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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 17 NEXT
 

David VanDusen:

People have a huge misconception about how most shotguns work. It's hard to find a good collection of data, but average expansion for shot can easily be 10 feet. At lot of people think that they can blow a giant circular hole in something with a shotgun at very close ranges, which is possible if we are talking about entry and exit wounds. However what they have in mind is huge spread areas of damage (a similar line to spray and prey) which just doesn't happen in close quarter situations. Further more, not everyone lives in a house and or doesn't worry about over penetration (a big issue with buckshot or slugs as well as pistol rounds.) As it has been discussed for probably 60 plus years now, people miss when shooting. The idea of an AR style weapon in a home defense answers several common problem elements, good stopping power without over perpetration, easy manipulation both mechanically and in small spaces, light weight, and rapid fire rates needed to stop an aggressor.

What I'm saying both here and before is that by the numbers an AR is better as a home defense weapon across the board. It isn't that either a pistol nor shotgun are bad, an AR is just simply better over all. What your comfortable with doesn't make that particular weapon style the best, just best for you.

Again, got some studies and some empirical data on this, especially in home defense situation studies?

And by the same token, just because a weapon is better by numbers does not mean one will automatically be more effective with it. There's a whole lot of handguns that are better than my Bursa, yet I'm not nearly as accurate on the range with it.

Swear to fucking god, I can't make anyone happy. If it's not Blahab getting on my case for having a gun, I got you getting on my case for owning the wrong kind of longarm to defend my house with. You people drive me to fucking drink.

Shock and Awe:
Also what do you mean 7.62 isn't good for concealed carry?

You know of any 7.62's that can be comfortably carried on a hip or shoulder rig?

GunsmithKitten:

Shock and Awe:
Also what do you mean 7.62 isn't good for concealed carry?

You know of any 7.62's that can be comfortably carried on a hip or shoulder rig?

I mean I thought this was just about home defense not Concealed Carry. Though if you really want one I hear the TT-30 is pretty decent.....

Batou667:
Predictions for this thread:

1) Award-winning mental gymnastics regarding the definition of "assault" weapons
2) Slippery-slope arguments about guns being taken away
3) Switzerland being presented as an argument-winning counter-example

Also

1) The fantasy idea that banning guns will remove all guns from society because black markets don't exist
2) Correlation fallacies
3) Non stop reference to the CT shooting.

David VanDusen:
Man people are really ignorant, and I mean that in its pure definition of being uneducated.

Let me address some really bad comments on this page alone.

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have. Granted there should be a way for special cases to be made for people who live in environments where their lives are at risk because of large animals that live in the area. Think Svalbard.

Can you factually support this?

Support what? That an assault rifle can defend a person against a angry bear that wants to kill you?

David VanDusen:
As stated above, every expert in the field of self defense and weapon education disagrees with you.

Really? Every expert would disagree that a assault rifle will not protect you against a angry bear? Proof it, because you didn't provide any sources in your response.

David VanDusen:
Real life extenuating circumstances also would like to disagree with you.

See previous response about your lack of sources.

David VanDusen:
Military tactics would like to disagree with you.

Again, see previous response.

David VanDusen:
Beyond "opinion" and "feelings" against, there has been zero factual data to support that there isn't a "need" beyond one person "feeling" that someone else shouldn't have access to these weapons.

Don't talk to me about "factual data" when you haven't provided anything to back up what you said in your reply to me.

David VanDusen:
The people who "support" these ideas have nothing but "feelings" and uneducated opinions and offer nothing but fantasy land responses to the matter.

......he said, having provided no sources to back up his claim that assault rifles can't protect you from large, angry bears.

David VanDusen:

In the end, the facts are out there for those who are ACTUALLY wanting to know them.

Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to provide a sourced response that clearly demonstrates how "every expert in the field of self defense" would disagree with me, and how "real life extenuating circumstances" and "military tactics" would disagree with my suggestion that assault rifles could be a possible form of defense against a large, angry bear.

David VanDusen:
The United States has undergone a 50% reduction in violent crime in the last 20 years along with a 50% reduction in murders. We have less violent crime per-capita than the UK and our murders are centralized in high population areas... the same as everywhere else.

Those are facts.

Ok, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about people being able to get assault rifles in NYC, but that people in remote parts of Alaska should be able to apply for permits.

Hopefully this will clear any misconceptions..

Shock and Awe:

GunsmithKitten:

Shock and Awe:
Also what do you mean 7.62 isn't good for concealed carry?

You know of any 7.62's that can be comfortably carried on a hip or shoulder rig?

I mean I thought this was just about home defense not Concealed Carry. Though if you really want one I hear the TT-30 is pretty decent.....

Speaking from experience (and admittedly I am referring to the Yugo variant, which is a little bigger) the Tokarev is a little large to conceal comfortably on top of the fact that the thing has enough issues with safety that make me a little uncomfortable carrying with one in the pipe. It is also very likely to over penetrate, as the standard 7.62x25 Tokarev round reaches about 1300 FPS and has the comparable kinetic energy to a .45 with higher penetration. That's before even talking about the 1600 fps Czech hot loads, which admittedly is likely to blow the slide off a TT-30 or variants there of as it is for the CZ-52. That said, i am getting one for my collection, but going to use the 9x18 double action Makrov for a carry gun. I collect the Russians btw, so I also have a nagant revolver and blan to get a Mosin, and an SKS in the nearish future.

Lunar Shadow:

Shock and Awe:

GunsmithKitten:

You know of any 7.62's that can be comfortably carried on a hip or shoulder rig?

I mean I thought this was just about home defense not Concealed Carry. Though if you really want one I hear the TT-30 is pretty decent.....

Speaking from experience (and admittedly I am referring to the Yugo variant, which is a little bigger) the Tokarev is a little large to conceal comfortably on top of the fact that the thing has enough issues with safety that make me a little uncomfortable carrying with one in the pipe. It is also very likely to over penetrate, as the standard 7.62x25 Tokarev round reaches about 1300 FPS and has the comparable kinetic energy to a .45 with higher penetration. That's before even talking about the 1600 fps Czech hot loads, which admittedly is likely to blow the slide off a TT-30 or variants there of as it is for the CZ-52. That said, i am getting one for my collection, but going to use the 9x18 double action Makrov for a carry gun. I collect the Russians btw, so I also have a nagant revolver and blan to get a Mosin, and an SKS in the nearish future.

......I was not expecting such a detailed response. In truth I just wanted something snippy to say and I knew the gun used a 7.62x25. My favored pistol is actually a Glock 19. Nice feel in the hand and a good magazine capacity. Maybe a little larger then some compacts but its more comfortable for me then any other pistol.

Helmholtz Watson:
Support what? That an assault rifle can defend a person against a angry bear that wants to kill you?

Really? Every expert would disagree that a assault rifle will not protect you against a angry bear? Proof it, because you didn't provide any sources in your response.

See previous response about your lack of sources.

Again, see previous response.

Don't talk to me about "factual data" when you haven't provided anything to back up what you said in your reply to me.

he said, having provided no sources to back up his claim that assault rifles can't protect you from large, angry bears.

Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to provide a sourced response that clearly demonstrates how "every expert in the field of self defense" would disagree with me, and how "real life extenuating circumstances" and "military tactics" would disagree with my suggestion that assault rifles could be a possible form of defense against a large, angry bear.

Ok but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about people being able to get assault rifles in NYC, but that people in remote parts of Alaska should be able to apply for permits.

I'll surmise here. If you haven't done the research then it's on you. There are tons of it out there, I'm not going to do your job for you. If you have a stance that "civilians" do not "need" something then prove it with facts. The burden is on you to prove a lack of "need" for something. I don't have to waste time showing a billion links to videos, blogs, articles, and or anything else by security specialists, police, military, and contractors on how your wrong because you'd have to prove your have anything of substance to be challenged first. All you have currently is "whine, I don't feeeeeeeeeeeeel they should have this."

Further more, since you want to "talk bears." Which kind? In North America there are primarily Grizzly and Black bears. Black bears can be swayed to leave you alone with a 9mm+P so a .223Rem on up is perfectly suitable to not only pursued them to go the other way but to drop them. (depending on the ammunition as well.)

A Grizzly on the other hand is more aggressive and requires to be stopped/killed. At the low end you're talking about a .308 with a Grizzly but then again there are a lot of variables. Yet, in the end, the AR platform is not limited to .223/5.56 and does go up to .50cal. For bears across the spectrum semi-autos have answers for everything.

Then again, Cougars and Hogs are also a concern for several sections of the country as well as wolves and coyotes, so it isn't just "large super scary" creatures to be focused on.

Oh, and Assault Rifles have been banned since the 1986 Hughes Amendment (Firearm Owners Protection Act). So what is the point of this thread?

David VanDusen:

I'll surmise here. If you haven't done the research then it's on you. There are tons of it out there, I'm not going to do your job for you.

I guess that is one way of dodging the request that you back up what you say because I don't just take your word for it.

David VanDusen:
If you have a stance that "civilians" do not "need" something then prove it with facts. The burden is on you to prove a lack of "need" for something. I don't have to waste time showing a billion links to videos, blogs, articles, and or anything else by security specialists, police, military, and contractors on how your wrong because you'd have to prove your have anything of substance to be challenged first.

You don't have to do anything, but if your going to convince others that assault rifles are ineffective or not needed for a civilian to defend themselves against a large angry bear, then your going to need more than just your word on the matter for your argument to hold up. As for me, I already stated in my first post that I was basing what I said off of places like Svalbard, where civilians are required to be armed for the very same reason(protection against bear attacks).

David VanDusen:
All you have currently is "whine, I don't feeeeeeeeeeeeel they should have this."

Now your just being insulting and rude for the hell of it.

David VanDusen:

Further more, since you want to "talk bears." Which kind? In North America there are primarily Grizzly and Black bears. Black bears can be swayed to leave you alone with a 9mm+P so a .223Rem on up is perfectly suitable to not only pursued them to go the other way but to drop them. (depending on the ammunition as well.)

A Grizzly on the other hand is more aggressive and requires to be stopped/killed. At the low end you're talking about a .308 with a Grizzly but then again there are a lot of variables. Yet, in the end, the AR platform is not limited to .223/5.56 and does go up to .50cal. For bears across the spectrum semi-autos have answers for everything.

Do you have any way of back these claims with sources or are you just going to expect me to take your word on it(again)?

David VanDusen:

Then again, Cougars and Hogs are also a concern for several sections of the country as well as wolves and coyotes, so it isn't just "large super scary" creatures to be focused on.

Hmmm...that's a good point.l I guess I would assume that you could defend yourself against those animals without needing an assault rifle, but I could be wrong.

Helmholtz Watson:
snip

Honestly, I don't post links or sources anymore. As soon as you waste the time to do as such it gets ignored or the person realizes they can't argue against that so choose to side rail into some other argument they "meant" to be talking about in the first place.

I understand there is the "burden of proof" clause and all, however, that never seems to prevent anyone from stating things like you and many others have said.

People claim "Well so and so doesn't NEED *specific weapon or weapon style here*." Really? Do you have any proof of that?

People claim "Well 'assault weapons' (incorrect terminology) aren't needed for defense." Again... proof?

I've never understood why it is the pro-gun side which is demanded to "provide proof" when said proof is regularly available and "common" knowledge to those who actually care. It isn't a great example but it's like someone going on a forum and debating how a Ferrari doesn't have good quarter mile times and then yelling at other people to "prove" that it they do.

In general, people pay WAY too much attention to the media as their "source" of "information." I don't go to the media. I don't go to politicians as they are both trying to sell agendas. People also look too closely to "statistics" as source material without doing any fact checking as to who created the statistic and what their process was. Statistics always sound good because they are written out but once you start dissecting the methods and use any level of common sense many of them fall apart.

David VanDusen:

Helmholtz Watson:
snip

Honestly, I don't post links or sources anymore. As soon as you waste the time to do as such it gets ignored or the person realizes they can't argue against that so choose to side rail into some other argument they "meant" to be talking about in the first place.

I understand there is the "burden of proof" clause and all, however, that never seems to prevent anyone from stating things like you and many others have said.

People claim "Well so and so doesn't NEED *specific weapon or weapon style here*." Really? Do you have any proof of that?

People claim "Well 'assault weapons' (incorrect terminology) aren't needed for defense." Again... proof?

I've never understood why it is the pro-gun side which is demanded to "provide proof" when said proof is regularly available and "common" knowledge to those who actually care. It isn't a great example but it's like someone going on a forum and debating how a Ferrari doesn't have good quarter mile times and then yelling at other people to "prove" that it they do.

In general, people pay WAY too much attention to the media as their "source" of "information." I don't go to the media. I don't go to politicians as they are both trying to sell agendas. People also look too closely to "statistics" as source material without doing any fact checking as to who created the statistic and what their process was. Statistics always sound good because they are written out but once you start dissecting the methods and use any level of common sense many of them fall apart.

Still, without any kind of source to back up our arguments, we can say anything and claim it is "common knowledge." Actual "common knowledge" can also be hilariously wrong. If I go to a town where 51% believe in creationism, I can correctly say it is "common knowledge" that evolution is wrong. Hold up an AR-15 to most people will assume it is an "assault rifle" without checking if it is semi or fully automatic.

If you have something wrong with a source I post, a statistic I show, any piece of evidence I present, it is your job to explain what is wrong with the evidence and why it should be thrown out of the debate. You cannot dismiss all the evidence outright. Even if 9 out of 10 of statistics are lies, there still is a 10% chance that my statistics is correct.

Not G. Ivingname:

If you have something wrong with a source I post, a statistic I show, any piece of evidence I present, it is your job to explain what is wrong with the evidence and why it should be thrown out of the debate. You cannot dismiss all the evidence outright. Even if 9 out of 10 of statistics are lies, there still is a 10% chance that my statistics is correct.

I wasn't aware that I quoted you and or that you had posted anything regarding sources. Further more, the person I was talking did not post any sources which is how that conversation started. He dictated somebody didn't "need" something and failed to provide any poof. Scroll back a page.

David VanDusen:

Not G. Ivingname:

If you have something wrong with a source I post, a statistic I show, any piece of evidence I present, it is your job to explain what is wrong with the evidence and why it should be thrown out of the debate. You cannot dismiss all the evidence outright. Even if 9 out of 10 of statistics are lies, there still is a 10% chance that my statistics is correct.

I wasn't aware that I quoted you and or that you had posted anything regarding sources. Further more, the person I was talking did not post any sources which is how that conversation started. He dictated somebody didn't "need" something and failed to provide any poof. Scroll back a page.

Sorry, just jumped into the argument, didn't know the context either.

David VanDusen:

Not G. Ivingname:

If you have something wrong with a source I post, a statistic I show, any piece of evidence I present, it is your job to explain what is wrong with the evidence and why it should be thrown out of the debate. You cannot dismiss all the evidence outright. Even if 9 out of 10 of statistics are lies, there still is a 10% chance that my statistics is correct.

I wasn't aware that I quoted you and or that you had posted anything regarding sources. Further more, the person I was talking did not post any sources which is how that conversation started. He dictated somebody didn't "need" something and failed to provide any poof. Scroll back a page.

What? I never said that somebody didn't need something, in fact I said the exact opposite! I said that people in remote parts of Alaska might need an assault rifle for the exact same reason why people in Svalbard are required to be armed, because of the threat that bears pose.

As for your other comment, if you prove me wrong then I'll admit I'm wrong. This is the internet, not some election where you and I are the opposing candidates. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I know that's the case. That said, your just making excuses now, because its quite clear that you were just stating your opinion as fact when you said.....

David VanDusen:
[E]very expert in the field of self defense and weapon education disagrees with you. Real life extenuating circumstances also would like to disagree with you. Military tactics would like to disagree with you.

If your not going to actually back up your claims about how "every expert" would disagree with me, then don't make such outrageous claims in the first place.

Helmholtz Watson:
What? I never said that somebody didn't need something, in fact I said the exact opposite! I said that people in remote parts of Alaska might need an assault rifle for the exact same reason why people in Svalbard are required to be armed, because of the threat that bears pose.

As for your other comment, if you prove me wrong then I'll admit I'm wrong. This is the internet, not some election where you and I are the opposing candidates. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong when I know that's the case. That said, your just making excuses now, because its quite clear that you were just stating your opinion as fact when you said.....

Helmholtz Watson:

David VanDusen:

Not G. Ivingname:

If you have something wrong with a source I post, a statistic I show, any piece of evidence I present, it is your job to explain what is wrong with the evidence and why it should be thrown out of the debate. You cannot dismiss all the evidence outright. Even if 9 out of 10 of statistics are lies, there still is a 10% chance that my statistics is correct.

I wasn't aware that I quoted you and or that you had posted anything regarding sources. Further more, the person I was talking did not post any sources which is how that conversation started. He dictated somebody didn't "need" something and failed to provide any poof. Scroll back a page.

What? I never said that somebody didn't need something, in fact I said the exact opposite!

Really?

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have.

Who was this guy then?

David VanDusen:

Really?

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have.

Who was this guy then?

He was the guy that made an exception for people who lived in remote parts of places like Alaska, not for places like L.A. or NYC. Go back and read the whole post this time. Better yet, I just post it below....

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have. Granted there should be a way for special cases to be made for people who live in environments where their lives are at risk because of large animals that live in the area. Think Svalbard.

Helmholtz Watson:

David VanDusen:

Really?

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have.

Who was this guy then?

He was the guy that made an exception for people who lived in remote parts of places like Alaska, not for places like L.A. or NYC. Go back and read the whole post this time. Better yet, I just post it below....

Helmholtz Watson:
Yes I think that we can agree that assault rifles are not need for civilians to have. Granted there should be a way for special cases to be made for people who live in environments where their lives are at risk because of large animals that live in the area. Think Svalbard.

Riiight, which following the Logic and Context Train, he's the guy getting off the wrong station. You're still dictating that someone doesn't "need" something but not providing proof that others don't also "need" them.

mattttherman3:
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/obama-supportive-of-assault-weapons-ban-1

Look, say what you will about handguns, but you can not possibly make a reasonable argument for having an assault weapon as a civilian. Protection? Against what? 40 people raiding your house? I don't think so. If you live in Juarez Mexico, sure, but not anywhere in the states. If you live somewhere where gangs have auto weapons? Sorry, not good enough. Move away from there. The only people who could concievably need them are swat teams. And please don't bring up that you like collecting them, that is just the worst excuse.

captcha: No brainer-u serious escapist?

Edit: By assault, I basically mean ANY automatic weapon, as in more than one shot fired per trigger pull. Spray and Pray as it were

There is this billionaire in kentucky I believe, a friend of mine went to his house because his ultra conservative uncle lived with him with his family. He showed me pictures, this guy has a warehouse full of guns and ammo, multiple M16's, AK47's, UZI's, hand guns, 50.cal rifles, and of course, a fully functional APC tank. This man has enough for a militia indeed. So not needed.

edit 2: You guys can stop quoting me, I read every new post in the thread

I will quote you anyway! Muahahaha polite conversation for the win! ^.^

OT: Automatic weapons are already illegal to own in the United States. The 1934 Miller Supreme Court case criminalized the possession of fully automatic firearms (which is what you are describing) by US citizens without a liscense/permit, and since almost no one can get/afford these permits they are effectively outlawed in the United States. Which leaves us with semi automatic firearms, which require the trigger being pulled before each shot.

"Need" does not figure into the equation in the United States. The US Constitution clears states "A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While there has been intense legal wrangling on what exactly constitutes a militia the 2008 Heller vs District of Columbia Supreme Court decision stated that the Second Amendment applies to every man and woman (also Im not sure if its the Miller case or the Heller case but one of them stated the Amendment applies to "weapons that would then be in common usage by the populace", if not also the military.)

Secondly, while you may not agree with the following people deserve to feel safe and protected, not only in their own homes but on the streets as well. Thugs and gangsters are predators, and like all predators they prey on the weak. A gun equalizes the playing field, turning a helpless victim into something the predators dont want to tangle with for fear of getting hurt. This applies just as well on a governmental level-see Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas. Even armed SWAT teams give pause when there is the possibility of meeting deadly force upon entry, especially when they are doing so in the wrong

I leave you with a few quotes which may better explain my thinking:

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject."
"People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"There are two ways to win an arguement: persuasion and force. If you cannot persuade me you must force me. Having a gun allows me to meet force with force, so you must rely on your persuasion."

Brett Dumain:

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject."

A gun won't save you if "The Man" decides to come for you. The Man has more guns than you do.

"People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people."

So how's that overthrowing of the US government that allegedly nobody trusts anymore going?

"An armed society is a polite society."

*Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!*

I'm sorry, old bean, but I daresay there's no conceivable way anyone can beat the British in sheer, stuffy, stick-up-your-ass politeness.

Apologies to all British Escapists, I might be employment hyperbole here.

"There are two ways to win an arguement: persuasion and force. If you cannot persuade me you must force me. Having a gun allows me to meet force with force, so you must rely on your persuasion."

Anyone determined enough will not be deterred by you being armed as well.

Vegosiux:

Brett Dumain:

"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject."

A gun won't save you if "The Man" decides to come for you. The Man has more guns than you do.

"People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people."

So how's that overthrowing of the US government that allegedly nobody trusts anymore going?

"An armed society is a polite society."

*Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!*

I'm sorry, old bean, but I daresay there's no conceivable way anyone can beat the British in sheer, stuffy, stick-up-your-ass politeness.

Apologies to all British Escapists, I might be employment hyperbole here.

"There are two ways to win an arguement: persuasion and force. If you cannot persuade me you must force me. Having a gun allows me to meet force with force, so you must rely on your persuasion."

Anyone determined enough will not be deterred by you being armed as well.

1) You assume that "I" expect to live through the confrontation. The Feds dont have the bodies nor the bullets to suppress the estimated 20 million (as a conservative estimate) armed individuals in this country.
2)We arent quite there yet. Why do you think they are trying to make us register our guns? They know the consequences of trying to take them from us...
4) Then they better expect to end up in a body bag.

Brett Dumain:

1) You assume that "I" expect to live through the confrontation. The Feds dont have the bodies nor the bullets to suppress the estimated 20 million (as a conservative estimate) armed individuals in this country.
2)We arent quite there yet. Why do you think they are trying to make us register our guns? They know the consequences of trying to take them from us...
4) Then they better expect to end up in a body bag.

1) You do realize that if shit does hit the fan, many of those armed individuals are likely to find themselves on the other side, yes?

2) Well, if you're not there when the government isn't trusted "at all", then you'll never be there. Because, USA cannot become a dictatorship not only because of its democratic roots, but because the moment it did, it'd lose a lot of allies.

3) Yeah well, I guess my joking about the British politeness kind of took the air out of that point, sorry >.<

4) Ummm....what if they're a better shot than you are? What if you don't see them coming? What if they're someone who you have second thoughts about killing? I'm sorry but that point is damn well arrogant, assuming there's nothing you can't deal with. There's always something you can't deal with.

David VanDusen:
Riiight, which following the Logic and Context Train, he's the guy getting off the wrong station. You're still dictating that someone doesn't "need" something but not providing proof that others don't also "need" them.

When was the last time you saw a bear in Times Square? That's his exception, if you live in an area that has extremely dangerous wildlife (i.e. the kind that can tear you limb from limb) then you have a valid reason to have a gun that can fire lots of rounds in a very short time. If the most dangerous wildlife your likely to meet is the fox that raids your bins at night you don't have the same need.

Vegosiux:

I'm sorry, old bean, but I daresay there's no conceivable way anyone can beat the British in sheer, stuffy, stick-up-your-ass politeness.

Apologies to all British Escapists, I might be employment hyperbole here.

No need to apologise, considering we say sorry if someone steps on our toes (as it's our fault for putting them where their feet wanted to land) I don't think you can exaggerate our politeness.

So who's consulting the gun owners on this "needs" assessment? Funny I don't seem to remember people asking the millions of NRA members about gun rights. You know, the people who decide to exercise said right and are the ones affected by gun control laws (criminals don't obey laws).

Rifles are employed for several reasons: accuracy, range and penetration for example. Automatic weapons are valued for suppressive capability against an attacking/armed force. Not only are civilian rifles semi-automatic, but none of these are required when firearms are used to massacre unarmed, unprotected civilians at close range. Any class of firearm will do catastrophic damage to a human being.

Go ahead and start with "assault" weapons. All capacity magazines. Then all rifles. Then shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, etc, etc. and then when you see the next mass shooter pull out his revolvers you'll want to ban them too. Soon enough you'll watch video feed of a shooter with time to load his musket in a mall shooting and think that's just too easy, better ban powder. Only miners and demolitions people need that.

The gun grab is a slippery slope but more importantly it doesn't even try to solve the deeper, rooted problems with society. It's such a lazy, self-righteous, heavy-handed, fascist maneuver and anyone who supports complete bans on civilian firearms are worse than the RIAA, MPAA, TSA and SOPA and warrantless wiretaps combined. Hypocrites.

Karma168:
When was the last time you saw a bear in Times Square? That's his exception, if you live in an area that has extremely dangerous wildlife (i.e. the kind that can tear you limb from limb) then you have a valid reason to have a gun that can fire lots of rounds in a very short time. If the most dangerous wildlife your likely to meet is the fox that raids your bins at night you don't have the same need.

There's all sorts of dangerous wildlife in populated areas, and some have guns. People need to be allowed to own and carry to take down other humans if they are threatened. Just like animals have the tools to survive, so do we. Only difference is people go around thinking they can declaw everyone else, it's just as inhumane as ripping them out of animals.

David VanDusen:
Can you factually support this? As stated above, every expert in the field of self defense and weapon education disagrees with you.

They make their money by scaring people and selling death, so would you expect them to agree? Saying that is like saying "All pedophiles agree that sexual abuse does not harm children", and that statement is only slightly more retarded than gun lobby arguments tend to be.

David VanDusen:
We have less violent crime per-capita than the UK

If you had been paying attention to the earlier debate, you'd have noticed how someone busted that myth already. The US uses a different definition of violent crime. All robberies and all instances of violence against a person including threats, are counted as violent crime in the UK, while in the US, only murder, manslaughter, rape, agrevated and regular assault are violent crimes.

If you use an actually somewhat comparable thing, like murder, you'd see that due to gun posession, the US has a murder rate that's between twice and fourteen times as high as other western countries, and higher than for instance the Palestinian territories, Albania, or Niger.

And that doesn't even count murders that are legalised under US laws like the stand your ground law.

Compare Poland and the Czech Republic for instance, and you'd see that despite being fairly comparable countries in terms of wealth, the Czech murder rate is 72% higher than the Polish one due to lax gun laws. The gun lobby's nr 1 propaganda argument Switserland, has a rate of family drama's that the highest in Europe, including Turkey according to one source, due to firearms being present in every home.

Contrary to what the NRA and other merchants of death claim however, there's still burglaries in Switserland, still robberies in Switserland, and actually, considering the wealth the extremely sparse population density, Switserland has a soaring crime rate.

Blablahb:

David VanDusen:
Can you factually support this? As stated above, every expert in the field of self defense and weapon education disagrees with you.

They make their money by scaring people and selling death, so would you expect them to agree? Saying that is like saying "All pedophiles agree that sexual abuse does not harm children", and that statement is only slightly more retarded than gun lobby arguments tend to be.

David VanDusen:
We have less violent crime per-capita than the UK

If you had been paying attention to the earlier debate, you'd have noticed how someone busted that myth already. The US uses a different definition of violent crime. All robberies and all instances of violence against a person including threats, are counted as violent crime in the UK, while in the US, only murder, manslaughter, rape, agrevated and regular assault are violent crimes.

If you use an actually somewhat comparable thing, like murder, you'd see that due to gun posession, the US has a murder rate that's between twice and fourteen times as high as other western countries, and higher than for instance the Palestinian territories, Albania, or Niger.

And that doesn't even count murders that are legalised under US laws like the stand your ground law.

Compare Poland and the Czech Republic for instance, and you'd see that despite being fairly comparable countries in terms of wealth, the Czech murder rate is 72% higher than the Polish one due to lax gun laws. The gun lobby's nr 1 propaganda argument Switserland, has a rate of family drama's that the highest in Europe, including Turkey according to one source, due to firearms being present in every home.

Contrary to what the NRA and other merchants of death claim however, there's still burglaries in Switserland, still robberies in Switserland, and actually, considering the wealth the extremely sparse population density, Switserland has a soaring crime rate.

Just as a curiosity can you show me a link to something showing that the US and UK have different classifications for violent crime? Because if you look at the numbers as presented by the UK Home office and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation they seem to categorize the crimes the same. We classify robberies as violent crime and injuring a person falls under assault. In addition according to raw numbers crime in the UK seems to be steady or rising slightly while in the US has been steadily falling for over a decade.

You also need to get off this whole thing with calling self defense "murder". Just because its against the law to defend your home and family in other countries doesn't mean it is here. Is it murder to defend oneself from an attacker using deadly force?

Also, did you really just blame "family drama" on firearms? Thats kind of pathetic. Since we can't bring up the hilariously tiny murder rate in countries with comparatively high gun ownership rates like Switzerland, Norway, and Finland we are going to bring up FAMILY DRAMA. Good one there.

Karma168:

David VanDusen:
Riiight, which following the Logic and Context Train, he's the guy getting off the wrong station. You're still dictating that someone doesn't "need" something but not providing proof that others don't also "need" them.

When was the last time you saw a bear in Times Square? That's his exception, if you live in an area that has extremely dangerous wildlife (i.e. the kind that can tear you limb from limb) then you have a valid reason to have a gun that can fire lots of rounds in a very short time. If the most dangerous wildlife your likely to meet is the fox that raids your bins at night you don't have the same need.

Thank you! I'm glad someone else understands what I mean.

David VanDusen:
Riiight, which following the Logic and Context Train, he's the guy getting off the wrong station. You're still dictating that someone doesn't "need" something but not providing proof that others don't also "need" them.

My "proof" would be that there is not a large population of angry, large bears roaming around on Manhattan Island or down in South Beach. As a result, assault rifles are not need to defend yourself against what little wildlife there is on the Streets of NYC or downtown Miami[1]. On the other hand, places like Alaska do have wildlife that can pose a serious threat and can kill you. Hence why I keep bringing up Svalbard and how I'm modeling my exception after that part of Norway.

[1] I realize that Miami is on the ocean and that there are animals like sharks, but I'm referring to the land mass

Helmholtz Watson:
My "proof" would be that there is not a large population of angry, large bears roaming around on Manhattan Island or down in South Beach. As a result, assault rifles are not need to defend yourself against what little wildlife there is on the Streets of NYC or downtown Miami. On the other hand, places like Alaska do have wildlife that can pose a serious threat and can kill you. Hence why I keep bringing up Svalbard and how I'm modeling my exception after that part of Norway.

There is no proof; hunting is an arbitrary exception in indiscriminate gun control arguments. The criteria for firearm ownership should not include purpose of use and is as much your business as your neighbor's medical history.

AgedGrunt:

There is no proof; hunting is an arbitrary exception in indiscriminate gun control arguments. The criteria for firearm ownership should not include purpose of use and is as much your business as your neighbor's medical history.

Intent should most definitely be criteria for having a gun when it comes to weapons like assault rifles. The people that live around you should have a right to know why a pistol/shotgun/ect. is not enough and why you feel the need to posses a assault rifle.

I don't see the point of banning any guns if the people who are doing it have no idea what they are talking about, and get their information of guns from movies, and the media. People have killed dozens using less than 10 rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realengo_massacre

Also here is why we can't get rid of assault weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o

Helmholtz Watson:

AgedGrunt:

There is no proof; hunting is an arbitrary exception in indiscriminate gun control arguments. The criteria for firearm ownership should not include purpose of use and is as much your business as your neighbor's medical history.

Intent should most definitely be criteria for having a gun when it comes to weapons like assault rifles. The people that live around you should have a right to know why a pistol/shotgun/ect. is not enough and why you feel the need to posses a assault rifle.

Not really. If I want an assault rifle that is enough for me in America. I don't get why people can't see the 2nd amendment which grants that right. So if I get an assault rifle which by the way are ban anyway, unless you get a grandfathered version, it is not anyone business to the reason why I got the damn thing anyway.

Gergar12:
People have killed dozens using less than 10 rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realengo_massacre

12 is a dozen, not "dozens".

And from that article "The police estimate that over 60 shots were fired by the perpetrator during the shooting.". Perhaps you meant to say that the two pistols used didn't have more than 10 each, and to that I would ask, so?

Magenera:

Helmholtz Watson:

AgedGrunt:

There is no proof; hunting is an arbitrary exception in indiscriminate gun control arguments. The criteria for firearm ownership should not include purpose of use and is as much your business as your neighbor's medical history.

Intent should most definitely be criteria for having a gun when it comes to weapons like assault rifles. The people that live around you should have a right to know why a pistol/shotgun/ect. is not enough and why you feel the need to posses a assault rifle.

Not really. If I want an assault rifle that is enough for me in America. I don't get why people can't see the 2nd amendment which grants that right. So if I get an assault rifle which by the way are ban anyway, unless you get a grandfathered version, it is not anyone business to the reason why I got the damn thing anyway.

Well then we'll have to disagree. It's a fucking assault rifle. What are you going to do with it? Why would you even need one? You can't hunt with it and it's overkill for self defense.

I don't know where it says in the second amendment that no one should ask a perfectly good question.

Anyway it's banned so the point is moot.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked