So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

If you are asking if I can agree that it is probably not an absolute necessity for a civilian to own an assault rifle. A lot of civilians get by without them, so it isn't a matter of life or death. It isn't an absolute "need". You don't "need" soda, junk food, ect. However, I cannot agree that civilians should not be allowed to have them. Hell, I don't even support the ban of junk foods even though obesity kills far more in this country than guns could ever hope to scratch the surface of.

And don't give me the argument that guns are meant to kill and junk food is not. Guns can kill, so can junk food. However, I've never used a gun to kill. I, like most gun enthusiasts, have used them purely for fun shooting at targets. I have fired pistols, bolt action rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic weapons, pretty much anything that doesn't require a special license. Never once has it been at a human being. Likewise, junk food is used for fun, just as guns usually are, and kill more. The only difference is, there is damn near no circumstance in which junk food can save a life or defend the innocent, which guns can.

Also your definition of an assault weapon is frankly wrong. Semi-automatic weapons are "assault weapons" and they do not fire more than one round per squeeze of a trigger. Know the definition of what you're talking about before calling for it to be banned. Also, even if we were talking about only "spray and pray" as you put it when discussing assault weapons, you are aware that those are less effective for killing people than semi-automatic weapons right? If somebody pulled a shooting with a fully automatic weapon, there might be a lot of casualties but there would be very few deaths because of the two simple facts that the vast majority of gunshot wounds are survivable and that fully automatic fire is wildly inaccurate, making the sort of shots that are likely to kill very improbable.

And furthermore:

mattttherman3:
If you live somewhere where gangs have auto weapons? Sorry, not good enough. Move away from there.

Let me guess - rich white boy? Only a rich white boy would be arrogant enough to think "just move away" is a revolutionary idea nobody living in a gangland ever thought of. They are usually too poor to live anywhere else, that being the reason they live there.

Seriously, your argument against guns is possibly the worst I've seen. You come across as ignorant and arrogant at the same time. Furthermore, as always there is the fact that most arguments against guns rely on the odd belief that illegal things can't be obtained, strange to me because most anti-gun advocates I've met smoke pot. The fact is, the USA has two several thousand mile borders, innumerable ports, and enough land to hide damn near any sort of illegal operation. There will be assault weapons whether they are legal or not. The only question is, who do you want monopolizing them - criminals, or law abiding citizens?

TheTim:
No i don't agree on it at all,
I'm quite fond of my Ak-47
and i won't give it up until the bad guy's don't have them either.

That attitude is the only reason 'the badguys' even have weapons in the first place.

Just because you're fond of something doesn't mean you're entitled to it either. I'm fond of bacon. Does that mean I get to have a bacon subsidy?

Ravinoff:
That'd be Warren Vs. DC, basically the police completely failed to respond to an emergency call. The DC equivalent of the state supreme court ruled that the police "do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Sensible ruling, otherwise you'd create a very dangerous precedent. Anyone to whom anything at all happened would be able to sue the police over 'failing to protect', and the police budget would be drained away by silly lawsuits.

It would effectively shift responsibility for crimes occuring away from their perpetrators, towards the police. If they'd phrased it as an individual responsibility for failures in police communication they'd likely have won.

snip

You're right, my explanation of guns and their capabilities was simplistic, but I was going for a basic overview, not an in depth explanation. My intent was to correct the OP, who seemed to have it wrong.

As for the rest of your post, I pretty much agree. I tried to jump in and defend our rights to bear arms since everyone else seemed to be clamoring for harsher restrictions and limits, which in the end I think is foolish. There should be controls and limits, and there should be more comprehensive gun awareness and safety and I don't doubt one bit that our society and it's violently leaning tendencies as a whole shapes these events to some degree or another. People seem to think when you are an advocate for gun rights, you're some dumb red neck who gets a hard on shooting things, which is a ridiculous generalization. My biggest issue about the gun rights is that the second amendment is there for the people to use if their government ever becomes tyrannical, that's it. That's why I'll always side for gun rights, regardless of how hard the media hypes a recent tragedy, whether or not people think our government turning oppressive is probable or not (which is most certainly is.)

Ravinoff:

beef_razor:

xDarc:
If you've ever been in the military, then you know the value of having a high-powered and accurate rifle that is light and mobile; and can also defeat most low level body armor. If you have to defend yourself against other people with assault rifles, and all you have is a handgun, you're in some pretty deep doo doo.

Now I may never find myself in that situation, but if I do I can protect my own ass. My own ass, at the end of the day, is what matters most.

Anyone believing things are stable and always will be, that the government or police will protect be able to protect you, is foolish. The whole system is teetering on the edge right now, population is out of control and economy is in the toilet being kept alive by Fed monopoly money for 4 years. This is unlike any other point in history, this is not normal, these are dangerous times.

I entirely agree. People want to keep their damn heads in the sand about what is happening. They don't even realize how close to the fucking edge we are right now. I hope I'm wrong, but there are too many signs that point to the contrary.

Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you. The US system is going to cave in sooner rather than later, and to quote Law Abiding Citizen, "it's gonna be biblical." You're looking at civil war in the next ten years, there's no question about it.

I give it less than that, though who knows. Anyone paying attention and even remotely in tune with what is going on, knows something big is brewing and has been for years. Whether its economic collapse, WWIII, a second American Civil War... or whatever else, something is coming. And I'll tell you right now, whatever it is, I sure as hell would rather have the few guns I have, prepare and know I can at least attempt to defend myself and those I care for, as well as anyone else in need, if and when the shit hits the fans.

And if not, so be it, but at least I'm somewhat prepared in case.

beef_razor:
People seem to think when you are an advocate for gun rights, you're some dumb red neck who gets a hard on shooting things

And that makes sense, because people who defend gun possession make a concious choice to sacrifice lives for something unnecessary.

There's few ways to earn scorn quicker than by doing something like that.

For instance the idea that tyranny is impending, and you could defeat the army in such a scenario is completely untrue, yet that untruth would form an argument against measures that would save lives. So effectively, people end up dying for a delusion. It shouldn't come as a surprise if people have a problem with points of view like that.

Blablahb:
And that makes sense, because people who defend gun possession make a conscious choice to sacrifice lives for something unnecessary.

>Unnecessary

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair-oklahoma-girl-12-shoots-intruder/story?id=17524438#.UNOCyG_AfxI

I'm pretty sure she was glad she had a firearm. Oh, but wait. Self defense with a firearm just doesn't exist, does it? At least in your opinion?

Also, that still doesn't address the problem with characterizing pro-KABA advocates as rednecks.

Anyways, replace "gun" with "alcohol" and we have some prohibition level propaganda here

Now, we might get somewhere if you propose solutions to problems in ways that actually abide by the constitution. Note that whining about those two particular USSC rulings won't get you very far in US politics

Tuesday Night Fever:
[snip]

Well put.

The assault weapon ban will have little impact on these types of crimes, as it was originally aimed at 'gang violence' (not 'mass' or 'spree' killers) and is too easily circumvented.

Tuesday Night Fever:
And I definitely think we, as a society, need to take a closer look at why these people are shooting up schools. Figuring out the "how" is quicker and easier, but it's not going to prevent other people from snapping like this. But maybe figuring out the "why" will.

Finding the 'why' means looking at the common threads; poor mental health, easy access to a means and at an acute personal crisis point (media attention can also be a motivator).

You cannot remove all the crisis points from people's lives, so you will never be able to identify all the mass shooters.

So you have no choice but to work on restricting the means and improving health care (which appears to get a lot of negative media in the US).

But there are too many firearms and, currently, not enough political will in the US.

As unpalatable as it sounds to Americans, IMO these mass shootings will continue as long as Americans believe they need a firearm for self defence.

Unfortunately this means the US is in a vicious cycle, with no easy end in sight.

2012 Wont Happen:
The only difference is, there is damn near no circumstance in which junk food can save a life or defend the innocent, which guns can.

Another key difference might be that no one has ever burst into a school, movie theatre, etc armed only with masses of junk food and killed 10-20 innocent bystanders.

2012 Wont Happen:
Also your definition of an assault weapon is frankly wrong. Semi-automatic weapons are "assault weapons" and they do not fire more than one round per squeeze of a trigger. Know the definition of what you're talking about before calling for it to be banned.

EDIT: Misread the post.

There are the colloquial (common), technical and legal meanings of 'assault weapon' in the US.

The FOPA (1986) legally defines 'automatic weapons' to include most firearms that are colloquially and technically called 'assault weapons'.

The AWB (1992) legally defined 'assault weapon' to include many semi-auto firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Blablahb:
And that makes sense, because people who defend gun possession make a concious choice to sacrifice lives for something unnecessary.

There's few ways to earn scorn quicker than by doing something like that.

Let's see. I came from an upper-middle class family, I grew up in a tiny little town in New Hampshire that's as close to "Everytown, USA" as a place can get, I graduated high school within the top 10% of my class, I went to a nice university where I double-majored and earned two degrees, I currently work two jobs (both can be classed as "white collar"), I've yet to see a Republican candidate that I consider worth voting for even though they tend to be on the side of firearm owners, I wholeheartedly support making firearms significantly more difficult to actually acquire, and I'd be quite happy to never discharge a firearm (I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it), and I think that the conspiracy theories that we're going to be fighting a second Civil War within my lifetime are laughably unlikely for a plethora of reasons. My life thus far in a nutshell, and I'm fairly certain none of that would classify me as a "dumb redneck who gets a hard on shooting things."

I don't make a conscious choice to sacrifice lives. I make a conscious choice to protect the lives of those I care about by whatever the best means available to me happen to be. Me, and those like me, aren't responsible for what someone who is sick in the head does. By the logic of your argument we should be banning any motor vehicles that travel above a maximum of 70mph (which means nearly all cars available in the United States) since that's the average highway speed limit, and people who drive faster than that are making the conscious choice to endanger themselves and everyone else on the road. People who misuse firearms are punished by the law, just as people who break the speed limit get punished by the law. If some nutcase goes on a spree and kills five people with a shotgun everyone screams to blame firearms, but when some asshole loses control of his vehicle on the highway and kills five people no one seems to give a shit. When the nutcase with the shotgun commits suicide during the spree and doesn't get the chance to be punished by the law, everyone jumps at the chance to find something (IE: firearms) to blame and punish... but when the speeding asshole dies in the wreck, again, no one gives a shit. "Accidents happen" and all that jazz.

I'm living, breathing proof that responsible individuals do exist and yet you're seemingly quite content to ignore me because I don't fit into your nice little stereotype. That's fine, because I highly doubt I'm going to be able to say anything that can change such a closed mind. Which is a damn shame, because I lurk these forums from time to time when I'm bored, and usually I agree with your opinion of things (or at least can understand where you're coming from when I don't agree).

For instance the idea that tyranny is impending, and you could defeat the army in such a scenario is completely untrue, yet that untruth would form an argument against measures that would save lives. So effectively, people end up dying for a delusion. It shouldn't come as a surprise if people have a problem with points of view like that.

There's nothing impending. Our government is incredibly incompetent and in pretty dire need of some young blood to clean out those who are stuck in their old ways of thinking, but it's certainly not actively malicious. The idea that all (or even most) firearm owners believe that one day we're going to have to stand up to the might of the combined United States armed forces is patently absurd, and if you deeply believe it to be the truth... I dunno, man. What I do know is that someday, someone's going to find something they don't like about something you support, and they're going to lump you into a stereotype born from an extremely vocal minority that's nothing like you, and when that day comes, you're going to understand how shitty it feels.

Fuck that, I could be out hunting for a nice stag or a massive bull moose and i turn around and see a massive grizzly charging at me. Uno shot will not stop a grizzly, I would have a better chance in taking down or at least scaring away one with a semi auto AR15 or (for the sake of other hunters) a BAR semi-auto. BAR with a mag of 20 shots of 30-06 rounds. Hunters are more in danger then people think. "Game" do not have strategy or battle plans, they attack on full force and kill, then walk away and a eat something. or spray urine to mate.

PrimitiveJudge:
Fuck that, I could be out hunting for a nice stag or a massive bull moose and i turn around and see a massive grizzly charging at me. Uno shot will not stop a grizzly, I would have a better chance in taking down or at least scaring away one with a semi auto AR15 or (for the sake of other hunters) a BAR semi-auto. BAR with a mag of 20 shots of 30-06 rounds. Hunters are more in danger then people think. "Game" do not have strategy or battle plans, they attack on full force and kill, then walk away and a eat something. or spray urine to mate.

Intentionally putting oneself in harm's way doesn't justify requiring a way to resolve that situation. You don't need firearms violence everywhere because otherwise there's a tiny tiny chance that a hunter who brought it on himself gets into a slapping match with a bear.

If you go hunting, you accept that risk. Don't like it? Then don't go hunting.

Tuesday Night Fever:
I don't make a conscious choice to sacrifice lives. I make a conscious choice to protect the lives of those I care about by whatever the best means available

So you conciously choose to sacrifice lives; None of what you said changes the fact that guns cause more violence. That's just statistical fact. Nothing that a gun owner says or does can change that, so they're part of it.

Plus, self-defense with guns is a myth. The chance of getting struck by lightning is bigger than defending yourself with a firearm. It would be the sixth time this week I'm chalking down the 3 reasons behind that, and at least the 40th time ever, so for those, consult my other posts.

Kind of had it with provided carefully thought out arguments while time and time again all the gun lobby gives back is myths and dogma.

Tuesday Night Fever:
There's nothing impending. Our government is incredibly incompetent and in pretty dire need of some young blood to clean out those who are stuck in their old ways of thinking, but it's certainly not actively malicious. The idea that all (or even most) firearm owners believe that one day we're going to have to stand up to the might of the combined United States armed forces is patently absurd, and if you deeply believe it to be the truth... I dunno, man.

No, just the ones who go "We need to have school shootings, because otherwise there'll be government tyranny".

Seems to be a lot of those though.

Not just bears, moose are notoriously evil, boar is very dangerous, a pack of wolves, a mountain lion or even a badger. Better to be prepared.

Blablahb:
So you conciously choose to sacrifice lives; None of what you said changes the fact that guns cause more violence. That's just statistical fact. Nothing that a gun owner says or does can change that, so they're part of it.

Plus, self-defense with guns is a myth. The chance of getting struck by lightning is bigger than defending yourself with a firearm. It would be the sixth time this week I'm chalking down the 3 reasons behind that, and at least the 40th time ever, so for those, consult my other posts.

Kind of had it with provided carefully thought out arguments while time and time again all the gun lobby gives back is myths and dogma.

It's not statistical fact. I've never shot at anyone, and I hope never to have to. I've never sought to use a firearm against another human being. As I stated before, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. If someone breaks into my home looking to cause harm, violence is going to happen regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved. The question is whether or not I want myself and those I care about to be victimized. The answer is a definite no. I'm not a physically strong individual and wouldn't be able to stand toe-to-toe with someone who is, so a firearm allows me to equal the playing field against those who may seek to cause me and my family harm. I have an obligation to protect them, and I will. Frankly, I'd hope that the sight of the firearm would be enough to act as a deterrent so that I never have to squeeze the trigger. You might want to believe we're all blood-thirsty violence seekers, but we're not.

You say self-defense with them is like being stuck by lightning. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is that I've already had it happen twice in the eight years I've been a firearm owner. Twice. Maybe you should consult my other posts before you tell me that things I've personally experienced twice are a myth and never happen. Y'know, even though getting struck by lightning is pretty uncommon, that doesn't mean I'm going to start walking around with a metal pole during a storm. I'd rather avoid being struck, just as I'd rather avoid being in a situation where I need to defend myself but can't.

I'm not going to defend the gun lobby. I don't like lobbyists as a general rule of thumb. What I am going to do is defend responsible people like myself and my family from people like you who choose to paint us as the scum of the earth just because you choose to believe scare tactics. The pro and anti gun lobbies both employ the use of scare tactics, so I beg you to not be so naive as to believe that it's only one side doing it. Considering all of the reasonable arguments I've seen you make for and against other issues on this board, I think you're better and more sensible than that.

No, just the ones who go "We need to have school shootings, because otherwise there'll be government tyranny".

Seems to be a lot of those though.

It seems like a lot because the media only focuses on the vocal minority that makes for great shock value. Media in the United States is a joke. Everyone likes to rail on FOX News, but really, they're all pretty bad. They constantly skew their stories or focus on particularly egregious examples and try to make that seem like the norm to push agendas. To say it's bad journalism is a hilariously big understatement.

You don't hear about guys like me because we're boring. We don't make for good news stories. No one wants to hear "normal American family owns guns, doesn't want to hurt anyone" as a headline. It's the idiots that rave about tyranny that you hear about because it gets ratings. You wanna talk about myths? Journalistic integrity - now THAT is a myth these days.

It's like reading the forums for an MMORPG. There's a disproportional amount of players on most of those forums complaining about how completely terrible the games are. It's disproportional because all of the people who don't have anything bad to say are quietly enjoying the game. So if all you look at is the forum, you'd think the game was garbage - even though the forum is just a tiny but extremely vocal minority of the players. Same deal. The media chooses to focus on the idiots while the rest of us responsible people go about our daily lives unnoticed, which creates an atmosphere where everyone just assumes the idiots are everybody.

It's absurd.

Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased? The 90s were far more dangerous to the average citizen and yet we had an assault weapons ban in place. Now, we have no ban, we have more people than ever before with concealed carry permits, shootings went down.

You aren't getting rid of guns. Genie is out of the bottle. Look to a sick, uncaring, society if you want to make sense of mass shootings, the overall level of gun violence out there does not run parallel to those types of incidents.

Interesting side note; I went to pick up an AR-15 by S&W last night and had to wait 2 hours to get what I had ordered at the beginning of the week and already paid for. The guy behind the counter said they have had 40 million background checks since Sunday. That's something like 5%-10% of all guns in the US being bought this week alone. Why do I need it? Because in case shit happens. I don't trust the government or police to be there to protect me. I can protect myself just fine now, thanks.

xDarc:
Interesting side note; I went to pick up an AR-15 by S&W last night and had to wait 2 hours to get what I had ordered at the beginning of the week and already paid for.

Tell me about it.

I went by the Cabela's in my local mall today. Ammo was practically sold out (even the .22 stuff, weirdly enough), and there was quite the line in the gun section.

I haven't even bothered to go to the range I frequent because I know it's packed

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
People seem to think when you are an advocate for gun rights, you're some dumb red neck who gets a hard on shooting things

And that makes sense, because people who defend gun possession make a concious choice to sacrifice lives for something unnecessary.

There's few ways to earn scorn quicker than by doing something like that.

For instance the idea that tyranny is impending, and you could defeat the army in such a scenario is completely untrue, yet that untruth would form an argument against measures that would save lives. So effectively, people end up dying for a delusion. It shouldn't come as a surprise if people have a problem with points of view like that.

Well, I'm for gun rights and I'm not a red neck that gets a hard on shooting things.

If you want to believe we're heading over a cliff or not, I suppose that's your opinion, but wouldn't you at least want the chance to be able to fight back if things ever got real bad, or would you keel over and just accept increasingly draconian laws to restrict freedom and liberty all in the attempt to keep everyone safe from themselves and others?

xDarc:
Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased? The 90s were far more dangerous to the average citizen and yet we had an assault weapons ban in place. Now, we have no ban, we have more people than ever before with concealed carry permits, shootings went down.

Correlation != causation, simply put. Many things have changed since the 90's; to claim the drop in crime is because of any one thing without any proof beyond a correlation is a logical fallacy.

beef_razor:
If you want to believe we're heading over a cliff or not, I suppose that's your opinion, but wouldn't you at least want the chance to be able to fight back if things ever got real bad, or would you keel over and just accept increasingly draconian laws to restrict freedom and liberty all in the attempt to keep everyone safe from themselves and others?

You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil.

As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot.


A better question is how many children you want to see die, to be able to have guns and perpetuate a myth that's only going to get you and others killed in the end.

xDarc:
Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased?

Because that was coming from the height of the crack epidemic and armed gang warfare of the late '80's. In short: because it could hardly get any worse, it go better. The advances in policing during that time could work because of that.

You'll noticed how that started in the 70's, when guns became cheaper, and became available widely. Before that stuff like street gangs couldn't quite afford firearms, and the US was safer.

Guns cause violence.

As for self-defense, don't kid yourself. You will never in your life encounter a situation where you see serious harm coming, and have to time to grab a gun.

Blablahb:

You'll noticed how that started in the 70's, when guns became cheaper, and became available widely. Before that stuff like street gangs couldn't quite afford firearms, and the US was safer.

And before that there was prohibition, the great depression, and the murder rate was about the same as it was during the crack epidemic.

The only reason the US was "safer" before the 70s is because of demographics. During the late 60s and 70s, baby boomers were hitting the prime age for gun violence. You'll notice that one of the lowest rates of homicide in recent history is during WWII when the prime demographic for violence, young males from their teens to their twenties, are largely involved in the war effort.

All the while, the amount of firearms in this country has been steadily increasing, it's a constant rise, and the trends in homicide do not reflect that and they never have.

As far as self defense, I really wish some of you ivory tower european kids would come to my neck of the woods. I live 4 miles away from Detroit. Go live just on the border, just north of 8 mile for a a few months and you will find yourself at a gun shop, looking for something that fits in your waist band, in no time.

TechNoFear:

2012 Wont Happen:
The only difference is, there is damn near no circumstance in which junk food can save a life or defend the innocent, which guns can.

Another key difference might be that no one has ever burst into a school, movie theatre, etc armed only with masses of junk food and killed 10-20 innocent bystanders.

2012 Wont Happen:
Also your definition of an assault weapon is frankly wrong. Semi-automatic weapons are "assault weapons" and they do not fire more than one round per squeeze of a trigger. Know the definition of what you're talking about before calling for it to be banned.

EDIT: Misread the post.

There are the colloquial (common), technical and legal meanings of 'assault weapon' in the US.

The FOPA (1986) legally defines 'automatic weapons' to include most firearms that are colloquially and technically called 'assault weapons'.

The AWB (1992) legally defined 'assault weapon' to include many semi-auto firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

That's what I'm saying. The OP defines assault weapons as spray and pray but that isn't true of all, or even most, assault weapons available to civilians. The vast majority are semi-automatic.

edit- and as for the first part of your post, nor has a bag of junk food chips ever saved an innocent life, which guns do thousands of times every day in this country.

Tuesday Night Fever:

Ravinoff:
Yep, it's rather unnerving to read a state supreme court decision ruling that the police have no duty to protect you.

Jeez. I didn't hear about that. Which state was this in, and what was the context?

. . .

And I wonder if this means they'll be using tax dollars to repaint their cars to avoid false advertising.

image

It's nationwide, baby. It was a federal case.

Go look up Warren vs. DC as the big name case in this situation.

xDarc:
Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased? The 90s were far more dangerous to the average citizen and yet we had an assault weapons ban in place. Now, we have no ban, we have more people than ever before with concealed carry permits, shootings went down.

You aren't getting rid of guns. Genie is out of the bottle. Look to a sick, uncaring, society if you want to make sense of mass shootings, the overall level of gun violence out there does not run parallel to those types of incidents.

Interesting side note; I went to pick up an AR-15 by S&W last night and had to wait 2 hours to get what I had ordered at the beginning of the week and already paid for. The guy behind the counter said they have had 40 million background checks since Sunday. That's something like 5%-10% of all guns in the US being bought this week alone. Why do I need it? Because in case shit happens. I don't trust the government or police to be there to protect me. I can protect myself just fine now, thanks.

XDarc, he thinks my act of self defense with a firearm was only a "myth", you really think you're going to convince him otherwise?

And hell, Darc, he thinks it's a good standard that the police don't have to do shit to protect us. Blahb wants us to have no means of protection, neither personal or from the police. Some humanitarian, eh?

Blablahb:
You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil.

I did. Twice. No one got hurt.

Keep believing that if you want to, but I'm living proof that your argument has some serious flaws.

As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot.

Depends on the context of the situation. I'm 5'5" and most definitely not someone with any prowess at hand-to-hand combat. To say that I would be on equal ground with the biggest, hardest criminal is a sick joke, especially if said criminal was wielding a knife, or really any type of weapon. In that scenario, there are really only two outcomes. One, I attempt to get in my "two decent punches," and I end up getting my ass kicked (assuming I'm lucky enough to survive). Or two, I cower and give them what they want because it's the only way to avoid getting my ass kicked or killed. Having my USP on me gives me the third option of standing my ground, telling them to drop their weapon, and calling the cops.

Without guns, the only person who stands a chance in a fight is whoever brings the deadliest non-gun weapon or whoever is lucky enough to be built like a linebacker. Everyone else, myself falling into this category, is fuckin' screwed.

A better question is how many children you want to see die, to be able to have guns and perpetuate a myth that's only going to get you and others killed in the end.

None, which is why I, and the many other responsible firearm owners out there, don't shoot children. The only person perpetuating a myth here is you.

Guns cause violence.

No. Violent people cause violence. If, hypothetically, I crack you over the head with a hammer would you blame me, or the hammer?

As for self-defense, don't kid yourself. You will never in your life encounter a situation where you see serious harm coming, and have to time to grab a gun.

TWICE. In a span of eight years. Once involved a man holding a knife to me. Have you ever had anyone hold a knife to you, and threaten to kill you? I have. But that's right, you'd rather just ignore that, because it doesn't fit into your manufactured world-view.

GunsmithKitten:

Go look up Warren vs. DC as the big name case in this situation.

Have you actually read the case?

Warren v DC (appeal in 1981) states that individual police officers cannot be held liable (be sued for damages) for mistakes they make during their work, even though those mistakes may cause harm to an individual (unless the individual is under police care / protection).

It states that the police have a duty of care to all citizens, but individual police officers cannot be sued for damages.

How does that relate to firearm ownership?

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

TechNoFear:

GunsmithKitten:

Go look up Warren vs. DC as the big name case in this situation.

Have you actually read the case?

Warren v DC (appeal in 1981) states that individual police officers cannot be held liable (be sued for damages) for mistakes they make during their work, even though those mistakes may cause harm to an individual (unless the individual is under police care / protection).

It states that the police have a duty of care to all citizens, but individual police officers cannot be sued for damages.

How does that relate to firearm ownership?

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

Ummm, who didn't read the case again?

"Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

"Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims -- a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police -- adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation."

Actual quotes from the case, hoss.

Also check the following cases.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975): Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help.

Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968): Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.) :
Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.) The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.''

The only people that US Police are required by law to protect ARE CRIMINALS.

I cite this in a gun control debate because, quite simply, it's proof that when it comes to your self defense and your life, you're on your own. The police are crime janitors. They are not there to protect you.

GunsmithKitten:
Ummm, who didn't read the case again?

"Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

This quote is taken out of context, as it is by most pro-firearm web sites.

Warren sued individual police offficers for damages arising from negligence (ie she sued the dispatcher for cash damages).

The DC appeals court found that while the police have a duty of care to the general population overall, an individual police officer cannot be held personally liable for negligence in any specific case.

GunsmithKitten:
"Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims -- a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police -- adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation."

Actual quotes from the case, hoss.

Check again, missy...

(there is more than one case in that link and that quote is from Nicole v DC). [no need for name calling is there?]

GunsmithKitten:
I cite this in a gun control debate because, quite simply, it's proof that when it comes to your self defense and your life, you're on your own. The police are crime janitors. They are not there to protect you.

You are ignoring the main reason that you require a firearm for self defence is that firearms are so easy to obtain everybody has a firearm.

Here where firearms are not easy to obtain, you do not need a firearm for self defence.

The problem with firearms for self defence is that they are MUCH more often used to kill a family member than a in self defence.

FBI UCR 2011:
In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
If you want to believe we're heading over a cliff or not, I suppose that's your opinion, but wouldn't you at least want the chance to be able to fight back if things ever got real bad, or would you keel over and just accept increasingly draconian laws to restrict freedom and liberty all in the attempt to keep everyone safe from themselves and others?

You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil.

As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot.


A better question is how many children you want to see die, to be able to have guns and perpetuate a myth that's only going to get you and others killed in the end.

xDarc:
Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased?

Because that was coming from the height of the crack epidemic and armed gang warfare of the late '80's. In short: because it could hardly get any worse, it go better. The advances in policing during that time could work because of that.

You'll noticed how that started in the 70's, when guns became cheaper, and became available widely. Before that stuff like street gangs couldn't quite afford firearms, and the US was safer.

Guns cause violence.

As for self-defense, don't kid yourself. You will never in your life encounter a situation where you see serious harm coming, and have to time to grab a gun.

Let's go through this bit by bit.
"You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil."
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

"As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot."
First you need to convince the gangs to turn in their guns and then you need to convince all the illegal arms smugglers that would pop up to politely hand over their guns as well. Also you'd need to convince all legal gun owners to turn in their guns in exchange for the gun's market value (because you can't just ask them to hand over their guns without paying them, that'd be just wrong)
"Guns cause violence."
Please tell us how there was no violence before guns were invented, guess the middle ages and all the time before that was a lie.

Xan Krieger:
"Guns cause violence."
Please tell us how there was no violence before guns were invented, guess the middle ages and all the time before that was a lie.

Your right, firearms do not CAUSE violence, but firearms make any violence much more lethal.

This is a graph of deaths in assaults (ie the chance that getting into a fight will kill you). Very scary if you are American....

TechNoFear:

Xan Krieger:
"Guns cause violence."
Please tell us how there was no violence before guns were invented, guess the middle ages and all the time before that was a lie.

Your right, firearms do not CAUSE violence, but firearms make any violence much more lethal.

This is a graph of deaths in assaults (ie the chance that getting into a fight will kill you). Very scary if you are American....

That shows there's only 10 deaths per 100,000 people, that's tiny. It's not scary at all when it's such a small percent.

Xan Krieger:

TechNoFear:

Xan Krieger:
"Guns cause violence."
Please tell us how there was no violence before guns were invented, guess the middle ages and all the time before that was a lie.

Your right, firearms do not CAUSE violence, but firearms make any violence much more lethal.

This is a graph of deaths in assaults (ie the chance that getting into a fight will kill you). Very scary if you are American....

That shows there's only 10 deaths per 100,000 people, that's tiny. It's not scary at all when it's such a small percent.

I think you're supposed to be looking at how much higher America in comparison to those other places.

Xan Krieger:
That shows there's only 10 deaths per 100,000 people, that's tiny. It's not scary at all when it's such a small percent.

OK....

You missed the point that the US death rate is multiples of any other comparable country, or is my sarcasm detector out of calibration?

TechNoFear:

Xan Krieger:
That shows there's only 10 deaths per 100,000 people, that's tiny. It's not scary at all when it's such a small percent.

OK....

You missed the point that the US death rate is multiples of any other comparable country, or is my sarcasm detector out of calibration?

I get that it's higher but it's still so minor. It's not really a problem when it's so few people.

Xan Krieger:

TechNoFear:

Xan Krieger:
That shows there's only 10 deaths per 100,000 people, that's tiny. It's not scary at all when it's such a small percent.

OK....

You missed the point that the US death rate is multiples of any other comparable country, or is my sarcasm detector out of calibration?

I get that it's higher but it's still so minor. It's not really a problem when it's so few people.

Let me put that into prospective for you:
More people die in the US due to deliberate gun violence each year than have died in Syrian civil war so far, heck the yearly death toll is about 4 times the total death toll of the Israeli Palestinian conflict on both sides in the past 60 years...

TechNoFear:

The DC appeals court found that while the police have a duty of care to the general population overall, an individual police officer cannot be held personally liable for negligence in any specific case.

Which is exactly my point. You as a person get no protection from the police. You're on your own. Thank you for confirming it.

You are ignoring the main reason that you require a firearm for self defence is that firearms are so easy to obtain everybody has a firearm.

Hwo easy DO you think it is? Go ahead. Tell me. Tell someone who sells firearms for a living just how fucking easy it is to buy them.

Here where firearms are not easy to obtain, you do not need a firearm for self defence.

I'm 102 soaking wet with a bad leg. Do tell, what are my self defense options if someone with a blade/bludgeon and 100 pounds plus on me intends to do bad things to me?

The problem with firearms for self defence is that they are MUCH more often used to kill a family member than a in self defence.

No family members in my house.

But yea, cops don't have to do shit to protect me, and you want me to have no firearms. What am I left with?

Xan Krieger:

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
If you want to believe we're heading over a cliff or not, I suppose that's your opinion, but wouldn't you at least want the chance to be able to fight back if things ever got real bad, or would you keel over and just accept increasingly draconian laws to restrict freedom and liberty all in the attempt to keep everyone safe from themselves and others?

You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil.

As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot.


A better question is how many children you want to see die, to be able to have guns and perpetuate a myth that's only going to get you and others killed in the end.

xDarc:
Hey Blahblah, if you want to claim more guns cause more violence, then please explain how it is possible that since the 90's the shootings in the US have dramatically decreased while the amount of guns has dramatically increased?

Because that was coming from the height of the crack epidemic and armed gang warfare of the late '80's. In short: because it could hardly get any worse, it go better. The advances in policing during that time could work because of that.

You'll noticed how that started in the 70's, when guns became cheaper, and became available widely. Before that stuff like street gangs couldn't quite afford firearms, and the US was safer.

Guns cause violence.

As for self-defense, don't kid yourself. You will never in your life encounter a situation where you see serious harm coming, and have to time to grab a gun.

Let's go through this bit by bit.
"You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil."
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

"As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot."
First you need to convince the gangs to turn in their guns and then you need to convince all the illegal arms smugglers that would pop up to politely hand over their guns as well. Also you'd need to convince all legal gun owners to turn in their guns in exchange for the gun's market value (because you can't just ask them to hand over their guns without paying them, that'd be just wrong)
"Guns cause violence."
Please tell us how there was no violence before guns were invented, guess the middle ages and all the time before that was a lie.

Tell Blahab that not only did I defend myself successfully with a firearm, any subsequent charges against me were dropped the minute they hit a court room for my use of a firearm.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here