|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18, 2013, 06:58 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
Thank you so much for all the help guys. I know FaceBook may seem trivial but it is playing such a big roll in the current gun issue, as is Twitter. I really appreciate the support.
|
January 18, 2013, 07:02 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2012
Posts: 397
|
A bit more on the Sidwell friends school.
this from a so-called fact checker site. Quote:
Its unlikely that security officers at a school of this sort would openly carry a pistol on their belt, if indeed they wore uniforms at all. So only the statement by Ellis Turner actually provides any support for the article's claim of no armed guards at Sidwell Friends School, and thats second hand at best, and despite the added claim in brackets does not address the SPO who may carry firearms in the course of their duries. They carefully avoid mention of the Secret Service Detail, or any private body guards employed by wealthy parents of other students at the school. PS Sidwell Friends School has been embroiled in recent drug, alcohol, and sex scandals. |
|
January 18, 2013, 07:22 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 507
|
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Ben Franklin
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado |
January 18, 2013, 07:38 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,285
|
Quote:
I also got the same Facebook post, from a friend who shared it on his own wall. Here is my reply (and I am terrible at political debates so correct me if I am wrong) my reply: (first) Hitler: the author obviously did not read the entire snopes article he cited. The fact that Hitler did not say that quote does not dispute the fact that Hitler did establish gun control. I would cite a reference but that snopes article already clarified that. (second) Secret Service protection: I am not self inflated to believe that my children are more of a target than any politicians children. There have been more school shootings in history than any attack on any politicians children. (third) There are no laws requiring confiscation: False, registration laws are the first step. Registration does nothing to prevent crime and only affects law abiding citizens who are gun owners. Criminals do not register their guns. A majority of gun control laws attack ownership and place restrictions only for law abiding citizens and without any credible evidence these laws reduce crime. The argument that these laws are the first steps to total confiscation has no counter. (fourth) ...ok, moot point on either side. Everyone knows the myth about baseball bats vs guns and it proves nothing for either side to discuss. (fifth): "I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing." says who... ? (sixth): "I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game" Does the Author not research his arguments.... the NRA video game does not shoot at virtual people, only training targets. It is not violent. If only the video games marketed today followed suit... (seventh): "I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries. " says who? (eighth): "I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory. " totally agree. (ninth): "I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US." says who? Not according to this article: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html (tenth): "I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the "developed" world." says who? Where does the author get his statistics from? (eleventh): "I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined." says who? and the author claims in his own article that he is not anti-gun? (twelve): "I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere." huh? So we are taking our advice from the author who does not read? Try this article: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general (thirteen): "I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns. " there are a number of credible bi-partisan studies, statistics and articles that support this to be true. I suggest starting with reading the book "more guns = less crime". A good summary of the book can be read here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html (14): "Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it's not being proposed." see gun registration laws... (15): "If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table. " Seriously, does the author really not understand his own argument. To keep it short, Virgina Tech has a complete ban on all firearms on campus. So do all public schools like Columbine. If you don't want to leave anything off the table, then consider removing the gun free zones in schools and campuses allowing law abiding teachers and parents to carry concealed guns. There is a reason these criminals target these venues... (16): "And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No." um, I think the author just admitted the gun control laws ineffective. not clear on the rest of his article except he says hes not anti gun... but clearly the author is.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
January 18, 2013, 08:01 PM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: Port Crane, NY
Posts: 31
|
My standard response: "If you don't like the rights afforded us by the 2nd Amendment, strive to get it repealed. Until you succeed, mind your own business when it comes to how others choose to exercise those rights."
Don't bother getting into extended arguments with these people....
__________________
Brian Carp "Powder, patch, ball!" |
January 18, 2013, 08:33 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
|
|
January 18, 2013, 08:38 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,285
|
not at all. copy/paste away...
(note: my reply is to the shared thread. I'm not FB friends with the original author and its not open to comment so mine wont show up there.)
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
January 19, 2013, 03:26 AM | #33 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 442
|
I’ve taken to posting all types of facts and my own personal opinions on my facebook wall to try to enlighten others and point out things the media constantly ignores. I firmly believe this is an important avenue for us gun owners plus it does help other gun owners as well enabling their arguments to be better articulated, therefore more readily accepted by giving facts and strong talking points, much like we’re doing here. I’ve had these same conversations lately and most have been civil and open but like you, I too have one that is ex-military, owns three guns, a High School teacher near Aurora and a big surprise, liberal. Needless to say, I get tired of the asinine comments as well as bogus facts and tactfully, yet making no mistake about it, spank him constantly as his resources too are often from snopes. The key word is tactful as you don’t want to let your emotions run too high and come off obnoxious or a raving lunatic as that just paints us like the media always portrays us. But it is extremely important to shut them down…politely.
Now, as you can already see, brevity is not a strong suit of mine and often my responses are rather long but the points I make are usually worthwhile when taken the time to read. The key to getting your friends to read it is to start off with a foot up the butt right away…tactfully. This serves two purposes. First, it ticks off the “idiot” only making him more irate then throwing out other asinine facts which you’re easily refute and exposing his true colors to where your friends will be “turned off” by his ramblings and more akin to embracing your ideologies. Second, you’re friends will be drawn in right off the bat because people like a fight. Now bear in mind, this is only after a few exchanges when you start to see a pattern of stupidity and the same nonsense being posted by the same individual and not a “first time” response. For me, I would start off with something like the following: Quote:
Regarding his “Fourth” statement: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you want, you could always PM me with a link to your facebook page so you could accept me as your friend. I’d be more than happy to send him crying to his momma and take the burden and frustration off your shoulders. Of course, there's a good chance he'll "unfriend" you too LOL! Last edited by Freakdaddy; January 19, 2013 at 03:42 AM. |
|||||
January 19, 2013, 08:15 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
good stuff guys, I posted several arguments, some I got from here, some I did myself. 11 hours and counting, and no response. how disappointingly typical! some others are more aggressive however and will be more likely to involve themselves in a true debate so I will be saving this stuff lol
|
January 19, 2013, 12:59 PM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,616
|
Even here, confusion is evident...
While bringing up some good valid points, a couple of the posters have made technical errors, solely due to the intentional confusion created by the anti's choice of terms.
Quote:
Quote:
ASSAULT RIFLE This is, indeed, a very precise term. It was first coined by Adolf Hitler in 1944. When the Nazis were rampaging across Europe and winning, there was a standing order put in place forbidding developement of new rifles. IT was considered a waste of resources. This prohibition did not include submachineguns. German industry developed and fielded (in small numbers) a new class of rifle in 1943. Because of the order it was called a submachinegun (MP in German termanology). In 44, when Hitler first learnd of the new rifle, he was furious that his order had been flouted. When the gun was demonstrated for him, he changed his mind, and enthusiatically christened it the Sturmgehwer. This translates to "assault rifle". The rifle in question (Stg 44) is an air cooled, magazine fed, select fire rifle, using an intermediate power round (more than a pistol, less than the standard infantry rifle of the day). It has a protruding pistol grip, detachable 30rnd mag, and a more or less straight line stock. The shooting community adopted the term, and while sometimes loosly applied to semi autos with the same style, it was always understood that actual "assault rifles" are select fire. FULL AUTO and Semi auto. Guns capable of full auto fire are, under US law, machine guns, and have been highly regulated since 1934. NO new law was needed for the "new" assault rifles (as a class) after WWII, they were machine guns, already covered under US law. ASSAULT WEAPON This is a term, made up by the anti gunners in the early 1990s. And it came about like this... The mass shooting in Stockton Ca (a school), the shooter used a semi auto AK (and a pistol to kill himself). The media screamed "he used an assault rifle!" We answered back, "No, he just used a rifle. It was semiautomatic. Assault rifles are select fire, they fire FULL AUTO as well as semi." Then the media screamed "He used a semiautomatic assault rifle!!!" This prooved to be a rather cumbersome sound bite for talking heads to beat us with, so, after a year or so, it became "assault weapon". This term was codified in law in 94, and does NOT refer to ANY full auto or select fire weapon. It refers to SEMI AUTOMATIC firearms with cosmetic features listed in the law. The term "assault weapon" was deliberately chosen to promote confusion, between the valid (and in use) term "assault rifle" and the ordinary person's understanding of the term "assault" in English. Lots of people think any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon. And, in general terms, they are right. But in the specific terms used in law, they are not right. In law, "assault weapon" refers ONLY to certain specific rifles, pistols and shotguns, those that have the right combination of features, as defined in the law. While there is a very different definition of them in law, in common usage in the last decades, the two terms have come to be understood as meaning the same thing in conversation. Kind of like engine and motor in your car. Use either one in conversation, we know what you are talking about. BUT, go to order parts, or discuss some technical aspect, and you find there is a HUGE difference between a motor and an engine. And when talking about law, one MUST be technical. Which is why the anti's created the term "assault weapon". Technically it means what ever they say it means, and what they got in law. NOW, one can find the anti's talking not only about "assault weapons" but "military style assault weapons" (wonder what civilian style AWs are? simple answer; they are whatever the anti's SAY they are!) PLEASE, take some pains to use the two terms correctly. There is a difference. And, one more thing...the anti's completely missed the point about the armed protection of the President's kids. Right away they began screaming about how "of course the kids are protected, they are important!"...and they are important, all our kids are. TO me, my children as just as important as the Presiden't are too him, I'm sure. And that was the point, NOT that the Pres's kids don't deserve protection, but that ALL our kids do. Nobody says take away their protection, we're saying give us the same. Don't DENY our children the same protection your kids have! A "Guns to protect us, but none to protect you" is a hypocritical, elitist attitude.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
January 19, 2013, 03:01 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 466
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member |
|
January 19, 2013, 05:45 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,283
|
assault weapon, assault rifle definitions
assault weapon, assault rifle.
Thank you 44amp. Any chance of making the definitions a sticky? |
January 19, 2013, 09:57 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Location: OH
Posts: 50
|
OP I got exactly the same message.
__________________
____________________________________ Ruger SR1911, Colt 1911, Glock 17, Glock 21, Beretta M9, Ruger GP100, Ruger LCR, SW M&P15, Lee Enfield 303, Savage .22, Ruger 10/22. Guns the great equalizer. |
January 20, 2013, 01:08 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
I simply broke my own rule about reading the entire thread before posting... As I did not want to waste time reading the rest of the 'points' by the 'anti' in the OP, I neglected to read your post... I apologize for that, and thanks for the details... |
|
January 20, 2013, 09:26 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2008
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 727
|
1.) Hitler did not try to oppress (conquer) germany, he used radicals to gain control of the government with the support of the people.
2.) Obama knows the value of harmed guards to protect his childern. 3.) That's not the way it will work, you will lose it slowly. *Can't sell, transfer or gift the gun. *Upon your death the gun will have to be surrendered to the government for destruction. *Or they will just change the law. As far a the car argument goes, you only have to register the car if you want to drive it on public roads. 4.) I believe the stat says that more people are killed by clubs (bats and such) than are killed by rifles not guns in general. 5.) For DUI the driver is punished not the car! 6.) Funny he finds so many things disturbing, many if not most mass shootings are committed by disturbed people.
__________________
Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|