Pres. Obama to announce new gun push - Page 14

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Unreliable method. Some houses have only one entry/exit point.

Some? I'd say a very tiny minority of houses have only one entry/exit point. Running away is an option. Shooting a person with a gun is another option. I wouldn't say shooting is any more reliable than running away. It's really dependent on the particular situation. There are a variety of weapons inside the kitchen that can be used for self defense as well.

In other words, a fire-arm isn't the only self-defense tool and I doubt it's the most reliable.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Not on option in my own home. I'm not running away in my own home.

It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage.
I see life as being a little more valuable than that.

Light23 · 19th January 2013, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

From this source on number of gun deaths

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

The number of deaths in 1999 was 28,874. In 2011 it was 32,163. So the rate is going up.

"Gun deaths". Are you making the assumption that these deaths are caused by guns, or are the result of gun availability?

2/3 of those 32,000 deaths were suicides. The other 1/3 (roughly) are homicides.

Guns don't lead to suicides or homicides.

Why would you want to ban a law abiding citizen from arming himself, just because some murderers like to use guns, and some people decide to off themselves? And because more people are deciding to become murderers, and more people are deciding to off themselves?

Makes no sense to me!

Chuck Guiteau · 19th January 2013, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage.
I see life as being a little more valuable than that.

If the only reason people broke into your home was to steal your TV, you might have a point (even then it's debatable), but that's not the case is it?
What if they want to steal your children? Or if , after stealing your TV, they decide it would be better for them if there weren't any witnesses left behind?
If a person breaks into your house, a rational person is justified in the belief that such an invasion constitutes a threat not juts to you TV (and other property) but to the safety of anyone in the house at the time.
Just how valuable do you consider your own life, and that of your family?
Less valuable than someone who uses force to enter your home?

ETA: To paraphrase Dennis Miller, There is nothing in my house worth more than my life, but there is nothing in my house worth less than your life.

Kestrel · 19th January 2013, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

In other words, a fire-arm isn't the only self-defense tool and I doubt it's the most reliable.

The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns.

RandFan · 19th January 2013, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Then why does most EVERY COP IN THE COUNTRY carry an AR in his trunk? With a 30-round mag, no less!

Either they ARE good for defending life and limb, or there are serious questions that need to be asked about why cops are carrying weapons that are only good for mass, indiscriminate slaughter.

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns.

IMO: It's irrational to believe that having a gun with a high rate of fire and a high capacity magazine are some how necessary. An AK-47 with a high capacity clip might be an excellent means of self defense but is it a necessary one. It is this part of the gun culture that I'm most concerned with. Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure.

Chuck Guiteau · 19th January 2013, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns.

And who are you to declare what the gun lobby,Congress,or anyone else, feels?
Just to set the record straight, lethal force is the last option, not the first. But simply because it doesn't suit your world view doesn't take it off the table.
And most of the fear mongering is coming from your side. They are the ones taking events that have no statistical relevance and playing them up in order to further their agenda.
And I notice you didn't answer my questions.What's the matter, afraid?

Ranb · 19th January 2013, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns.

That has normally been the vibe I get from the anti-gun zealots. They seem to think that guns are only intended for killing, nothing about brandishing or threatening a bad guy to merely drive them away.

Ranb

Light23 · 19th January 2013, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

IMO: It's irrational to believe that having a gun with a high rate of fire and a high capacity magazine are some how necessary. An AK-47 with a high capacity clip might be an excellent means of self defense but is it a necessary one. It is this part of the gun culture that I'm most concerned with. Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure.

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/7766/l...ngoyqi1fcg.gif

To me, it's less that I have to prove to the government why I need my freedoms, and more that they have to prove to me why they need to restrict them.

I have no problem in theory with being limited to 10 round magazines... but what's the point? I can't see how it's going to decrease the risk to people in a meaningful way.

You're already exceptionally unlikely to be involved in a mass shooting, and if you are, your risk is about the same regardless of whether the perp has to reload three times or not at all.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure.

That's somewhat ironic. 11,000 US kids between ages 1-15 died in 2011. But when twenty kids die in a mass shooting the media wants to convince us we have a mass shooting problem, with the cure being to ban all firearms.

It's like pretending air travel is no longer safe on the rare occasion a plane drops out of the sky.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau

If the only reason people broke into your home was to steal your TV, you might have a point (even then it's debatable), but that's not the case is it?
What if they want to steal your children? Or if , after stealing your TV, they decide it would be better for them if there weren't any witnesses left behind?
If a person breaks into your house, a rational person is justified in the belief that such an invasion constitutes a threat not juts to you TV (and other property) but to the safety of anyone in the house at the time.
Just how valuable do you consider your own life, and that of your family?
Less valuable than someone who uses force to enter your home?

ETA: To paraphrase Dennis Miller, There is nothing in my house worth more than my life, but there is nothing in my house worth less than your life.

I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first. Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets.

If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau

Just to set the record straight, lethal force is the last option, not the first.

Unless they are breaking into your house, according to some gun nuts.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

That has normally been the vibe I get from the anti-gun zealots. They seem to think that guns are only intended for killing, nothing about brandishing or threatening a bad guy to merely drive them away.

Ranb

The threat isn't there without the lethal force to back it.

Chuck Guiteau · 19th January 2013, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first.

If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first.

Your children must be proud.
Little Sammy: My daddy taught me to man up when my family's in danger.
Little Ken,Jr. : My daddy taught me to run away.My daddy's smarter than your daddy!
Little Sammy: I guess you're right. Now why don't you give me your lunch money and then do what daddy told you to do?

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets.

Drawn no doubt from the wealth of experience you are alluding to.
Why don't you pull us up a couple of quotes from gun advocates here where they claim that owning a firearm makes you impervious to bullets.
What was that thump I just heard? It sounded like you hitting the bottom of the credibility barrel.

Light23 · 19th January 2013, 05:07 PM

I liked that last joke tbh.

AlBell · 19th January 2013, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by elbe

Even if our rights were somehow natural I really don't think the NRA would be a good defender of them all.

I agree with those who believe 2nd amendment is what defends all other rights.

Kestrel · 19th January 2013, 05:21 PM

Yes, there are other uses for firearms. I have no objection to hunting or target shooting with appropriate tools for the task. The problem for the industry is that traditional deer rifles and shotguns typically outlast hunters.

The gun industry drove growth by hyping fear of crime and promoting handguns as the solution. Now you needed a gun everyday, not just during deer or duck season. And to back up that handgun at home, you need something like an AR-15.

Never mind that when you shoot an AR-15 in a typical home, the bullets are going to go through your neighbors walls.

RandFan · 19th January 2013, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Light23

To me, it's less that I have to prove to the government why I need my freedoms, and more that they have to prove to me why they need to restrict them.

I have no problem in theory with being limited to 10 round magazines... but what's the point? I can't see how it's going to decrease the risk to people in a meaningful way.

You're already exceptionally unlikely to be involved in a mass shooting, and if you are, your risk is about the same regardless of whether the perp has to reload three times or not at all.

I would agree with this provisionally.

Quote:

That's somewhat ironic. 11,000 US kids between ages 1-15 died in 2011. But when twenty kids die in a mass shooting the media wants to convince us we have a mass shooting problem, with the cure being to ban all firearms.

It's like pretending air travel is no longer safe on the rare occasion a plane drops out of the sky.

I'm not sure I see the irony. As horribly tragic as spree killings are I don't think the cause célèbre nature of the tragedy justified. I've no argument with you whatsoever. I most certainly believe the media irresponsible to say the least for fanning the flames of fear over spree killings.

triforcharity · 19th January 2013, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage.
I see life as being a little more valuable than that.

I see my life, and the lives of my family as way more important than any risk I would take in assuming someone is only after my tv.

triforcharity · 19th January 2013, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first. Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets.

If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first.

My house is split plan. I'm not going to run out and leave anyone behind.

Nobody here claims they're impervious to bullets.

Light23 · 19th January 2013, 06:00 PM

Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16738405

8,790 deaths from alcohol in a year! In a population of 60 million! Compare that to 11,000 gun homicides in a population of 300 million...

Surely if we are to "think of the children" and ban guns, because without them gun homicides cannot occur, why are we not also banning alcohol?^* That's 8,790 deaths a year you could save right there!

And who after all, needs alcohol? Is your right to get blind drunk at the weekend because you're a loser who hates their life, more important than the lives of 8,790 mothers and fathers?!

Is this the point where we get to the "but guns are dangerous, they're designed for killing people and stealing the souls of kittens" argument?

To me, the "ban guns" argument is no different than a fundamentalist Muslim harping on about the evils of alcohol, about how the Koran forbids it, and about how it should be banned. If you truly believe something should be banned, you inevitably end up blaming any death not on the irresponsible, but on the fact that this terrible, evil thing isn't banned like it should be.

So your blame ends up directed at the people who don't want to ban it, rather than the people who are actually causing the problem.

/endrant

*Whoops, already tried that I guess.

elbe · 19th January 2013, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

I agree with those who believe 2nd amendment is what defends all other rights.

I don't. Personally I think it's pretty stupid to think it does and a gun owning populace does little to nothing in preventing a government with an organized military from cracking down on anyone they want.

By far the 1st amendment is, by far, our most important, probably followed by the 4th. The 2nd is barely more useful to the country as a whole than the third.

RandFan · 19th January 2013, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Light23

Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol?

False consolation fallacy. FWIW: I'm not anti-gun.

Originally Posted by Dr. Jay VerLendin

False consolation is a fallacy because it fails to deny the claim. A person can be harmed and have things to be thankful for at the same time.

Chuck Guiteau · 19th January 2013, 06:33 PM

I don't understand the objection to high cap mags, at least in relation to the school shootings that have sparked all this debate.
In Sandy Hook, would it have really mattered if he had a couple of thirty round mags, or 3 twenty round mags, or 6 ten round mags? He was shooting up a bunch of children trapped in a school. In the 15-20 minutes he had, it wouldn't have mattered if he used Lee Harvey Oswald's bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano. And just for the record, he apparently had some problems with a FTFF, as he did change mags several times before exhausting even a large portion of the ammo contained in them.

At VA Tech, Ho only used standard 10 round mags.

At Columbine, the only high capacity magazine was for the IR-99, which also failed, although they did get about 50 rounds of very ineffective fire out of it before it puked. If they had never carried the IT-99 at all, it wouldn't have made any difference. The vast majority of the people killed were with shots from the shotguns and the carbine, which only used standard mags.
There have only been about four or five school shooting which involved rifles with hi cap mags in the history of the US, counting the ones listed above.

Personally I have never cared for large capacity magazines, as they are too prone to malfunction and it is too easy to perform a combat reload, but I do not understand why, other than the fear mongering generated by the press and agenda driven politicians like Sen. Feinstein, that they seem to be such an issue.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau

Your children must be proud.
Little Sammy: My daddy taught me to man up when my family's in danger.
Little Ken,Jr. : My daddy taught me to run away.My daddy's smarter than your daddy!
Little Sammy: I guess you're right. Now why don't you give me your lunch money and then do what daddy told you to do?

Drawn no doubt from the wealth of experience you are alluding to.
Why don't you pull us up a couple of quotes from gun advocates here where they claim that owning a firearm makes you impervious to bullets.
What was that thump I just heard? It sounded like you hitting the bottom of the credibility barrel.

Right. I guess you can keep your macho attitude and teach your children that it's better to kill someone than to run away. Nice. I'll take the less liable and peaceful route of running away.

thaiboxerken · 19th January 2013, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Light23

Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol?

Why are you so interested in protecting the 2nd amendment when you should be interested in protecting the 1st?

DavidJames · 19th January 2013, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Light23

Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol?

Because this is a thread about guns. If you want to talk about the dangers of alcohol, you are in the wrong thread.

Chuck Guiteau · 20th January 2013, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Right. I guess you can keep your macho attitude and teach your children that it's better to kill someone than to run away. Nice. I'll take the less liable and peaceful route of running away.

Good choice, Ken. Don't forget to tell them to leave their lunch money behind.
What do you teach them to do when there's no place left to run?

ETA: Almost forgot. Where are those quotes?

Biscuit · 20th January 2013, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Except, according to the FBI, rifles (not necessarily semi-automatic) account for <5% of all murders in the USA. I fail to see how they are such a big threat. Now, you have a better case with restricting handguns, since they account for ~20x that number.

Because, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no practical purpose for semi auto rifles in civilian life other than mass murder. If we can save one life we must.

Handguns - licensed, registered, secure storage, annual qualification and mental evaluation, valid reason to carry one outside the house.

Biscuit · 20th January 2013, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

False consolation fallacy. FWIW: I'm not anti-gun.

Thank you for addressing that silly argument so quickly.

Nor am I anti gun. My shot gun is is about 3 feet from me as I type this. Locked in its case with a trigger lock. I am in my house and have never felt safer. There are 2 dogs snoozing peacefully and a large kookery even closer. I look forward to my next skeet shooting outing.

Biscuit · 20th January 2013, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau

Good choice, Ken. Don't forget to tell them to leave their lunch money behind.
What do you teach them to do when there's no place left to run?

ETA: Almost forgot. Where are those quotes?

Discretion is the better part of valor.

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Because, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no practical purpose for semi auto rifles in civilian life other than mass murder. If we can save one life we must.

Hunting medium game for one. So, there's that. Then there's shooting sports. There's two.

SA rifles account for less than 1% of all gun violence, so let's go after them first.....makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Handguns - licensed, registered, secure storage, annual qualification and mental evaluation, valid reason to carry one outside the house.

I'm ok with just about all of that, minus the hilited.

What in your opinion constitutes a valid reason, and who gets to make that decision? Shouldn't I be allowed the ability to protect myself in my vehicle, or while I am out and about?

Biscuit · 20th January 2013, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Hunting medium game for one. So, there's that. Then there's shooting sports. There's two.

SA rifles account for less than 1% of all gun violence, so let's go after them first.....makes no sense.

I'm ok with just about all of that, minus the hilited.

What in your opinion constitutes a valid reason, and who gets to make that decision? Shouldn't I be allowed the ability to protect myself in my vehicle, or while I am out and about?

There are better options for hunting all game. Small medium and large. One of the goals of gun laws is to avoid mass shootings like sandy hook and semi auto rifles tend to be the weapon of choice. Given they serve no practical purpose, that isn't better filled by a different gun, just make them all bolt action.

Some thoughts on valid reason - restraining order, death threats, high profile job like federal judge, I am sure there are other reasons.

There are many non lethal means of self defense. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe.

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

There are better options for hunting all game. Small medium and large.

Sure. Does that mean I am required to use them? Nope. And better is subjective to opinion.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

One of the goals of gun laws is to avoid mass shootings like sandy hook and semi auto rifles tend to be the weapon of choice.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Given they serve no practical purpose, that isn't better filled by a different gun, just make them all bolt action.

Incorrect. There's a perfectly practical reason. Sport shooting is one. It's practical.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Some thoughts on valid reason - restraining order, death threats, high profile job like federal judge, I am sure there are other reasons.

How about American with no criminal background or mental health issues? Is that not valid enough for you? If not, perhaps you'll need to read up on Heller and McDonald

Originally Posted by Biscuit

There are many non lethal means of self defense. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe.

Sure, are they as effective? Nope. Not even close.

You're holding two different conflicting lines of logic.

You want me to give up on using and owning SA rifles, because they're not the best tool for hunting or sporting.

But yet, you want me to give up using the best tool for the job of self defense, to use one that is substandard.

You don't see the problem there?

Bad vibe · 20th January 2013, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Sure. Does that mean I am required to use them? Nope. And better is subjective to opinion.

Not really firearms are tools not toys there designed and engineered for a job, I could use a hammer to put a screw in but that would just make me an idiot.

thaiboxerken · 20th January 2013, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Discretion is the better part of valor.

you need to arm your children so they can shoot any bully that tries to take their lunch money.

triforcharity · 20th January 2013, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Bad vibe

Not really firearms are tools not toys there designed and engineered for a job, I could use a hammer to put a screw in but that would just make me an idiot.

No, you're comparing using a 16 oz hammer, to a 24 oz hammer. Not a hammer and a pair of pliers.

NWO Sentryman · 20th January 2013, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Because, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no practical purpose for semi auto rifles in civilian life other than mass murder. If we can save one life we must.

Ok, you do realise that semi automatic rifles are a blip on the radar in terms of violent crime, and "save one life" is NOT a good way to operate legislation. I could justify the PATRIOT Act on that basis.

Light23 · 20th January 2013, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Why are you so interested in protecting the 2nd amendment when you should be interested in protecting the 1st?

What? In what way am I against the 1st amendment?

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Because this is a thread about guns. If you want to talk about the dangers of alcohol, you are in the wrong thread.

So if I started a new thread on alcohol, it would get the same responses as in here?

Grizzly Adams · 20th January 2013, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Or run away.

Run where? Out the window and down 30 stories?

Grizzly Adams · 20th January 2013, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

I have read of the police being more frequently issued AR-15's for patrol, but as far as I know, the majority of them do not patrol with a rifle in the trunk.

Ranb

Maybe it's just where I'm from. Every road cop I know has one.

19th January 2013, 02:44 PM	#521
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura Unreliable method. Some houses have only one entry/exit point. Some? I'd say a very tiny minority of houses have only one entry/exit point. Running away is an option. Shooting a person with a gun is another option. I wouldn't say shooting is any more reliable than running away. It's really dependent on the particular situation. There are a variety of weapons inside the kitchen that can be used for self defense as well. In other words, a fire-arm isn't the only self-defense tool and I doubt it's the most reliable.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 02:46 PM	#522
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by triforcharity Not on option in my own home. I'm not running away in my own home. It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage. I see life as being a little more valuable than that.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 02:48 PM	#523
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	Originally Posted by Nessie From this source on number of gun deaths http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states The number of deaths in 1999 was 28,874. In 2011 it was 32,163. So the rate is going up. "Gun deaths". Are you making the assumption that these deaths are caused by guns, or are the result of gun availability? 2/3 of those 32,000 deaths were suicides. The other 1/3 (roughly) are homicides. Guns don't lead to suicides or homicides. Why would you want to ban a law abiding citizen from arming himself, just because some murderers like to use guns, and some people decide to off themselves? And because more people are deciding to become murderers, and more people are deciding to off themselves? Makes no sense to me!
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	Last edited by Light23; 19th January 2013 at 02:49 PM.

19th January 2013, 03:04 PM	#524
Chuck Guiteau Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 677	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage. I see life as being a little more valuable than that. If the only reason people broke into your home was to steal your TV, you might have a point (even then it's debatable), but that's not the case is it? What if they want to steal your children? Or if , after stealing your TV, they decide it would be better for them if there weren't any witnesses left behind? If a person breaks into your house, a rational person is justified in the belief that such an invasion constitutes a threat not juts to you TV (and other property) but to the safety of anyone in the house at the time. Just how valuable do you consider your own life, and that of your family? Less valuable than someone who uses force to enter your home? ETA: To paraphrase Dennis Miller, There is nothing in my house worth more than my life, but there is nothing in my house worth less than your life.
	Last edited by Chuck Guiteau; 19th January 2013 at 03:08 PM.

19th January 2013, 03:43 PM	#526
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,208	Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams Then why does most EVERY COP IN THE COUNTRY carry an AR in his trunk? With a 30-round mag, no less! Either they ARE good for defending life and limb, or there are serious questions that need to be asked about why cops are carrying weapons that are only good for mass, indiscriminate slaughter. Originally Posted by Kestrel The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns. IMO: It's irrational to believe that having a gun with a high rate of fire and a high capacity magazine are some how necessary. An AK-47 with a high capacity clip might be an excellent means of self defense but is it a necessary one. It is this part of the gun culture that I'm most concerned with. Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

19th January 2013, 03:30 PM	#525
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken In other words, a fire-arm isn't the only self-defense tool and I doubt it's the most reliable. The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns.

19th January 2013, 03:44 PM	#527
Chuck Guiteau Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 677	Originally Posted by Kestrel The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns. And who are you to declare what the gun lobby,Congress,or anyone else, feels? Just to set the record straight, lethal force is the last option, not the first. But simply because it doesn't suit your world view doesn't take it off the table. And most of the fear mongering is coming from your side. They are the ones taking events that have no statistical relevance and playing them up in order to further their agenda. And I notice you didn't answer my questions.What's the matter, afraid?

19th January 2013, 04:27 PM	#528
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,101	Originally Posted by Kestrel The gun lobby in the US acts as if firearms and lethal force are the only option. Doing so helps to raise the level of fear and sell more guns. That has normally been the vibe I get from the anti-gun zealots. They seem to think that guns are only intended for killing, nothing about brandishing or threatening a bad guy to merely drive them away. Ranb

19th January 2013, 04:35 PM	#529
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	Originally Posted by RandFan IMO: It's irrational to believe that having a gun with a high rate of fire and a high capacity magazine are some how necessary. An AK-47 with a high capacity clip might be an excellent means of self defense but is it a necessary one. It is this part of the gun culture that I'm most concerned with. Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure. http://imageshack.us/a/img831/7766/l...ngoyqi1fcg.gif To me, it's less that I have to prove to the government why I need my freedoms, and more that they have to prove to me why they need to restrict them. I have no problem in theory with being limited to 10 round magazines... but what's the point? I can't see how it's going to decrease the risk to people in a meaningful way. You're already exceptionally unlikely to be involved in a mass shooting, and if you are, your risk is about the same regardless of whether the perp has to reload three times or not at all. Originally Posted by RandFan Like religion we are being convinced that society has a disease called violence and the gun manufacturers have the cure. That's somewhat ironic. 11,000 US kids between ages 1-15 died in 2011. But when twenty kids die in a mass shooting the media wants to convince us we have a mass shooting problem, with the cure being to ban all firearms. It's like pretending air travel is no longer safe on the rare occasion a plane drops out of the sky.
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	Last edited by Light23; 19th January 2013 at 04:41 PM.

19th January 2013, 04:37 PM	#530
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau If the only reason people broke into your home was to steal your TV, you might have a point (even then it's debatable), but that's not the case is it? What if they want to steal your children? Or if , after stealing your TV, they decide it would be better for them if there weren't any witnesses left behind? If a person breaks into your house, a rational person is justified in the belief that such an invasion constitutes a threat not juts to you TV (and other property) but to the safety of anyone in the house at the time. Just how valuable do you consider your own life, and that of your family? Less valuable than someone who uses force to enter your home? ETA: To paraphrase Dennis Miller, There is nothing in my house worth more than my life, but there is nothing in my house worth less than your life. I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first. Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets. If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 04:38 PM	#531
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau Just to set the record straight, lethal force is the last option, not the first. Unless they are breaking into your house, according to some gun nuts.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 04:39 PM	#532
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Ranb That has normally been the vibe I get from the anti-gun zealots. They seem to think that guns are only intended for killing, nothing about brandishing or threatening a bad guy to merely drive them away. Ranb The threat isn't there without the lethal force to back it.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 05:02 PM	#533
Chuck Guiteau Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 677	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first. If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first. Your children must be proud. Little Sammy: My daddy taught me to man up when my family's in danger. Little Ken,Jr. : My daddy taught me to run away.My daddy's smarter than your daddy! Little Sammy: I guess you're right. Now why don't you give me your lunch money and then do what daddy told you to do? Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets. Drawn no doubt from the wealth of experience you are alluding to. Why don't you pull us up a couple of quotes from gun advocates here where they claim that owning a firearm makes you impervious to bullets. What was that thump I just heard? It sounded like you hitting the bottom of the credibility barrel.

19th January 2013, 05:07 PM	#534
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	I liked that last joke tbh.
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59

19th January 2013, 05:19 PM	#535
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,496	Originally Posted by elbe Even if our rights were somehow natural I really don't think the NRA would be a good defender of them all. I agree with those who believe 2nd amendment is what defends all other rights.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,496	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

19th January 2013, 05:21 PM	#536
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Yes, there are other uses for firearms. I have no objection to hunting or target shooting with appropriate tools for the task. The problem for the industry is that traditional deer rifles and shotguns typically outlast hunters. The gun industry drove growth by hyping fear of crime and promoting handguns as the solution. Now you needed a gun everyday, not just during deer or duck season. And to back up that handgun at home, you need something like an AR-15. Never mind that when you shoot an AR-15 in a typical home, the bullets are going to go through your neighbors walls.

19th January 2013, 05:28 PM	#537
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,208	Originally Posted by Light23 To me, it's less that I have to prove to the government why I need my freedoms, and more that they have to prove to me why they need to restrict them. I have no problem in theory with being limited to 10 round magazines... but what's the point? I can't see how it's going to decrease the risk to people in a meaningful way. You're already exceptionally unlikely to be involved in a mass shooting, and if you are, your risk is about the same regardless of whether the perp has to reload three times or not at all. I would agree with this provisionally. Quote: That's somewhat ironic. 11,000 US kids between ages 1-15 died in 2011. But when twenty kids die in a mass shooting the media wants to convince us we have a mass shooting problem, with the cure being to ban all firearms. It's like pretending air travel is no longer safe on the rare occasion a plane drops out of the sky. I'm not sure I see the irony. As horribly tragic as spree killings are I don't think the cause célèbre nature of the tragedy justified. I've no argument with you whatsoever. I most certainly believe the media irresponsible to say the least for fanning the flames of fear over spree killings.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 19th January 2013 at 05:29 PM.

19th January 2013, 05:48 PM	#538
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,169	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken It's an option. But if you would rather take a person's life than have your TV stolen, that's your baggage. I see life as being a little more valuable than that. I see my life, and the lives of my family as way more important than any risk I would take in assuming someone is only after my tv.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th January 2013, 05:52 PM	#539
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,169	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I don't see how that precludes running away as a viable option. Even if I had a gun, I'd try to escape first. Unlike the gun advocates here, I know that having my own firearm doesn't make me impervious to bullets. If someone is breaking into my house, me and my family are going to run away first. My house is split plan. I'm not going to run out and leave anyone behind. Nobody here claims they're impervious to bullets.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

19th January 2013, 06:00 PM	#540
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59	Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16738405 8,790 deaths from alcohol in a year! In a population of 60 million! Compare that to 11,000 gun homicides in a population of 300 million... Surely if we are to "think of the children" and ban guns, because without them gun homicides cannot occur, why are we not also banning alcohol?^* That's 8,790 deaths a year you could save right there! And who after all, needs alcohol? Is your right to get blind drunk at the weekend because you're a loser who hates their life, more important than the lives of 8,790 mothers and fathers?! Is this the point where we get to the "but guns are dangerous, they're designed for killing people and stealing the souls of kittens" argument? To me, the "ban guns" argument is no different than a fundamentalist Muslim harping on about the evils of alcohol, about how the Koran forbids it, and about how it should be banned. If you truly believe something should be banned, you inevitably end up blaming any death not on the irresponsible, but on the fact that this terrible, evil thing isn't banned like it should be. So your blame ends up directed at the people who don't want to ban it, rather than the people who are actually causing the problem. /endrant *Whoops, already tried that I guess.
Light23 Scholar Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 59

19th January 2013, 06:01 PM	#541
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by AlBell I agree with those who believe 2nd amendment is what defends all other rights. I don't. Personally I think it's pretty stupid to think it does and a gun owning populace does little to nothing in preventing a government with an organized military from cracking down on anyone they want. By far the 1st amendment is, by far, our most important, probably followed by the 4th. The 2nd is barely more useful to the country as a whole than the third.
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy... Last edited by elbe; 19th January 2013 at 06:03 PM.

19th January 2013, 06:06 PM	#542
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,208	Originally Posted by Light23 Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol? False consolation fallacy. FWIW: I'm not anti-gun. Originally Posted by Dr. Jay VerLendin False consolation is a fallacy because it fails to deny the claim. A person can be harmed and have things to be thankful for at the same time.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

19th January 2013, 06:33 PM	#543
Chuck Guiteau Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 677	I don't understand the objection to high cap mags, at least in relation to the school shootings that have sparked all this debate. In Sandy Hook, would it have really mattered if he had a couple of thirty round mags, or 3 twenty round mags, or 6 ten round mags? He was shooting up a bunch of children trapped in a school. In the 15-20 minutes he had, it wouldn't have mattered if he used Lee Harvey Oswald's bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano. And just for the record, he apparently had some problems with a FTFF, as he did change mags several times before exhausting even a large portion of the ammo contained in them. At VA Tech, Ho only used standard 10 round mags. At Columbine, the only high capacity magazine was for the IR-99, which also failed, although they did get about 50 rounds of very ineffective fire out of it before it puked. If they had never carried the IT-99 at all, it wouldn't have made any difference. The vast majority of the people killed were with shots from the shotguns and the carbine, which only used standard mags. There have only been about four or five school shooting which involved rifles with hi cap mags in the history of the US, counting the ones listed above. Personally I have never cared for large capacity magazines, as they are too prone to malfunction and it is too easy to perform a combat reload, but I do not understand why, other than the fear mongering generated by the press and agenda driven politicians like Sen. Feinstein, that they seem to be such an issue.

19th January 2013, 08:56 PM	#544
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau Your children must be proud. Little Sammy: My daddy taught me to man up when my family's in danger. Little Ken,Jr. : My daddy taught me to run away.My daddy's smarter than your daddy! Little Sammy: I guess you're right. Now why don't you give me your lunch money and then do what daddy told you to do? Drawn no doubt from the wealth of experience you are alluding to. Why don't you pull us up a couple of quotes from gun advocates here where they claim that owning a firearm makes you impervious to bullets. What was that thump I just heard? It sounded like you hitting the bottom of the credibility barrel. Right. I guess you can keep your macho attitude and teach your children that it's better to kill someone than to run away. Nice. I'll take the less liable and peaceful route of running away.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 08:58 PM	#545
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Light23 Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol? Why are you so interested in protecting the 2nd amendment when you should be interested in protecting the 1st?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

19th January 2013, 09:23 PM	#546
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Originally Posted by Light23 Out of interest, why are the anti-gun crowd only interested in the damage guns do, and not say, alcohol? Because this is a thread about guns. If you want to talk about the dangers of alcohol, you are in the wrong thread.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

20th January 2013, 12:24 AM	#547
Chuck Guiteau Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 677	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Right. I guess you can keep your macho attitude and teach your children that it's better to kill someone than to run away. Nice. I'll take the less liable and peaceful route of running away. Good choice, Ken. Don't forget to tell them to leave their lunch money behind. What do you teach them to do when there's no place left to run? ETA: Almost forgot. Where are those quotes?
	Last edited by Chuck Guiteau; 20th January 2013 at 12:25 AM.

20th January 2013, 06:18 AM	#548
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Except, according to the FBI, rifles (not necessarily semi-automatic) account for <5% of all murders in the USA. I fail to see how they are such a big threat. Now, you have a better case with restricting handguns, since they account for ~20x that number. Because, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no practical purpose for semi auto rifles in civilian life other than mass murder. If we can save one life we must. Handguns - licensed, registered, secure storage, annual qualification and mental evaluation, valid reason to carry one outside the house.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

20th January 2013, 06:27 AM	#549
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Originally Posted by RandFan False consolation fallacy. FWIW: I'm not anti-gun. Thank you for addressing that silly argument so quickly. Nor am I anti gun. My shot gun is is about 3 feet from me as I type this. Locked in its case with a trigger lock. I am in my house and have never felt safer. There are 2 dogs snoozing peacefully and a large kookery even closer. I look forward to my next skeet shooting outing.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

20th January 2013, 06:31 AM	#550
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau Good choice, Ken. Don't forget to tell them to leave their lunch money behind. What do you teach them to do when there's no place left to run? ETA: Almost forgot. Where are those quotes? Discretion is the better part of valor.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

20th January 2013, 07:06 AM	#551
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,169	Originally Posted by Biscuit Because, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no practical purpose for semi auto rifles in civilian life other than mass murder. If we can save one life we must. Hunting medium game for one. So, there's that. Then there's shooting sports. There's two. SA rifles account for less than 1% of all gun violence, so let's go after them first.....makes no sense. Originally Posted by Biscuit Handguns - licensed, registered, secure storage, annual qualification and mental evaluation, valid reason to carry one outside the house. I'm ok with just about all of that, minus the hilited. What in your opinion constitutes a valid reason, and who gets to make that decision? Shouldn't I be allowed the ability to protect myself in my vehicle, or while I am out and about?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 07:23 AM	#552
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Originally Posted by triforcharity Hunting medium game for one. So, there's that. Then there's shooting sports. There's two. SA rifles account for less than 1% of all gun violence, so let's go after them first.....makes no sense. I'm ok with just about all of that, minus the hilited. What in your opinion constitutes a valid reason, and who gets to make that decision? Shouldn't I be allowed the ability to protect myself in my vehicle, or while I am out and about? There are better options for hunting all game. Small medium and large. One of the goals of gun laws is to avoid mass shootings like sandy hook and semi auto rifles tend to be the weapon of choice. Given they serve no practical purpose, that isn't better filled by a different gun, just make them all bolt action. Some thoughts on valid reason - restraining order, death threats, high profile job like federal judge, I am sure there are other reasons. There are many non lethal means of self defense. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

20th January 2013, 08:22 AM	#553
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,169	Originally Posted by Biscuit There are better options for hunting all game. Small medium and large. Sure. Does that mean I am required to use them? Nope. And better is subjective to opinion. Originally Posted by Biscuit One of the goals of gun laws is to avoid mass shootings like sandy hook and semi auto rifles tend to be the weapon of choice. Agreed. Originally Posted by Biscuit Given they serve no practical purpose, that isn't better filled by a different gun, just make them all bolt action. Incorrect. There's a perfectly practical reason. Sport shooting is one. It's practical. Originally Posted by Biscuit Some thoughts on valid reason - restraining order, death threats, high profile job like federal judge, I am sure there are other reasons. How about American with no criminal background or mental health issues? Is that not valid enough for you? If not, perhaps you'll need to read up on Heller and McDonald Originally Posted by Biscuit There are many non lethal means of self defense. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe. Sure, are they as effective? Nope. Not even close. You're holding two different conflicting lines of logic. You want me to give up on using and owning SA rifles, because they're not the best tool for hunting or sporting. But yet, you want me to give up using the best tool for the job of self defense, to use one that is substandard. You don't see the problem there?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

20th January 2013, 09:31 AM	#554
Bad vibe Thinker Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: UK Posts: 224	Originally Posted by triforcharity Sure. Does that mean I am required to use them? Nope. And better is subjective to opinion. Not really firearms are tools not toys there designed and engineered for a job, I could use a hammer to put a screw in but that would just make me an idiot.

20th January 2013, 09:35 AM	#555
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,963	Originally Posted by Biscuit Discretion is the better part of valor. you need to arm your children so they can shoot any bully that tries to take their lunch money.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine