wrote:

It’s the perception that a big bad black AR is a weapon of war while in reality it’s exactly the same firearm as those other two.

Interesting fact I recently saw was almost 4 times as many people die from falling down stairs as they do from all Rifles. Not just ARs.

gimruis wrote:

If gun control advocates wanted to go after the weapon responsible for the majority of firearm related violence, they should go after the handgun. All that constant violence in Chicago on a frequent basis is mostly from handguns.

USA Today is reporting that the weapon used in Boulder was a Ruger AR-556 pistol.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/25/boulder-shooting-suspects-gun-looks-and-operates-like-rifle-but-its-pistol/6997038002/

HRG

Draw your own conclusions from the chart in the link below. But, it makes one wonder why the modern sporting rifle, or “assault rifle”, is such a target by politicians and the media. I have my opinion.

stats on murder weapon used

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
If gun control advocates wanted to go after the weapon responsible for the majority of firearm related violence, they should go after the handgun. All that constant violence in Chicago on a frequent basis is mostly from handguns.

USA Today is reporting that the weapon used in Boulder was a Ruger AR-556 pistol.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/25/boulder-shooting-suspects-gun-looks-and-operates-like-rifle-but-its-pistol/6997038002/

HRG

Actually, This is a fine example of the threads original complaint. USA TODAY DID NOT REPORT THAT THE WEAPON USED IN THE BOULDER WAS A RUGER AR-556 PISTOL.

In the article it mention one time that the police have not stated what type weapon was used. USA today reported that the suspect bought a Ruger AR556 6 days prior. They then go on to write a hit piece on the gun.

I am not saying that I do not think the gun was used in the crime, however, this article is a fine example of the medias irresponsible reporting. Unless the fine folks at USA Today are out in front of the local law enforcement on obtaining details of the case, this article could have waited until they confirmed that this weapon was used, or worded properly. The headline alone is not inaccurate, however it is not truthful. It misleads the reader into assuming that the ruger was used in the crime. It could be that the guy left it home. As of now we do not know.

jbg1219 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hot Runr Guy wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>gimruis wrote:</div>
If gun control advocates wanted to go after the weapon responsible for the majority of firearm related violence, they should go after the handgun. All that constant violence in Chicago on a frequent basis is mostly from handguns.

USA Today is reporting that the weapon used in Boulder was a Ruger AR-556 pistol.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/25/boulder-shooting-suspects-gun-looks-and-operates-like-rifle-but-its-pistol/6997038002/

HRG

Actually, This is a fine example of the threads original complaint. USA TODAY DID NOT REPORT THAT THE WEAPON USED IN THE BOULDER WAS A RUGER AR-556 PISTOL.

In the article it mention one time that the police have not stated what type weapon was used. USA today reported that the suspect bought a Ruger AR556 6 days prior. They then go on to write a hit piece on the gun.

I am not saying that I do not think the gun was used in the crime, however, this article is a fine example of the medias irresponsible reporting. Unless the fine folks at USA Today are out in front of the local law enforcement on obtaining details of the case, this article could have waited until they confirmed that this weapon was used, or worded properly. The headline alone is not inaccurate, however it is not truthful. It misleads the reader into assuming that the ruger was used in the crime. It could be that the guy left it home. As of now we do not know.

You are correct, my apologies. The type of weapon used has not been confirmed.

HRG

Joe Jarl wrote:

Draw your own conclusions from the chart in the link below. But, it makes one wonder why the modern sporting rifle, or “assault rifle”, is such a target by politicians and the media. I have my opinion.

stats on murder weapon used

It’s all about control. The govt wants to be the only ones able to own that much power. Wouldn’t be as fair of a fight if the citizens only had bolt action rifles against AR rifles and everything else they’re allowed to have that normal citizens can’t.

They’re just seeing how tight they can get the noose before some of these people realize.

When will a guy be able to buy ammunition again? Over/Under: Spring of 2027