The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 2, 2013, 08:50 PM   #26
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 658
tell him that evil and violence both existed before any government did, and that they will both continue to after we are all gone. Our gov. can not protect you or I (or him) from evil any better than they can ballance their own budget and this will not change ban or no ban. The police, the military and the national guard have no legal responsibility to protect anyone no matter what theyve been told. We are on our own when it comes to that. So if he is having any delusions of the existance of a nonviolent society( there is no such thing) or people with badges coming to his rescue right when he needs it then they are exactly that, delusions.

Last edited by Crankgrinder; January 2, 2013 at 08:58 PM.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 10:55 PM   #27
Falcon5NZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2008
Location: Somewhere North of the Roaring 40's...Just
Posts: 273
Quote:
I already made the point that laws won't do anything, also stating that a bolt action rifle such as the old WWII rifles are not exactly hard to use, and you can put an impressive amount of firepower down range, albeit not nearly as much as say an AR15.
Heard of the Mad Minute? At least 15 AIMED shots into a 12" target. At 300yds. In a minute. Anyone who has ever hunted with a bolt gun will know you can throw the bolt fairly quickly for a second shot.

And as for those old WWII guns, most of them were clip fed. I can dump the mag on my SMLE, slam 2 clips in and be up again fairly quickly. Hell, you can slam a clip in, flick it away when you pull your hand away, slam the second one in then ram the bolt home, flinging the clip off the gun and chambering a round.
__________________
It is New Zealand's role to send out its bright young men and women to help run the rest of the world. And they go, not hating the country of their birth, but loving it. From this loving base they make their mark on the world.

Pro-1080 Poison and proud of it!!
Falcon5NZ is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:28 AM   #28
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Whitman wasnt a sniper. Whitman received a sharpshooters badge in the service, which isnt even the highest you can receive.
Most people who don't know anything about firearms think you've got to be Carlos Hathcock to hit anything with a rifle beyond 50 or 100 yards. I can take someone with zero firearms skills and put them behind my .22-250 on a sandbag and I guarantee they will be able to hit a playing card at 300 yards within the hour.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:29 AM   #29
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,918
Folks always try to explain how the antigun group and proposed laws are not logical, nor will they accomplish their stated purpose. It is my opinion that the real purpose is not stated and can only be guessed at. My opinion is that it is fear based. Fear of what ? Those in power certainly do not want to lose that power, and a bunch of people with guns can threaten the power structure. This is my guess.

Then as demonstrated in every election one side pitches the fear to voters that will manifest if the opposition gets elected. All one needs do is listen to talk radio and the host and audience to glean this. Promoting action through fear is nothing new, and folks on these gun forums do the same when they pitch the fear of personal death/injury from the bad guys if they do not have their guns.

I would like to hear some idea of a positive reason for have high capacity magazines, semi-auto and full-auto firearms that was not based upon fear of, or fear from.
__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 01:51 AM   #30
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,219
Quote:
I would like to hear some idea of a positive reason for have high capacity magazines, semi-auto and full-auto firearms that was not based upon fear of, or fear from.
They are FUN!!!!
To me, that's a positive reason.


Pursuit of Happiness

Once you reach the legal age of majority, no one, save the govt has the legal authority to determine what you need. And the govt only has it by coersion (threat of force).

Who are these elitists (and that's an attitude, not an income bracket,obvious coincidences not withstanding) to decide, on my behalf, and completely without my consent what I need?

I don't need a lot of things. But the thing I don't need most is someone else deciding what I need. And in particular, I find people with more weath than anyone needs, telling me what I need, and what I can't have, because I don't need it, especially irritating.

Hey, MR Mayor, you want to do something good and meaningful for society? Stop screwing around with gun bans and how big a soda you can legally buy, and donate your personal weath to charity, to really help someone(s).

DO that, and maybe, I'll consider listening to the rest of your ideas.

maybe...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 02:16 AM   #31
mitchntx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 350
It's mostly about perception.

Do you figure the Henry repeating rifle was considered an "assault weapon" during the civil war when most of the armament was still musket loaders?

Will photon rifles be the new "assault weapon" in 20 years when everyone is carrying an AR15?
mitchntx is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:08 AM   #32
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
Tell him that if they made heroin and meth illegal, that would help with the crime rate also!
Magnum Mike is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:25 AM   #33
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
They are FUN!!!!
To me, that's a positive reason.


Pursuit of Happiness
The Pursuit of Happiness - as in Life, Liberty and... doesn't mean the pursuit of fun (pleasure).
It means all men have a right to accumulate personal wealth, regardless of their station in life.

You have to remember - the American Revolution wasn't all about political ideals. There were several equally large economic ideals involved.
Hal is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 08:31 AM   #34
Qtiphky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Location: Upper Michigan, above the Mackinac Bridge
Posts: 554
Already mentioned but heres the stats

Oklahoma City Bombing - no firearm used. 168 killed, 19 of which were children under 6! 680 people injured and property damage of $652 MILLION! If someone wants to commit evil, they will find a way.

If you look back at these people who committed these crimes, they have one thing in common. They all had mental health issues if I'm not mistaken, maybe not diagnosed until after the fact, but nevertheless it seems a common trait amongst these evil doers. Let's address that issue before we have some knee jerk reaction to law abiding citizens. The 2A gives us the right to defend ourselves against harm-including from our own government.
Qtiphky is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:07 PM   #35
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
He states that he understands that such bans will not stop criminals, but I think what he's trying to get at are the individuals such as disgruntled teens stealing their parents guns or rifles and taking them to their school and shooting anything that moves.

He might be thinking of Columbine and such, but the thing is, the large majority of these shootings occur with adults from what I can tell. I'll provide an update with my response when I get a chance, we'll have to see if he can be swayed or not.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 12:19 PM   #36
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,867
Quote:
He states that he understands that such bans will not stop criminals, but I think what he's trying to get at are the individuals such as disgruntled teens stealing their parents guns or rifles and taking them to their school and shooting anything that moves.

He might be thinking of Columbine and such, but the thing is, the large majority of these shootings occur with adults from what I can tell. I'll provide an update with my response when I get a chance, we'll have to see if he can be swayed or not.
The Columbine shooters did not steal their parents' guns, but rather acquired them illegally through straw purchases. Also, the Columbine shooting happened right in the middle of the original AWB. Gun control did nothing to stop Columbine because the shooters violated numerous gun laws before ever firing a shot.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 06:00 PM   #37
Unspoken
Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2012
Posts: 96
"Many progun folks were negative in attitude but changed their views"

I'm with that.
In my childhood I used to think the only folks that needed guns were drug dealers and cowboys.
Then my freshman college roommate took me out shooting with his Glock. He and a few other old hands at the range ended up in a ceaseless (friendly) trash-talking war about the others' inability to hit the water if they fell out of a boat.
I was hooked. I had never realized how shooting was a sport, a past time, something that could actually unite people instead of just kill them.

Anyway, take your buddy out plinking. Make it a point to shoot the bull with other folks there. If he's still an anti after that, so be it.
__________________
Proverb for Paranoids: The innocence of the Creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master. -T. Pynchon
Unspoken is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 06:13 PM   #38
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
Finally wrote my response to him. Just for clarification, this friend of mine were having this discussion on a message board that both of us frequent.

WARNING, MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT AHEAD!

Friend wrote:
"Exactly. The problem here is that his mother had a legally owned semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. If all his mom had was a bolt action hunting rifle then maybe someone would have been able to over power him between shots, or at the least it would give the kids more time to run away when he started shooting. Anything is better than nothing."



No, it is not because she owned a "Semi Automatic rifle with detachable magazines. It is because she failed to secure them properly while she knew she had a child who was known to be unstable. It is now known that she was looking to get him admitted to a local mental institution which may have been contributing factor in motivating him to shoot up the school.

You're last line "Anything is better than nothing" gives me the inkling that you are responding emotionally whether you realize it or not.

Lets break it down. Essentially you're saying that if we make the "Necessary and common sense" sacrifices to our "2nd Amendment right" which is the right to keep and bare arms, the right to defend against tyranny and the right to defend ourselves and our property, that in the end, such sacrifices will be well worth it if it saves even a few lives.

If that is the case, we could do away with many civil liberties and rights, because doing so would save lives even if it's just a few.

For example, lets ban Alcohol, sure there are millions of individuals out there that drink responsibly, sure some get a little stupid while drunk but it's all harmless, however, their is that one little minority, the ones that will get behind the wheel of a car, or in a fit of drunken lust, rapes someone it should be banned no? If we can save a few lives it would be worth it right? Is that fair to the rest of the populace, no of course it's not, but it's not about punishing the masses it's about keeping those who would abuse liqueur and or are too irresponsible to handle it.

How about pocket knives? Knives are used in most cases as a utility tool, when you're out hiking and need to cut a piece of rope, or you're trying to open a box. However, there are those who are quite temperamental and in a fit of rage, for whatever reason, ends up stabbing someone, perhaps fatally. Lets ban knives as well, because someone, somewhere might just decide that the person who just happened to insult them deserves to be stabbed.

Let's get down to something more relevant to us here at SEC. Lets ban violent video games, movies, books etc. it has an influence on us right? I mean, games like Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War, Halo all glorify violence, someone might be inspired to go out and shoot, bomb, stab etc. by these horrible pieces of media that do nothing but glorify the darker side of humanity.

Let's limit what we can talk about, if we start talking poorly of another nation, culture or religion, say those from the middle east, some extremist group may decide that we have offended Allah and go bomb an American establishment. If it's to save a few lives, then surely giving up part of our right of free speech is worth it right?

What about sports cars? Do you really need a car that can go well over 100MPH? Why do you need 400-700 horsepower? lets ban sports cars, because if we ban sports cars young men who think they're invincible and like to play out The Fast and Furious out on public roads won't be risking their lives or those around them as they hot rod around town. We can certainly save lives by banning those too.

I think you get my point.

Friend wrote:
"You track the guns that accept them."



So you want every single firearm to be tracked that can be accept a magazine to be tracked in a database. Admirable, ambitious and extremely costly. First, we have to assume that every fire arms owner will obey the law and register his or her firearm, this law will only work with those who actually will abide by said law. Those who are more extreme and or stubborn may just ignore this all together and decide to secretly hold onto their firearms and not register them.

So how do you enforce this law? Go from house to house and do an inspection to ensure that everyone has registered their rifles/pistols that can accept a magazine?

That's a violation of the 4th amendment that being the unlawful act of search and or seizure without a legal warrant to do so.

Friend wrote:
"Pump action is slower than semi automatic. Just because there are still ways to kill people doesn't mean we should keep anything more deadly legal."



James Eagen Holmes, the nut job that decided to walk into a theater in Aurora brought with him a S&W M&P AR15 with a 100 round magazine, Glock 22 and a Remington 870 12g shotgun. After thirty rounds the AR15 jammed and him not knowing how to clear said jam abandoned the firearm and still managed to kill 12 and injure 58. This was in a crowded theater, no one else was armed, and Mr. Holmes was not a military vet, nor was he exactly the most physically fit. There were hundreds of people there, they could have easily overpowered him and taken his shotgun away right?

Friend wrote:
"So make the sale of further magazines and semi auto pistols illegal, eventually the older pistols and magazines will wear out and there won't be many produced to replace the old ones."



We have firearms that date back to the civil war that are still functioning to this day, some firearms are even older. Magazines that were in use since the Korean war that are also still functioning. Magazines are simply molded plastic or stamped aluminum or steel sheet metal with a spring inside them. They are not exactly complex pieces of hardware, they are simply to fabricate and repair if necessary. As I had mentioned before, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to make a spring, anyone with some basic knowledge and basic tools could probably fabricate new springs for their magazines if they so desired making this argument practically a moot point.

A good example of how long firearms last is the Mosin Nagant M1895 double action revolver invented in Soviet Russia. These handguns can still be found on the surplus market, this is a handgun that's been around for 118 years that still functions to this day!

Friend wrote:
"Alcohol is not firearms. Everyone drinks alcohol whereas owning firearms is not really something everyone does, and if they do do it, it's like an old handgun in their desk drawer. Firearms is a much less practiced activity. Equivalent to maybe just rum by itself and not all of alcohol. And then banning just semi auto magazine firearms would limit that further to like a certain flavor of rum. If all prohibition did was ban a certain flavor of rum, people would have just switched to wine or beer or a different flavor of rum. No alcohol kingpins."



Okay, so we ban certain types of alcohol. You know, here in Utah the sale of alcohol that has an alcohol content of greater than 3.2% from being sold in commercial grocery stores. If you want to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels for example, you must go to a liqueur store to do so. Furthermore, restaurants, bars and other locations/venues that allow the purchase of said alcoholic beverages are prohibited from selling them before 11:30AM and no later than 1:00AM. Does this stop accidents caused by individuals whom are intoxicated? Does this prevent some of the more shady establishments from selling alcohol outside the legal time limits? No they don't, I hear about people getting drunk all the time and doing stupid things all the time, both of legal and illegal drinking age.

To stop the horrors involved with crimes that are committed while being intoxicated you would have to ban Alcohol in its entirety, but society won't accept that, after all, what gives the government the right to say that I don't need alcohol in my life. That's like saying you and me are too irresponsible to be trusted with such a dangerous beverage. We wouldn't want to risk other peoples safety based on what we MIGHT do while being intoxicated right?

Friend wrote:
"The goal isn't to punish the innocent. It's not about what's fair, it's about saving lives. TBH I don't really think there's a need for more gun regulation. These freak school accidents are really insignificant, more people die in car crashes daily than what occurred there. It's just more shocking when it's all in one place. But if there was to be any kind of gun regulation passed, decreasing the amount of semi auto magazine fed weapons on the market would do the most to decrease the lethality against large groups of humans in legal weapons."

In China, there is an outright ban on firearms by the civilian populace, on March 23 2010, there was a gentleman by the name of Zheng Minsheng who walked into a school and proceeded to murder eight elementary children in Nanping

Later that same year in on April 28, a copycat nut job by the name of Chen Kangbing walked into a school located in Guandong province China and wounded 16 students and one teacher

April 29, a man by the name of Xu Yuyuan went to a kindergarten and stabbed 28 students two teachers and a security guard. most of these children were around 4 years old

August 4th 2010 a young man attacked 20 children and a teacher killing three kids and one teacher at a Kindergarten located in Zibo, Shandong province

September 2011 a young girl and three adults were killed by an axe wielding man by the name of Wang Hongbi

As you can see, people regardless of what "Laws" you put into place will find a means to commit an atrocity. If evil has taken root in their hearts they will find the means to kill if they are determined to do so.

"But he used a blade, and the deaths were much lower than what happened with the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings"

lets put this into perspective.

The Bath School tradgedy is one of the most horrific and tragic loss of life in the history or mass murders that have occurred at a school. On May 18 1927, Andrew Kehoe bombed an elementary school in Bath Township Michigan killing 38 children, 6 adults and wounding 58 other individuals. In this incident, he manufactured the bombs used in this mass murder out of what is called Pyrotol, an incendiary explosive used by farmers to excavated and burning debris.

Not a single shot was fired in this incident. "But that happened over 80 years ago, you can't relate that to now, we have regulations that alert law enforcement of such large purchases of fertilizer and so on"

On April 19 1995, one of the most horrific and deadly bombings occurred in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This event is second in terms of deadliness only to the events that occurred on Semptember 11 2001.

This single event claimed 168 lives injured over 680 people and destroyed 324 buildings in a sixteen block radius, burned or destroyed at least 86 cars and shattered the windows of over 258 nearby buildings. The estimated total costs in damages was over 652 million dollars.

All this was the result of some home fabricated bombs made from 5000lb of Ammonium Nitrate mixed with 1200lb of liquid Nitromethane and 350lb of Tovex (A water-gel explosive composed of ammonium nitrate and methylammonium nitrate used in construction) placed into a single Ryder truck which contained 16 55 gallon drums that contained the explosive compounds.

Friend wrote:
"I didn't say I agreed with that law and I'm not saying I agree with this law. I'm just saying a ban on guns that accept magazines would be the most effective gun limiting regulation, if there was to be any sort of gun limiting regulation. Banning guns that happen to look like military weapons based on aesthetics like laser sights or bayonets is flat out retarded."



Please see my previous comments

Friend wrote:
"It's a lot easier to take some guns off the market than to change human nature."



There is nothing "Easy" about this problem, this is an issue that spans decades and across multiple generations. There is no "Quick fix" to this highly complex problem. You want a magic button that will suddenly make a huge impact on helping to mitigate or curbing these things from happening, but the answer is that there simply isn't one. As I have clearly shown, regardless of what we do, evil will do what it does, we limit one tool, all they'll do is go to another one, anyone with internet access can easily obtain instructions on how to assemble a pipe bomb. Arguably a dozen or more of those could fit inside a school backpack. pack those with some nails or some other form of shrapnel and toss two or perhaps a dozen of those into a crowded area such as a shopping mall plaza or at a concert and the death toll would be staggering.

It doesn't even have to be a pipe bomb, Muratic Acid and Chlorene could be used to create gas oriented bombs, which have been used as recent ass 2007 in Iraq, killing at least thirty and wounding or sickening at least 350.

A couple dozen containers of gasoline placed strategically around an office building or some other establishment could kill and or injure dozens if not hundreds.


Friend wrote:
"Most of these psychos kill themselves during the act. They don't care about the consequence."



Exactly, these individuals are so sick in the head, that they simply don't care if they live or die, they are determined to carry out their actions regardless of the consequences. If they can't use a gun, they'll find another means to do so, you are only inconveniencing them by limiting only one tool that is in their arsenal. The ones who are really losing out are the law abiding, those who will actually obey the regulations and the injustice pushed upon them that are passed in an attempt to keep those who already don't care and don't follow the laws from carrying out whatever evil they are going to commit.

Criminals do not care about the laws, they never have, they never will. ****** off and disgruntled teen who's been bullied too much at school, or religious extremist. It matters not, if they want to kill, it will happen whether they use a bolt action rifle, baseball bat or fire axe.

I stress, laws do nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING to curb violence, be it from a teen who steals their parents guns, to Joe Slime who got his from shady bob down in the alley behind a Seven Eleven.

Social morals, the degradation of society and a generation that does not know how to deal with their problems is the real issue which in of itself is a mortal flaw that goes straight to the core of humanity.

Mass murders and the like have occurred long before firearms have ever existed. In Rwanda Africa, some mass killings that occurred in the mass genocide didn't even involve firearms, they used Machetes.

Not trying to sound condescending, but please think about this for a little. Looking at the horrors that happen in this world, do you still honestly think that banning something as easily produced as "semi auto firearms" (Assault rifles and Assault pistols as the anti' like to call them) and magazines will solve our problems, or do you think that maybe, just maybe, humanity is grievously ill and in need of being treated?

It's a dauntless and a task that appears to be a hopeless cause, but you know what, the vast majority of firearms owners abhor such violence, and would more than likely leap to defend you and yours if called to do so. If I could ensure that not one more child would be killed, not a single parent would have to endure the sorrow and horror of having to bury their daughter, son, husband, wife, mother, father or anyone else they hold near and dear by turning in my guns, I would do it in a heartbeat. I wish we never had need of them, I wish I could live in a world where we were free from having to worry about some scumbag trying to take what is mine or yours, but the fact is, we don't live in a world like that, things are not rainbows and pink butterflies like in Equestria where pastel colored ponies with cutie marks frolick in the sun without a care in the world.

There is a very dark side to human nature, and since you can't outlaw evil, I'd rather have something that can defend me, my own and perhaps if the situation presented itself you and yours as well. In this day and age, the greatest equalizer that a civilian can legally own is a gun, and in the case that evil brings friends, I'd rather count on my rifle or handgun packing equally as many "friends" to persuade evil from targeting me.

Again why you ask do I "Need a 10, 15, 20, 30 round semi auto rifle/pistol?"

It takes more than a few rounds to take incapacitate someone, it's not like in the movies where the assailant goes down after one, two or even three shots to the chest.

There are numerous cases where the both LEO' and civilians wielding a firearm would pump their target with nearly a dozen rounds and they simply keep going at them. Remember when I said you could miss a lot while under the affects of adrenaline, well, when you hit, you're not guaranteed to hit their vitals either, what does this mean? they can keep on coming at you. Sometimes even if you do manage to get at least one shot in, the nut job is sometimes under the influence of drugs such as Meth or Bath Salts. My uncle told me of reports where criminals would take multiple shots to the torso from a .45 and still keep going.

Now having more rounds doesn't mean it will ensure that your target will be stopped, but it gives you a bigger margin of error, a greater safety net so to speak.

The Anti's want to take away our means to defend ourselves, please read the following articles.\

http://now.msn.com/12-year-old-girl-...gh-closet-door

http://now.msn.com/teen-babysitting-...armed-intruder

http://now.msn.com/washingtons-first...-by-two-deaths

So the above have no right to have the means to equalize the terms of engagement and defend themselves? The Anti-gun crowd certainly think so. Many constantly think about guns being in the hands of adults, where they may have the ability to fight and overcome their assailants, but what of the 12 year old girl or the 14 year old boy? how many at that age would have the physical ability to over power a fully grown and determined man or woman, one that may or may not be under the influence of some kind of stimulant?

Again, guns are an equalizer and a tool for the law abiding, a weapon and tool for chaos and anarchy for those who are not.

Stop blaming the tool, stop blaming a peripheral problem caused by a much more complex and deeper issue. Stop wasting our tax dollars and energy on laws, programs and regulations that in the end do not contribute to actually solving the real issues that plague our unfortunately violent society.

This is a Social issue that you, me and everyone else here have the ability to make a difference on. Even if you can't change others, you can influence them with your own actions, by providing a stable foundation for your own families if you choose to have one some day. Maybe just maybe, when both you and I are pushing up daisies, they too will pass on your own wisdom and learn from our mistakes, slowly countering the damage that continues to fester from generation to generation. THAT is how you help fix society, every contribution helps.

We all have a choice, it's up to you and me to make the right ones.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 06:13 PM   #39
Mr.Scott
Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 55
Remind him that more kids have died due to injuries received playing school sponsored sports than the total number of people killed in mass shootings. Should we ban school sports?
The total number of deaths from mass shootings is around 200. 660ish kids have died from injuries just from playing football at school.
30,000 people die every year due to obesity. Should we ban all food except salad?
Almost 4,000 people down every year on accident. Should we ban bodies of water? Roughly 700 of those drownings are children.

Last edited by Mr.Scott; January 3, 2013 at 06:20 PM.
Mr.Scott is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:23 PM   #40
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,614
I don't make excuses about accidents or whatever.

I state the defense against tyranny. If that is not accepted as possible in the USA, as I stated elsewhere - I can justify that governments and peoples can become monstrous tyrannies in a short time given circumstances.

Did that today twice when asked. As when asked for evidence, I cite:

1. Gun laws were used to suppress African-Americans who might have used firearms to defend themselves against a repressive society and populace. Note - Black Panthers and CA laws for a modern example.

2. Germany - (not a Godwin rant). 1913 - 1936. A civilized country becomes a monster due to circumstance.

3. Social psych (as I said elsewhere) - Zimbardo, Milgram - we see in the USA experience, My Lai, Abu Ghraib, Kent State

There are other example of how the USA could go that way and that was feared the Founding Fathers.

We have a unique mind set that while the state is usually defined as the sole legit user of force in society (except for limited SD), the USA because of our history, decided to allow the populace to be a resevoir of force to oppose government tyranny.

That's what I say - I don't care about this is not really an assault weapon or accidents, doctors, cars do blah,blah. None of that is convincing.

My view. We have the right to efficacious means to protect us against tyranny.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:49 PM   #41
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,614
I forgot to mention - Morning Joe - on his show today.

Big mouth, I'm a conservative, blah, blah.

So today he says: Why is the GOP so scared of an extremist like Wayne LaPierre. When I take my 6 year old hunting I don't need a 30 round clip full of copkiller bullets.

- So with great minds like that out there - I don't think the kinds of arguments about rates, accidents, etc. will work. We cannot diminish the weapons nature of guns and that's why we have the right to have them.

Not to be political too much but he's a conservative.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 09:21 PM   #42
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,934
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

he wants to ban a metal box and a springs that a trained monkey could manufacture. You can't keep drugs out of a school. you'll have kids in shop class making 30 round mags to trade with the drug dealers.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:11 AM   #43
Anaconda1492
Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2011
Posts: 40
I guess we could just ban everything, and make the world a better place. I guess we will just be regulated to fist fights. In less we cut our hands off to prevent that as well.

and at that point, use of a samurai sword over a 30-second timeframe would yield the same damage -- only far, far more horrifically so"

There was a rampage once in a grocery store near where I live. I think 3 or so people were killed by a guy with a samurai sword I knew one of them. Really really sad and goes to show that people will kill with what every they can get their hands on if their heart is set to it. It just that a gun is the most convenient it doesn't mean they can't kill in high numbers with something else. A car is a 1 ton bullet essentially... For crying out loud.

Last edited by Anaconda1492; January 4, 2013 at 01:23 AM.
Anaconda1492 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 08:56 AM   #44
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,771
If semi-autos are banned, the only people who won't have them are the antis. The criminals will have guns and will use them to commit crimes. And, us pro-gun folks will still have guns. So, how does that make an anti feel safer? If it does, then the anti is delusional. Perhaps we should ban crazy and delusional people from society, since they seem to be the real problem.
Skans is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 09:05 AM   #45
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
We bantered back and forth and I could see I was getting nowhere with him, as is the case when both parties believe they are in the right.

In the end, I laid out my reasoning and tried to end it as respectfully and civily as I could. I'll update this post when I get the chance, in the end, a lot of people on the forum I visit are on the fence, and agree with points that both me and him made. I think the debate was more for them than anything else, some came around and agreed with me, others not so much. If my little debate with my friend helped convince at least a few others to support the 2A then I think the futile arguments with him were not so futile in the end.

Always look for a means to bring more ammunition to the fight when possible right?
Kimio is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:10 PM   #46
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,219
Something else for him to chew on...Semi autos, and actual assault rifles are what the POLICE use. If the guns themselves are evil, are made only to kill, then we have armed our police to be KILLERS!!!!

Armed KILLERS stalk our streets 24/7, paid for with out tax dollars!!!!

A uniform and a badge are not a magical barrier of inviolability.

This is not an anit cop rant, I'm trying to point out the fallacy of believing that the tool is the cause.

The one crime commited with a legally owned machinegun, in nearly 80 years of highly resticted ownership, was committed by a POLICE OFFICER!

Cops are human, and a tiny percentage of them are bad, just like the rest of humanity. If semi autos are bad things that turn people into killers, better take them away from the police, FIRST!!!!!!

And, if they aren't (which is the truth) then why bother to get so worked up about them.

This latest incident, where people are saying things like "if his mother hadn't had the guns", or if his "mother had them secured"...hello, he KILLED his MOTHER!!!! Having done that, even breaking into a safe would have been a minor speedbump...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:50 PM   #47
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
I made that point as well, but unfortunately he interpreted it completely differently than I had intended.

He believes the 2A refers to muzzle loading muskets. The "Debate" degraded, on his side at least, or so I believe, to him cherry picking parts of my replies and him refuting them with twisted information on top of the omission of other replies that I had provided.

What was interesting, when I requested him to give me a valid explaination to why cities such as Phoenix and Chicago have such drastically different crime rates. He completely omitted this question and avoided the answer.

I also asked why he would choose to become a victim instead of defending himself, he said it was to avoid getting shot. He stated that

"Statistically most fatal shootings involving a home invader involve individuals who tried to defend their place of residence, so by not confronting the invader, you are less likely to get shot"

Quite frankly, this completely baffles me, since if the invader was willing to shoot you when you tried to defend your home, what's stopping him/her from shooting you even if you didn't? It makes no sense to me.
Kimio is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:57 PM   #48
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
With the gun, I have more than one option.

Retreat and hide or stand and fight. Without a gun your only option is retreat and hide.
Even if you choose to retreat and hide, you could fight from your hiding spot if it got worse if you had a gun.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 10:48 PM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,219
Quote:
"Statistically most fatal shootings involving a home invader involve individuals who tried to defend their place of residence, so by not confronting the invader, you are less likely to get shot"
See if you can get your friend to give you a source for that statistic.
I believe it is false.

For decades the FBI statistics have shown that people who resist forceably (guns preferred) are injured less in all crimes.

I doubt that has changed. Get a source of that statisic, otherwise its BS.
With a source, we can see what methodology lead to that flawed conclusion.
Sounds to me like the source cherrypicked their data...

Another old, debunked and total BS "statistic" is the one that "you are 43 more times likely to be killed by a gun in your home....."

It was debunked decades ago, but still, talking heads, so called pundits, and the tragically uninformed still repeat it as if it were gospel.

Another thing to consider, about a statistic like that, is no one seems to remember the degree of "more likely" involved. The statistic used as the basis for the conclusion may actually be correct, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is. IF, For example, in a home invasion, you were statistically likely to be shot 0.0023% of the time if were armed and fought back, and 0.0032% of the time if you didn't, then, statistically, you are safer not fighting back.

But in the real world, that is an insignificant difference. I don't believe your friend's source is correct, but even if it was, I think it would be something like the example I gave.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 11:58 PM   #50
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
The FBI crime statistics clearly show that more people are killed every year by hammers and clubs than by rifles (in 2011, 496 to 323) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

Better ban hammers and clubs, by the rationale of your friend. If he is going to insist on blaming the tool rather than the murderer, he shouldn't stop there - knives, fists, rocks, poisons, subways, cars - because the list is almost endless.

The fact is, we don't need to defend our choice of firearms. The 2nd amendment casts a very broad swath, and those who would like to limit the right enshrined therein (but only recognized by it, not created by it) through another gun ban bear the strict burden of proof, not we law-abiding citizens. Fortunately the USSC has reached several recent landmark decisions that are guiding lower circuit and appellate courts. "Firearms in common use" seemed to be the standard in DC vs Heller. After WW1, bolt-action rifles came into common use. After WW2, fixed magazine semi-auto rifles became highly popular. After Viet Nam, the AR-15 became highly popular and has remained so. And the term "assault rifle" is a political term made from whole cloth. Now, if belt-fed .50 caliber machine guns were being used on the streets, i'd concede the term.

I am formerly from CT, a town very similar to and not far from either Cheshire or Newtown. No one can downplay the utter tragedy of Sandy Hook, or fail to be moved to tears over the families and lives horribly ripped apart by the insane acts of that unhinged madman. But the acts of a single lunatic should not be enough to outweigh or impair the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens who by most estimates, use firearms more than 2 million times per year to stop violent crimes, usually without a shot being fired. Anyone who argues for a ban based on the "greater good" need look no further than that. I know it's callous, but it's true. And i can virtually guarantee that within those 2 million defensive gun uses, a lot more than 22 children's lives were saved from an equally tragic end.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14693 seconds with 7 queries