Poll: Do you support the right to bear arms?
Yes
No
Keep Hunting Rifles Only
Pistols but not AR(s) + 3
Assualt Rifles + 3 & 4
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2012, 09:32 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
So, your argument is that you need a semi-automatic weapon to take down a rabid raccoon? Is this Rocky Raccoon from the Beatles song?

On a more serious note, this now contradicts an early position you took. I need to go back and find the exact language but you basically said that the number of rounds you can get off were not an issue when hunting or dealing with vermin on your property. You are now claiming, if I read your intent properly, that defending yourself against a rabid raccoon does in fact necessitate that type of fire power.

Why stop there? Why not get a bazooka, just to be sure?

We can probably stop because we are not going to agree. At some point, a discussion on an issue just turns into an argument with each side saying the same thing over and over until one side gets angry. I don't have enough vested in the topic to get angry over it, and I've no real interest in getting a rise out of you, so I'm happy to let it go. I'll say my last piece and am happy for you to have the last word on the topic.

My last piece is this: I don't object to the concept of gun ownership. What I have an issue, and object to, is the general public having access to the types of weapons that make things like the Va. Tech massacre possible. Having weapons where you can get off that many rounds in that amount of time is completely unnecessary. It is not necessary to kill raccoons in your yard, and your are not having your home invaded by an army. Civilians simply do not need that kind of fire power and it poses a very real danger to the general public, as has been proven over and over and over. You want to have a gun, have a gun. Have a pistol, have a rifle, etc. An AK47 is just ridiculous. Why not a stealth bomber or a rocket launcher while we are at it? Lines should be drawn for the safety of the rest of us.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(16-08-2012 09:32 AM)BnW Wrote:  So, your argument is that you need a semi-automatic weapon to take down a rabid raccoon? Is this Rocky Raccoon from the Beatles song?

On a more serious note, this now contradicts an early position you took. I need to go back and find the exact language but you basically said that the number of rounds you can get off were not an issue when hunting or dealing with vermin on your property. You are now claiming, if I read your intent properly, that defending yourself against a rabid raccoon does in fact necessitate that type of fire power.

Why stop there? Why not get a bazooka, just to be sure?

We can probably stop because we are not going to agree. At some point, a discussion on an issue just turns into an argument with each side saying the same thing over and over until one side gets angry. I don't have enough vested in the topic to get angry over it, and I've no real interest in getting a rise out of you, so I'm happy to let it go. I'll say my last piece and am happy for you to have the last word on the topic.

My last piece is this: I don't object to the concept of gun ownership. What I have an issue, and object to, is the general public having access to the types of weapons that make things like the Va. Tech massacre possible. Having weapons where you can get off that many rounds in that amount of time is completely unnecessary. It is not necessary to kill raccoons in your yard, and your are not having your home invaded by an army. Civilians simply do not need that kind of fire power and it poses a very real danger to the general public, as has been proven over and over and over. You want to have a gun, have a gun. Have a pistol, have a rifle, etc. An AK47 is just ridiculous. Why not a stealth bomber or a rocket launcher while we are at it? Lines should be drawn for the safety of the rest of us.

You have certainly mis-characterized what I said. If that is going to be the way you discuss or argue, then by all means let's stop.

You asked why I need a gun to defend myself; the post I referenced explains that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
What did I mis-characterize? You referred me back to a post where you discussed a rabid raccoon. What did I miss?

It was not my intention to put words in your mouth but that is what you referred me back to.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 09:53 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(15-08-2012 07:23 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm not gun expert but my understanding is there are kits you can buy on-line to turn your guns into automatic weapons.
No, you can't. It is illegal to do so and carries heavy fines and jail time, unless you have a federal firearms license (extremely hard to get, very expensive).
Quote:Also, I will ask the question again: who do you think is breaking into your house? I have 2 dogs and their barking is enough to keep pretty much anyone out of my house. You are far, far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member with a gun in your home. The statistics are not even close on this.
Clearly, it is not likely if there is no gun in the house. Or what did you mean? That because I have a gun I am more likely to shoot myself or a family member? More likely than what?
Quote:
(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  The crazy Swiss mass murderer isn't going to be concerned about breaking the seal on the ammunition package. The fact is that, even though the Swiss have better guns and better training, they don't go out and shoot people. That says it's the society, not the guns.

No, it doesn't say that. What it says is that the crazy Swiss mass murdered is going to run out of ammo long before his American counter part does and won't be able to take out nearly the same amount of people. The Swiss have a great many guns, but they are seriously lacking in bullets. The gun is kind of useless without them. If you are going to make the argument that Americans are just fundamentally more violent than the rest of humanity, you're going to need to back that up with some evidence. Good luck finding some.
No, the mythical crazy Swiss will have gotten more ammo. He's crazy, not stupid.

U.S. society is clearly more violent than other Western societies. You say that having guns makes it so.
Quote:
(14-08-2012 09:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am quite convinced that guns play a role in the incidence and severity of violent crime, but they are not the sole or main cause of the violence.

Guns are not a cause of violence at all. What guns are is a tool of violence. They make violence more likely, more probably, more devastating, and likely to cause more damage to more people. But, the ultimate responsibility falls upon the people who are using the guns. I don't think there is any reasonable denial of that. The point is that crazy, angry people don't walk into a movie theater with a knife and kill 12 people and injure dozens more. A man with a knife is not going to kill 32 Va. Tech students and stab an additional 17 more. Two disgruntled high school students with knives are not going to carry out the Columbine massacre. There is a reason you rarely hear about a drive bye stabbing. Parents don't accidentally stab their children when they come home later then expected. Of course a maniac with a knife can do damage, and kill people. Of course that can, and has, happened. But, you are not getting the same type of body count. Nothing creates the type of carnage that a gun can create (unless people start throwing hand grenades around).

And, your right to own one should not transcend my right to not have to worry about having some loon pop a cap in my ass when all i want to do is watch Anne Hathaway in her leather Cat Woman suit.

You are saying on the one hand that U.S. society isn't more violent, and then turn around and say it is. Which is it?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 09:57 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(16-08-2012 09:48 AM)BnW Wrote:  What did I mis-characterize? You referred me back to a post where you discussed a rabid raccoon. What did I miss?

It was not my intention to put words in your mouth but that is what you referred me back to.

You asked:
Quote:When was the last time you needed a gun to defend yourself? When have you ever needed a gun to defend yourself, for that matter?

And I pointed you to the post that says:

Quote:I am not a large guy and I am physically handicapped. My house is not visible to neighbors or the road. The police could not be here in time in an emergency. I have a firearm for self-defense. You begrudge me that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
So, the answer to my question is you've never had to use a gun to defend yourself.

And no, I don't begrudge you having a gun to protect yourself. I've already said that. What I said I begrudge are guns that are just a step below WMDs in terms of the amount of damage they can inflict and people they can kill.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 01:53 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(16-08-2012 06:00 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(15-08-2012 10:28 PM)tnt4philly Wrote:  Logic, spelling, garmmar, what the fuck ever.....the point is instead of actually addressing the subject, you felt the need to attack the way I write. Thanks for the lesson though, not the one about logic though, the one on how not to be an ass.

I love how you lump them all together (logic, spelling & garmmar(sic)) as if they're things that you don't fuss yourself over.

The lesson on not being an ass is one that you've spent 48 years (apparently) failing to grasp. You've demonstrated an I'm-all-right-Jack attitude in this thread; so long as you have good healthcare, fuck everyone else. And it isn't just about the working poor. Did you even watch that video? The one where a working man with a dying daughter was sacked so that his company's health premiums didn't rise? He wasn't the working poor. He was a regular guy who was punished (losing his daughter and his job) because money is more important than anything else.

And his case isn't a unique one. If health insurance companies can find a loop-hole, they'll find it. Money > health.

Ahhh, I see now. You are one of those arrogant spelling and grammar police I was warned about when I first got here.

I have admitted from the start that the healthcare system in the US is not perfect. Shit like what happened to that guy sucks and we need to find ways to cover that gap also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
Guns "just a step below WMDs", what are we handing out tanks and JDAMs now?



Is this an assault rifle worthy of being banned?
[Image: Mini14GB.jpg]


Prolly not. I'm sure this one is though, right?:
[Image: tumblr_m8gpntPxqc1rssqleo1_1280.jpg]





Pro tip: they're the same gun with different stocks and accessories.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
25-10-2012, 12:16 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
Hello all, new Canuck chiming in.

I live very far north, Yukon to be more exact; and specificly deep in the bush near a wildlife preserve. part of living up here is occasionally seeing these guys -

[Image: grizzly_momcub_ericb_000.jpg]

For those not aware, these are Grizzly bears. They can grow upwards of 800 pounds up here, and when they stand on their hind legs, can reach nine feet in hight.

That is correct. Nine FEET.

Their hides are comparatively thick; having to survive being among the top of the food chain. Their skulls in particular, past a half an inch of solid bone. Further; they tend NOT to be afraid of humans - including those with 'bear bangers', 'bear spray/mace' - and guns. I am a member of the local gun range; and I have personally seen grizzly (and their smaller cousins, black bears) wander the range WHILE people are shooting. Dont Give A ****, that is the attitude these critters have.

Also? They are not the only predators that live on the same land I do.

Attacks dont happen often, but they DO happen. One fellow was rather unlucky this past year; but managed to live. Most of the time, what protects people is being smart - keeping a clean home and yard, not baiting them in anyway, and being aware of the possibility of their presence. But. The risk remains - a person living in this land, going into nature, can and will sooner or later encounter the more dangerous animals on this continent; critters in that the use of smaller, lighter calibers is not only discouraged but illegal to hunt with. (IE, shooting a griz with a .22 is just gonna really p*** it off. Like so ---

[Image: 539524_10152150466615510_1766385708_n.jpg]

While I will note this particular photo is likely photoshop; EXACTLY this has happened. Look up Timothy Treadwell for a graphic example. )

So. Anyone that cares to feed me a line of nonsense that firearms are not needed tools for self defense - I invite you to live where I do.

Now, past that - I do in fact hunt; for sustenance. I do not hunt for sport - what I hunt, when successful, winds up in the freezer with as little waste as humanly possible. Further, I do occasionally engage in competitive shooting, and I collect specific brands/styles of firearms that I like. (Tula, if one is curious.)

Now. I Do personally agree with the concept of staged licensing to allow access to firearms (similar to vehicular licensing) - a basic license for long rifles, with requirements more stringent as one works towards 'heavier' or more militaristic weaponry (full autos, cannons, tanks, etc.) One has to have background checks, cleared by local and federal police, and be able to show one is capable of safely handling said firearm. But. I do NOT agree with the proven-failed concept of registering each individual firearm - costly and ineffective. Doing so is nothing but a tax; and making it criminal (as the Canadian laws do) to possess only nothing but a victimless paper crime. Obviously, I dont agree with people owning chemical, biological, nuclear or other major destructive weapons, but firearms? Leave it be. Instead of spending billions on registries that do nothing but make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, come down MUCH harder on those that actually commit crimes with weapons of any kind. I mean, when a criminal gets more time for defrauding the government or a business than they do for killing a police officer or child, SOMETHING is seriously screwed up.

Anyway, hope you dont mind the semi-rant from the new person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like AlexInYT's post
20-01-2013, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2013 05:25 PM by FSM_scot.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(13-08-2012 04:03 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Just to clarify... as a liberal, the idea of banning anything is nauseating to me. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to do... so long as it harms nobody else. Of course, there are individuals who are perfectly competent at using guns, and are very little danger to themselves, let alone to others... but the bigger picture (as evidenced by the statistics) is that America has a problem due to a lack of proper controls.

I'm trying my best to withdraw from the argument (believe it or not) because I am well aware that some people will just never accept that there is an argument for the greater good, that necessitates greater controls than currently exist. The greatest annoyance is when some Americans give (what they consider good) reasons for the status quo... stated as if the USA somehow has a society that is so totally different to the rest of the civilised world.

Point out the errors in one of their defence points and they'll switch to one of the others... which (mainly) consist of:-

Self defence (against criminals)
Self defence (against the government)
Hunting
Vermin control

Guns are meant to kill things. If you are a farmer and killing things makes the difference between success and failure... then you are justified in the use of a gun. If you are in an urban setting, one of the "costs" of having lots of neighbours is that your actions allow for their well-being. In that setting, vermin control should be done by professionals.

Hunting... is a sport, for entertainment purposes. If it makes the difference between a broken society and a tiny minority enjoying a sport... it is arguable that there are grounds to limit hunting (possibly to extinction) for the greater good. At the very least, rifles (and only rifles) will make the country safer.

Self defence... take all of the guns out of society and that is no longer a necessity. Removing them all isn't an easy task, and I won't pretend that it is... but with amnesties for hand-ins and severe penalties for illegal ownership... over time, the USA will be a safer place to live. The extremities of criminal society will still have guns, but they'll primarily be used against other criminals.
I'm not suggesting that this is a course towards a gun-free Utopia. It will, however, be a course towards a safer country.

As a footnote, I have a lot of American family members. A cousin once suggested that I move there. There are 3 reasons why I couldn't live in America:-

Religion
Healthcare
Guns
Seriously fuck this asshole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: