People should stop protecting guns

[Eclectic Dreck]

Even though none of your facts, conjectures, assertations, etc were backed up by a source (yes it's the internet, but you went at great lengths to try and argue against common sense), I was wondering wondering about this last point.

And now you've been introduced to hyperbole - a common rhetorical device wherein one makes an exaggerated claim to demonstrate a fundamental truth. Please, calculate for me the odds of being killed in a "massacre". I'd expect, you'd find the odds against any particular person being involved stand at somewhere in the neighborhood of a significant portion of a million to one.

Now, calculate the odds of death by, say, cancer.

I don't make a habit of worrying about eventualities that are unlikely when there are plenty of god damn terrifying things far more likely to befall someone I care about.

And my larger point remains the same. If you goal is to reduce the incidence rate of tragedy, there are plenty to choose from that are easier to resolve and would have a more significant impact. Solving the "gun" problem is bogglingly difficult, and staggeringly expensive all to save a relative handful. I have yet to hear any plan for gun control that actually would correct any of the problems we've seen with firearms - and that's because turning a modern firearm into something unsuitable for mass murder is a non-trivial task.

My argument is not predicated upon the notion that this tragedy is good or even acceptable - but that I have never been presented with any sort of plan that would make any progress towards a solution. Thus, failing that, why not expend the effort preventing tragedy we at least have a fair idea of how to combat? Drugs, poverty, disease, ignorance - all of these have a toll far greater than guns achieve and thanks to thousands of years of dealing with such things, we at least have a fair idea of what we need to do to abate if not eliminate.

 

[Windcaler]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

I disagree with quite a few of your points so lets go through them one by one

1. This is provably false. A guns primary intention was to be used as a weapon to hurt and kill opponents. However in our society there are many competition shooting that people do for fun. Just as we play games for fun. Even the Olympics has an event using firearms.

Like it or not Marksmanship is yet another competitive sport and there are many national and international competitions revolving around it.

2. Im not sure what this argument is supposed to be saying. A gun is very dangerous, so are knives, fire axes, and blunt improvised weapons. Some people can even kill without the use of weapons what so ever. I dont see the speed and potential of a killing blow as a legitimate reason to why firearms should be banned

3. Again I dont understand the argument behind this. Other countries, even other regions of the US have varying philosophies. You seem to agree that we Americans have a right to choose if we should have guns or not and yet you seem to make the claim that these other countries somehow know better without touching on the subject that they have completely different (sometimes alien) cultures and philosophies then we do

4. Once again Im unsure how punishing law abiding citizens is an argument for the banning of firearms. In any sane society you do not punish innocent people for the actions of another. I think we can all agree on that. So why punish lawful gun owners and tread on the rights of Americans and the rights of your current and/or future children?

5. Once again I disagree. Anything in my home can be used as a weapon for self defense including a fire poker, chair, or the Glock I carry around (I have a concealed weapon permit). That said Shotguns are a situational weapon, only useful at very close range and considering the 21 foot rule that law enforcement uses (the rule stating that 21 feet is the maximum distance a person can charge at you and strike a killing blow with a melee weapon before you can ready a gun) I feel that self defense firearms can take nearly all kinds of shapes.

6. I actually dont necessarily disagree on this one. However an unconcealed rifle or shotgun will provide a better visual deterrant. If Im leaving my residence to go hunting or go to a competition (or coming back) I have to transport them from point A to point B at some time dont I?

7. So because I live in a large city and once or twice a year I like to go camping/hunting with my relatives Im not allowed to keep my firearms in my home? That seems rediculous to me because I have to take responsibility for my firearms but I wouldnt be able to do that if they were locked up in some safe outside city limits.

At the end of the day Im all about responsibility and the rights of all Americans. If something must be done about Sandy hook it needs to be a serious review of our mental health structure and I would not be against adding armed security to schools if that security was concealed (much like an air marshal on planes). A firearms ban or even more regulation isnt going to stop another tragedy like that or any of the other shootings that happened last year. I understand the desire to want to do something but now is not the time, people need more time so they arent driven to rash emotionally driven ideas

EDIT: You know Im just going to add a final thought on here. If anyone seeks to take away my fire arms then they can try and I will not hesitate to stop them through charges of theft or just shooting them if they try to harm me and my family in the process. If our government tries to take our firearms away then its another civil war and I will be on the side that allows for freedom of speech and the right to bare arms, training people with the same tactics I learned while in the army.

 

[GAunderrated]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

Honestly I'm just sick of you people talking about this subject instead of focusing on the real issue: The fact that every single mass shooting has had one thing in common, no its not what gun they used its the fact that all of them were mentally unstable.

Why people are so concerned about trying to take away the guns instead of attacking the real growing problem in our society which is prescription drug abuse and mentally broken people. Google it last year there were over 100K deaths directly attributed to "legal" prescription drugs which trumps the 35K gun deaths which over 92% were gang related. Oh and here is a fun source for you to read.

http://www.businessinsider.com/painkillers-kill-more-americans-than-heroin-and-cocaine-2012-9

Don't let the title fool you, this article has tons of great information.

 

[cookingwithrage]

My property, my owner ship; and unless I somehow am guilty of causing unjustified harm to some one, up until then its nothing you should be concerned about.

Good day.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Thanks for insulting the entirety of the shooting sports, again

 

[nepheleim]

other countries seem to simply make do with an amnesty period to turn the things in before enforcing that. it worked here. actually my granddads old gun in the cupboard was turned in then it was made illegal here.

Given the size of the US and the relatively slow speed of news I'd wager that any amnesty period would have ended before news of a ban reached western settlements.

i just cant process civilians being legally able to own automatic weapons including miniguns because of a loophole like that.

While a civilian can own a legal minigun (full auto and everything) this is akin to saying that a Sherman tank can be made street legal to drive to work. While technically true, the logistics and regulations are such that only the incredibly wealthy could pull it off. You will likely never see anyone commit a crime with an automatic rifle that was procured legally. I don't believe a crime has ever been committed with a minigun at all for that matter. And if you look at rifles in general, in the US more people were killed last year with bare hands.

no wonder you guys are having a run on people buying assault rifles at the moment

Assault Rifle: Select-fire rifle of intermediate caliber. The M-16 if you will.

What we're having a run on are so-called "Assault Weapons" which are defined as: "Any of 120 specifically named weapon, and any semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine with two of the following features:

Folding or Telescoping Stock
Pistol Grip
Bayonet Mount
Flash Suppressor
Grenade Launcher attachment (but only muzzle mounted ones like they used in the 1940s, not the external mounted modern versions like the M203 used by the Armed Services)

There are more restrictions in the definition regarding pistols and shotguns but that's outside the scope of this exchange.

So basically, we're not having a run on Assault Rifles, because they're illegal to own for the most part.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

People often point to the M4 and other AR derived weapons but what about weapons like the Mini-14? It fires the same round, is also capable of delivering accurate fire out to several hundred meters and yet this weapon is almost never mentioned as a thing that ought be banned.

I think it's the wood furniture and lack of a pistol grip in the basic model. Switch out the standard 20 round mag for a smaller capacity one and add a scope and people unfamiliar with firearms aren't going to be able to tell it from any other hunting rifle.

Those same people will almost certainly be unaware of the massive array of accessories and modkits available for the Mini-14 that can transform it into a matte black polymer space age looking firearm with pistol grip, folding stock (or bullpup if you're fancy), foregrip and all manner of mounted scopes. Not to mention they'd probably shit their pants if they knew how 'easy' it was to convert one to full automatic if you can get your hands on the necessary parts from an AC556 (ignoring the fact that said parts are pretty rare now days).

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People often point to the M4 and other AR derived weapons but what about weapons like the Mini-14? It fires the same round, is also capable of delivering accurate fire out to several hundred meters and yet this weapon is almost never mentioned as a thing that ought be banned.

I think it's the wood furniture and lack of a pistol grip in the basic model. Switch out the standard 20 round mag for a smaller capacity one and add a scope and people unfamiliar with firearms aren't going to be able to tell it from any other hunting rifle.

Those same people will almost certainly be unaware of the massive array of accessories and modkits available for the Mini-14 that can transform it into a matte black polymer space age looking firearm with pistol grip, folding stock (or bullpup if you're fancy), foregrip and all manner of mounted scopes. Not to mention they'd probably shit their pants if they knew how 'easy' it was to convert one to full automatic if you can get your hands on the necessary parts from an AC556 (ignoring the fact that said parts are pretty rare now days).

The non-threatening appearance is what it amounts to it would seem. This sort of thing is often my problem with attempts at gun control - the measures people want often would have virtually no effect on the problem they seek to resolve.

 

[jovack22]

Even though none of your facts, conjectures, assertations, etc were backed up by a source (yes it's the internet, but you went at great lengths to try and argue against common sense), I was wondering wondering about this last point.

And now you've been introduced to hyperbole - a common rhetorical device wherein one makes an exaggerated claim to demonstrate a fundamental truth. Please, calculate for me the odds of being killed in a "massacre". I'd expect, you'd find the odds against any particular person being involved stand at somewhere in the neighborhood of a significant portion of a million to one.

Now, calculate the odds of death by, say, cancer.

I don't make a habit of worrying about eventualities that are unlikely when there are plenty of god damn terrifying things far more likely to befall someone I care about.

And my larger point remains the same. If you goal is to reduce the incidence rate of tragedy, there are plenty to choose from that are easier to resolve and would have a more significant impact. Solving the "gun" problem is bogglingly difficult, and staggeringly expensive all to save a relative handful. I have yet to hear any plan for gun control that actually would correct any of the problems we've seen with firearms - and that's because turning a modern firearm into something unsuitable for mass murder is a non-trivial task.

My argument is not predicated upon the notion that this tragedy is good or even acceptable - but that I have never been presented with any sort of plan that would make any progress towards a solution. Thus, failing that, why not expend the effort preventing tragedy we at least have a fair idea of how to combat? Drugs, poverty, disease, ignorance - all of these have a toll far greater than guns achieve and thanks to thousands of years of dealing with such things, we at least have a fair idea of what we need to do to abate if not eliminate.

No you're right. How could I be so short-sighted.

The damn liberal government is trying to take away your right and freedoms and guns so you can't fight back when Obama tries to turn the US into a police-state.
Guns don't hurt people. People hurt people. So lets give them more options to do so.

Why shouldn't fully automatic weapons be available at a whim to anyone who would want to purchase one... I really don't see what's wrong with that. It's perfectly normal to want to just go and blast away a clip to release pent up anger at the world.

I can see the light. I just hope I'm not staring down the barrel when it comes...

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

People often point to the M4 and other AR derived weapons but what about weapons like the Mini-14? It fires the same round, is also capable of delivering accurate fire out to several hundred meters and yet this weapon is almost never mentioned as a thing that ought be banned.

I think it's the wood furniture and lack of a pistol grip in the basic model. Switch out the standard 20 round mag for a smaller capacity one and add a scope and people unfamiliar with firearms aren't going to be able to tell it from any other hunting rifle.

Those same people will almost certainly be unaware of the massive array of accessories and modkits available for the Mini-14 that can transform it into a matte black polymer space age looking firearm with pistol grip, folding stock (or bullpup if you're fancy), foregrip and all manner of mounted scopes. Not to mention they'd probably shit their pants if they knew how 'easy' it was to convert one to full automatic if you can get your hands on the necessary parts from an AC556 (ignoring the fact that said parts are pretty rare now days).

The non-threatening appearance is what it amounts to it would seem.

There you go then, have all the AR family of weapons that people are so worried about refurnished in a nice maple or mahogany.

This sort of thing is often my problem with attempts at gun control - the measures people want often would have virtually no effect on the problem they seek to resolve.

That was one thing that's always puzzled me about the 'assault weapon' ban... from what I've read and heard it's actually a ban/restriction on adding 'scary' accessaries to firearms but does bugger all about actual firearms. All it seems to do is jerk around people who have the wrong accessories or too many of them on their firearms. What does that achieve? Nothing.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The damn liberal government is trying to take away your right and freedoms and guns so you can't fight back when Obama tries to turn the US into a police-state.

This would be a useful rhetorical maneuver had I ever used anything resembling a slippery slope or tyranny of the state argument. Since I didn't, it's just a red herring that serves no rhetorical purpose.

Guns don't hurt people. People hurt people. So lets give them more options to do so.

People have lots of options to hurt people and they use those options to hurt more people than guns. So long as we are going to play purely with hyperbolic claims, why not also argue legalization of driving on sidewalks.

Why shouldn't fully automatic weapons be available at a whim to anyone who would want to purchase one...

Why should I prevent a person who has the means to acquire one legally and no history or inclination towards violence the ability to own the weapon? There seems to be this strong misconception that "fully automatic" means "more bodies". Odd considering the one recent instance of fully automatic weapons being used in a mass shooting scenario achieved a corpse count of zero while scores were killed with a semi-automatic rifle and dozens with a semi-automatic pistol.

You're essentially arguing that some special aspect makes the automatic weapon fantastically more lethal when, in all reality, high cadence semi-automatic fire is going to be more effective. Couple that with the fact that such weapons are almost never used to commit crimes and I once again ask why target that concept. Much like the extended magazine and the rest, almost nothing is gained by such a restriction.

I really don't see what's wrong with that. It's perfectly normal to want to just go and blast away a clip to release pent up anger at the world.

It is actually perfectly normal - it becomes abnormal when the "world" you're shooting happens to have a person in the line of fire. By contrast, firing a fully automatic weapon at something innocuous like a paper target at a proper rifle range harms no one.

 

[TheTim]

I'll Stop protecting guns when they stop protecting myself and the ones i love.

 

[nepheleim]

There seems to be this strong misconception that "fully automatic" means "more bodies". Odd considering the one recent instance of fully automatic weapons being used in a mass shooting scenario achieved a corpse count of zero while scores were killed with a semi-automatic rifle and dozens with a semi-automatic pistol.

I think it's movies really. Since filmmakers don't have to actually depict or track each bullet, it's feasible to just have Rambo-stand-in #3 show up, wave a machine gun (without aiming of course, sights are for pussies) and have all the baddies just drop dead of fright. Magical Murder-Wands basically.

 

[nepheleim]

Is it normal for someone to have an obsession such as this one: http://fantasticvoyageof2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gun-wall2.jpg ?? The primary point of weapons is to do harm to others. From someone who lives outside of the USA, I can speak for not only myself, but almost everyone I have met when discussing this topic that the US's fanaticism for guns is bizarre.

That's a store. It even has a sign asking customers not to lean on the glass.