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
24-04-2014, 07:42 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2014 07:45 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 06:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 06:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My contrabutions to this thread has been with regards to whether a civilian in a civilised country needs a semi automatic such as an AK47.

ahhh...I guess i missed that. However, all semi-automatics? Do you know what Semi-automatic means? Or what automatic means? Because you seem to keep focusing on semi-automatic as though this makes the firearm more lethal.
I presume the following
- automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and several bullets come out depending on the duration of my squeeze.
- semi automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and one bullet comes out, I squeeze again and another comes out. I don't need to reload, I can simply fire off many shots in quick succession. A semi is more lethal than a bolt action because with bolt action you need to reload which takes time and makes you lose your aim. Of course some people can be quick with a bolt action or a pump action and hence large magazines ought to be restricted too.
If a hunter can't hit a deer or a rabbit in a couple of shots then there is a problem. A target shooter isn't generally in a hurry to get a large amount of shots off.

I assume fully automatic guns are already illegal in USA?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 06:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  ahhh...I guess i missed that. However, all semi-automatics? Do you know what Semi-automatic means? Or what automatic means? Because you seem to keep focusing on semi-automatic as though this makes the firearm more lethal.
I presume the following
- automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and several bullets come out depending on the duration of my squeeze.
- semi automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and one bullet comes out, I squeeze again and another comes out. I don't need to reload, I can simply fire off many shots in quick succession.

I assume fully automatic guns are already illegal in USA?

New fully automatic weapons, yes. Guns made before the ban, no. Although if I recall, there are permits that can be had to allow them, though stringent. Though I've done no research on the permits as I don't really care as they don't interest me.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2014 08:11 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you buy a gun for self defence then you are preparing yourself for a shoot out.
You yourself said "Wow" when I suggested that I would flee a situation where people were being shot. It seems you think I should join the fun and start shooting.

No, I just hope that if you had a chance to end the threat you would. Not just look out for yourself. But to each his own.


(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is rubbish, There are many gun owners that mug people or rob shops by pointing guns at people without being in imminent danger themselves.

huh? Anytime someone points a gun at you, you are in imminent danger. And gun owners do not rob people at gunpoint. Criminals rob people, but again, we've already established, several times, that "gun owners" when I use it, means lawful, responsible gun ownership. My need to repeat this to you is frustrating. Concentrate please.

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You reach for your own gun and the person pointing a gun at you will have no choice but to pull the trigger.

haha...First of all, no gun owner would reach for their gun if another gun is on them. They would wait until it was safe to do so. But regardless, it really wouldn't matter since most people who point guns intent to shoot. Whether he shot me then, or shot me later, it really wouldn't matter.

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, I think teachers and school students should be banned from bringing sharp knives into school. Especially knives designed for hunting.


sharp knives? As opposed to dull knives? haha, I jest, but seriously, why stop there? A plastic knife is sharp, a pair of scissors are sharp, a dissection scalpel is sharp.....

the kid that hurt all those students didn't use a hunting knife. He used a utility knife. Thats a fucking box cutter man.



(24-04-2014 06:42 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Depends on what state you live in, but stealing your car does not fall under the Castle Law. However, if my daughter was in the backseat, I'm not gonna sit there with my thumb up my ass.
(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's fine, but I have had previous conversations with other pro-gun people that said they would shoot and potentially kill someone if they caught them stealing their car. This makes me think that some people aren't responsible enough to weild a gun.

Again, this depends on which state you live in. In Texas, for example, Castle Law applies to all of your things. In New York, only your house and the things in your house falls under Castle law.

To me, its a car, I don't care. Even in my house, its just a TV. But come toward me or my family after I've told you that I had a gun and will shoot if you come closer.....and you still proceed, well than I will fire a warning shot into your head.

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are you saying that guns never get stolen? That would be a silly thing to say.

They absolutely do. But its not as easy to steal a gun from a responsible owner as you were suggesting. As though they were out in the open like your TV.

Cars get stolen too...and often used in a commission of a further crime. Doesn't make the car more dangerous though...



(24-04-2014 06:42 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Gun owners call 911, and announce that they have a gun. Most gun owners don't leave their doors unlocked for an unknown drug person to come strolling on in. You are really being silly now. As I said before.....

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This stuff happens. In some states in USA gun owner have no obligation to call 911 or to announce they have a gun or to assess if there is any threat. They have cart blance licence to kill people if they should have the misfortune to stumble onto their property.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30...55535.html
He thought she was holding a torch so he shot at her. Later he called 911.

sure. Thats unfortunate. But you can hardly disagree that the majority of people that "have the misfortune of stumbling" into your home are not there because they are mistaken. I've never accidentally walked into someone's house. I've never had anyone "accidentally" walk into my house.

also, "They said they demanded repeatedly that she leave and even warned they had a gun"

Did you actually read the article or did you just assume it supported your point? They repeatedly warned her. They did everthing they could NOT to shoot her.

I probably would have shot her too. They had no way of knowing what was wrong wit her. Drunkenness does not excuse breaking and entering, even if it was a mistake. Seems odd that your real beef here isn't the abuse of alcohol in this instance. If she wasn't that drunk, she wouldn't have created that situation. So lets ban all alcohol.

(24-04-2014 05:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Not true. the NRA supports background checks, as do most gun owners. We want sensible and effective gun regulation. Not bureaucratic restrictions that do nothing (like banning barrel shrouds)

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  http://www.ehow.com/about_4799052_gun-ba...-laws.html
[quote]
The Straw Purchase Loophole
The Brady Law is actually relatively easy to circumvent, through "straw purchases." This is when a person purchases a gun through a surrogate. Only the purchaser receives a background check. Straw purchases are technically illegal under a 1968 law, but gifts are not, granting a very large loophole to any surrogate who has a demonstrable relationship with the person who actually wants the gun.

The Gun Show Loophole
Another loophole is that the law applies only to licensed dealers. Non-licensed dealers can still sell firearms, subject to other federal, state or local regulations, and without making background checks. This exemption for private sales has been dubbed the "Gun Show Loophole," as these events are where many of those transactions take place.

Right. So again, you misunderstnad that the NRA, and the majority of gun owners wants regulation that make sense. Background checks for all owners. Well, great, that doesn't solve the problem. Kinda like the TSA. They look like they are doing something...but its little more than show and an inconvenience. They are just so dedicated to keeping bottled water out of the sky. We aren't objecting to background checks. We are objecting to background checks how its currently proposed

(24-04-2014 06:42 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  again, completely ignorant of everything. http://www.examiner.com/article/attempte...ed-citizen

and here are a bunch of other thwarted robberies.

http://k2radio.com/gun-carrying-employee...l-robbery/

http://nashua.patch.com/groups/police-an...r_03618622

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/07/1...-real-gun/
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/i...f_rob.html

Need I continue? Or have I made my point that your point was completely, and utterly, wrong.

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am sure there are some success stories, it does not thwart my point.

Actually, it does.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
24-04-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:24 PM)=jesse= Wrote:  So Stevil, what do you for defending your family? Let's just say, hypothetically, someone breaks in and is assaulting your wife or kid.

I find this a highly unlikely scenario.
But, in the event, I would try to protect my family, maybe punch the attacker, kick him in the nuts, IDK, but then run (with my family) out of the house.

(24-04-2014 07:24 PM)=jesse= Wrote:  To the comment about a drunk coming into the home, my stance is the same. I stand by the bedroom and announce I have a gun and we've called the cops. Advance towards me and get shot. Stop and obey commands, and don't get shot. Turn tail and run and don' get shot. Once the sanctity of the home is violated, your life is forfeit. I could give a shit what your reasons are. Whatever the reason is, it's not going to trump the safety of my family, and I will absolutely, without hesitation, kill, or die, to protect them.
Me personally, I'd be scared for sure. I have had situations with a person on my property late at night, but not inside the house.
What I did was to go outside and talk to this person. She was drunk, I asked her if she was OK, then I told her she was on my property, asked her where she lived or was visiting and then helped her to get to that place.

There have been a few times where I thought I heard a noise in my house late at night. I got up out of bed, unarmed and checked the house, made sure no-one was there, then went back to bed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 06:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  ahhh...I guess i missed that. However, all semi-automatics? Do you know what Semi-automatic means? Or what automatic means? Because you seem to keep focusing on semi-automatic as though this makes the firearm more lethal.
I presume the following
- automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and several bullets come out depending on the duration of my squeeze.
- semi automatic means I squeeze the trigger once and one bullet comes out, I squeeze again and another comes out. I don't need to reload, I can simply fire off many shots in quick succession. A semi is more lethal than a bolt action because with bolt action you need to reload which takes time and makes you lose your aim. Of course some people can be quick with a bolt action or a pump action and hence large magazines ought to be restricted too.
If a hunter can't hit a deer or a rabbit in a couple of shots then there is a problem. A target shooter isn't generally in a hurry to get a large amount of shots off.

I assume fully automatic guns are already illegal in USA?

You are mostly right. A revolver is a semi-automatic under your definition though.

The term automatic and semi-automatic as you are understanding it above applies to the loading mechanism not the firing capacity.

A hunter generally only gets one shot. then the target flees. However, target shooting is in a hurry to get a large amount of shots off depending on the type of shooting involved.

Why am I bothering? You don't care. You don't want to know. Is it not pointless to debate someone who already stated "I don't know and I don't want to know"?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There have been a few times where I thought I heard a noise in my house late at night. I got up out of bed, unarmed and checked the house, made sure no-one was there, then went back to bed.

Well what do you think gun owners do? Hear a noise and automatically start blowing holes in their walls? We get up, usually unarmed, and go check. I mean, really now.Facepalm

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
24-04-2014, 08:06 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 08:03 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 07:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There have been a few times where I thought I heard a noise in my house late at night. I got up out of bed, unarmed and checked the house, made sure no-one was there, then went back to bed.

Well what do you think gun owners do? Hear a noise and automatically start blowing holes in their walls? We get up, usually unarmed, and go check. I mean, really now.Facepalm

Well that's the most logical thing. If I hear so much as a thud that could be my cat, I GO GUNS'A'BLAZIN! YEEEEHAWWWWW! PEW PEW.

I'm amazed at all the people that think this is really what people do though.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
24-04-2014, 08:11 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Anytime someone points a gun at you, you are in imminent danger.
Yes, agreed
(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And gun owners do not rob people at gunpoint. Criminals rob people, but again, we've already established, several times, that "gun owners" when I use it, means lawful, responsible gun ownership. My need to repeat this to you is frustrating. Concentrate please.
I disagree with your strange definition. Criminals are gun owners too, we can't simply wave them off. Many criminals have come into guns via legitimate means.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You reach for your own gun and the person pointing a gun at you will have no choice but to pull the trigger.

haha...First of all, no gun owner would reach for their gun if another gun is on them. They would wait until it was safe to do so. But regardless, it really wouldn't matter since most people who point guns intent to shoot.
This isn't true. Most muggers or petrol station thefts at gun point end up without any shots fired.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, I think teachers and school students should be banned from bringing sharp knives into school. Especially knives designed for hunting.


sharp knives? As opposed to dull knives?
A butter knive is pretty blunt, i have no problems with butter knives at school. A plastic knife/spoon which sometimes comes with fruit, I have no concerns about those.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  the kid that hurt all those students didn't use a hunting knife. He used a utility knife. Thats a fucking box cutter man.
Yeah, I don't think children should be allowed to bring box cutters into school.


(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Are you saying that guns never get stolen? That would be a silly thing to say.

They absolutely do. But its not as easy to steal a gun from a responsible owner as you were suggesting.
Not all gun owners are responsible.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Cars get stolen too...and often used in a commission of a further crime. Doesn't make the car more dangerous though...
Cars are useful to get from A to B. Guns are useful to ...Kill people.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I probably would have shot her too. They had no way of knowing what was wrong wit her. Drunkenness does not excuse breaking and entering, even if it was a mistake.
This supports my argument. You seem like a reasonable and responsible person and yet out of your fear you would have shot someone without assertaining if this person presents a danger. All that was visable was a torch.
Drunk people, realllllly drunk people can be pretty unresponsive.

I understand your concerns and your desire to keep your own family safe in your own house, and that you don't want to take any personal risks in that situation.

It would be interesting to know the likelihood of a trespasser being an aggressive home invasion or a drunk person. I feel that it would be more likely to be a drunk person, but I have no data to back that up.

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I am sure there are some success stories, it does not thwart my point.

Actually, it does.
You assert one thing, I assert another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 08:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I disagree with your strange definition. Criminals are gun owners too, we can't simply wave them off. Many criminals have come into guns via legitimate means.

No. They aren't. It is illegal in all 50 states to own a permit for a gun (ie, concealed carry) if you have committed a felony or other violent crime.
Criminals are NOT legal gun owners.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
24-04-2014, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2014 08:42 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(24-04-2014 08:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:haha...First of all, no gun owner would reach for their gun if another gun is on them. They would wait until it was safe to do so. But regardless, it really wouldn't matter since most people who point guns intent to shoot.
This isn't true. Most muggers or petrol station thefts at gun point end up without any shots fired.

how generous of them! Maybe you should ask them to babysit since they clearly mean no harm! Please. I'm not taking that chance. Lots of muggers or petrol station thefts do shoot.


(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  the kid that hurt all those students didn't use a hunting knife. He used a utility knife. Thats a fucking box cutter man.

(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think children should be allowed to bring box cutters into school.

Agreed. but you didn't originally say box cutter. You said hunting knife. Your regulation in this instance would not have stopped this kid. See what I mean? You hear knife - you assume this huge serrated hunting knife.






When you hear gun, you assume this AK-47, or AR-15 (of which you have no idea the difference, but both sound dangerous).

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Cars get stolen too...and often used in a commission of a further crime. Doesn't make the car more dangerous though...
Quote:Cars are useful to get from A to B. Guns are useful to ...Kill people.

yeah, except when cars are used to kidnap, or traffic humans. Then its not as innocuous as getting from point A to Point B. You are right. This hollywood mentality of what if scenarios is fun!

(24-04-2014 07:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I probably would have shot her too. They had no way of knowing what was wrong wit her. Drunkenness does not excuse breaking and entering, even if it was a mistake.
Quote:This supports my argument. You seem like a reasonable and responsible person and yet out of your fear you would have shot someone without assertaining if this person presents a danger. All that was visable was a torch.
No. It doesn't. This person was clearly in an altered mental state, incapable of understanding or following directions. In my area, bath salts and meth are a huge problem. I am not a doctor, nor do I have a lab to give his person a piss test.

She got charged with several crimes..not the homeowners that shot her. So clearly, the police also didn't agree that this was oh-so-innocent.

further, if you read the damn article, it say, "Justice and his wife, Doreen Orion, are both psychiatrists. According to a 1999 online article in Psychiatric News, Orion was stalked for at least a decade by a schizophrenic woman she treated briefly at an Arizona hospital. The woman followed her to Colorado and moved into the same Boulder neighborhood, the article said."

so if you were previously stalked, and an mentally altered woman walked into your house, you wouldn't shoot?


(24-04-2014 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  . I feel that it would be more likely to be a drunk person, but I have no data to back that up.

Most break ins are not accidental. There is data to back that up. So there's that.


Quote:You assert one thing, I assert another.

You assert feelings, with no facts. Good luck with that. Thumbsup

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: