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
25-04-2014, 07:51 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You aren't actually understanding any of the posts, are you? Why do you keep talking about assault rifles?

Criminals are not 'gun owners', they are people illegally in possession of a firearm, usually a handgun.

Using a handgun in self defense does not make one a criminal.

He keeps talking about assault rifles (a definition he doesn't understand since he keeps calling them "semi-automatic") because he lumps them into one category of simply gun.

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
25-04-2014, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2014 08:57 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You aren't actually understanding any of the posts, are you? Why do you keep talking about assault rifles?
The 4th and 5th option in this poll is with regards to assault rifles.
Quote:Pistols but not AR(s)
Assualt Rifles
My very first post in this thread was with regards to assault rifles.
(23-04-2014 02:46 AM)Stevil Wrote:  What the fuck does a civilian in a civilised country need an AK47 for?

I had a conversation with itsnotmeitsyou who said for sport shooting but since changed his tack and said for defense.
War Horse suggested for defense.
itsnotmeitsyou cited one incident where some Koreans were under attack by an angry rioting mob and suggested that they needed an AK.

You and Cathy just simply get upset because I'm not using the right technical terms (e.g. assault rifle vs semi automatic).
Let's get this straight. I couldn't care less if something is termed an assault rifle. The problem is that the gun is suitable for rapid fire into a crowd of people. If an assault rifle means that it has a semi automatic function then that is the problem, if it has fully automatic function then that is even worse.

I think your stance that a single person could defend themselves against an "army" of armed people is a Rambo dream. And I think the fear that this (a riot headed toward you in your house) will happen to you, thus you need to be prepared is irrational. You are more likely to be swept away by a tornado than be in this situation.

Making semi-automatic rifles available (as well as large magazines) are overkill with regards to self defense and on the flip they provide much opportunity for some people who what to do drive by shootings or simply go into a crowd and kill as many people as they can.


(25-04-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Criminals are not 'gun owners', they are people illegally in possession of a firearm, usually a handgun.

Using a handgun in self defense does not make one a criminal.
Just waving your hand doesn't magically change the meaning of words. An owner is a person whom has possession of something. A gun owner is a person whom possesses a gun.
In my country if your life isn't in threat, if a person is stealing your car or if an unarmed person is in your house and is not threatening your life then you are a criminal if you shoot them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 06:03 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And there is still data to back up the fact that most break ins - irrespective of whether the owner is home (really, as if that makes any difference?) - vs accidental drunks
Of course it makes a difference of whether you are home or not. You only want a gun at home for self defence if you are at home while the uninvited guest comes into your home.
Most thieves don't want a confrontation hence most thefts occur when you are not home.
It does no good to lump these together unless you are intentionally being disingenuous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 08:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  You aren't actually understanding any of the posts, are you? Why do you keep talking about assault rifles?
The 4th and 5th option in this poll is with regards to assault rifles.
Quote:Pistols but not AR(s)
Assualt Rifles
My very first post in this thread was with regards to assault rifles.
(23-04-2014 02:46 AM)Stevil Wrote:  What the fuck does a civilian in a civilised country need an AK47 for?

I had a conversation with itsnotmeitsyou who said for sport shooting but since changed his tack and said for defense.
War Horse suggested for defense.
itsnotmeitsyou cited one incident where some Koreans were under attack by an angry rioting mob and suggested that they needed an AK.

You and Cathy just simply get upset because I'm not using the right technical terms (e.g. assault rifle vs semi automatic).
Let's get this straight. I couldn't care less if something is termed an assault rifle. The problem is that the gun is suitable for rapid fire into a crowd of people. If an assault rifle means that it has a semi automatic function then that is the problem, if it has fully automatic function then that is even worse.

The least used firearm in crimes is the fully automatic rifle (assault rifle), followed by the semi-automatic rifle. The most often used is the handgun, by a huge margin.

And there is a huge difference between full- and semi-auto.

That is the reason I ask why you continue to concentrate on assault rifles - they are not the problem.

And the terminology matters a great deal - it's called communication. We have to understand what we are talking about. You apparently don't care about accuracy or communication.

Quote:I think your stance that a single person could defend themselves against an "army" of armed people is a Rambo dream. And I think the fear that this (a riot headed toward you in your house) will happen to you, thus you need to be prepared is irrational. You are more likely to be swept away by a tornado than be in this situation.

No, I was referring to the mob situation where the Korean business owners were protecting there property. We're talking about mobs - not armies.

Quote:Making semi-automatic rifles available (as well as large magazines) are overkill with regards to self defense and on the flip they provide much opportunity for some people who what to do drive by shootings or simply go into a crowd and kill as many people as they can.

No, they are not overkill for self defense. And those who commit those crimes have obtained their guns illegally.

Quote:
(25-04-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Criminals are not 'gun owners', they are people illegally in possession of a firearm, usually a handgun.

Using a handgun in self defense does not make one a criminal.
Just waving your hand doesn't magically change the meaning of words. An owner is a person whom has possession of something. A gun owner is a person whom possesses a gun.

You are the one doing the hand waving. "Gun owner" in the context of the gun debate always refers to legal gun owners.

Quote:In my country if your life isn't in threat, if a person is stealing your car or if an unarmed person is in your house and is not threatening your life then you are a criminal if you shoot them.

I am not in your country.

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
25-04-2014, 11:47 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2014 02:27 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  The least used firearm in crimes is the fully automatic rifle (assault rifle), followed by the semi-automatic rifle. The most often used is the handgun, by a huge margin.

And there is a huge difference between full- and semi-auto.

That is the reason I ask why you continue to concentrate on assault rifles - they are not the problem.
OK, let's take the bullshit about whether something is called an assault rifle, a semi-automatic or a fully automatic out of the equation.

Let's instead talk about danger and necessity.

A rifle which fires lots of bullets in succession and which allows a person to keep aim and fire multiple shots, this gun poses risk because it can be used for mass shootings in crowded areas like schools, malls, movie theatres...

I would imagine that most people, even gun people would deem such a rifle either cumbersome to carry around or overkill for personal self defence hence most guns in population are pistols and hence most gun crimes reflect the guns which are prevalent and easy to conceal.

Now if a rifle which fires lots of bullets in succession and which allows a person to keep aim and fire multiple shots isn't required for personal defence and isn't required for sport shooting then why have them in circulation if they can and are used in mass shootings, drive by shootings?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2014, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2014 02:12 AM by Stevil.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not in your country.
There certainly seems to be some kind of propaganda game going on in USA.
It's very hard to do internet research on this topic and come up with decisive conclusions.

It seems the pro gun, anti gun control people cite the LA riots and the Korean defensive as their poster child in support for civilian ownership of assault rifles.
This is a one off, one incident and no-one knows how many lives were saved by the Korean defense.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/wh...koreatown/
Quote:During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured.
Quote:Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons. Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood.

By the end of the day storeowners had slain four looters and fended off the mob. It would be 24 more hours until the National Guard arrived and another two days before the riots were completely put down.

On the other side of the argument I find this on the internet.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...otings-map
Quote:Since 1982, there have been at least 67 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013

Quote:Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines.
[Image: new_guns_630_0228_0.png]

Also another interesting article here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ed-states/
This article BTW pointed to the one above

Quote:15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
The South is the most violent region in the United States
More guns tend to mean more homicide.
States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence
Of course I don't know whether these articles are true or not. Just highlighting these, I'm not promoting them as verified truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2014, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2014 07:27 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(25-04-2014 09:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 06:03 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And there is still data to back up the fact that most break ins - irrespective of whether the owner is home (really, as if that makes any difference?) - vs accidental drunks
Of course it makes a difference of whether you are home or not. You only want a gun at home for self defence if you are at home while the uninvited guest comes into your home.
Most thieves don't want a confrontation hence most thefts occur when you are not home.
It does no good to lump these together unless you are intentionally being disingenuous.

You understand that self defense occurs outside the home as well? I carry a pistol on my body at all times. It doesn't matter where I am.

Self defense doesn't not mean home defense.

My stickler for the terms is important because the subtle nuance actually changes what you are talking about. If you say "semi-automatic firearms", you include pistols and revolvers in that discussion.

The part that is sad is that you are emotionally reacting to something based upon your fear of the unknown. Your gun knowledge and what each gun "can do" is completely irrational! You think that the AR is dangerous because of the "quick succession" of the firing mechanism.

Quote:A rifle which fires lots of bullets in succession and which allows a person to keep aim and fire multiple shots, this gun poses risk because it can be used for mass shootings in crowded areas like schools, malls, movie theatres...

Pistols can fire quickly as well. And since you've never fired an AR, how do you know it doesn't cause you to lose aim? Do you have any idea how strong the kickback is?

Do you know how fast I can empty my gun with maximum mag capacity (10 rounds)? Less than 5 seconds. Do you know how fast I can change my magazine in my 9 mm pistol and chamber a round? Less than 3 seconds. Do you know how many targets I can hit with 10 rounds? 10.

Again, since you don't know anything about guns, you are using Hollywood knowledge of how a gun fires, which guns cause the most damage, and which gun is more "dangerous." And it's completely incorrect. You want to keep people safe, yet you are focused on the smallest part. You keep talking about drive by shootings. You understand that those are not committed with ARs but with handguns. Only in Hollywood does a magazine contain 500 rounds with no need to reload.

The problem with rights is that it's not tantamount to needs. I don't "need" to call a politician a dickhead. I don't need to say anything. But I can. I don't see a "need" for an assault rifle (they are mainly illegal anyway) but an assault rifle is no more deadly than a revolver. You only think this because you don't understand that the mechanics of each gun (they are ultimately the same) and have the same capacity for destruction.

Did you know more people die from shotguns than all massacre style shootings in one year. But since an AR feels more dangerous to you, you object to only them.

That's very sad for your country where the rights of a criminal to be in your house trump your ability to protect yourself. In my country, if someone breaks into your home, they have the ability to cause you harm. If I tell the intruder to leave, and he does, then I can't shoot him in the back. But if he ignores my instructions to leave, I can protect myself and my home under Castle Law.

It's ironic that you keep telling us that these scenarios are "Rambo Hollywood" yet you imagine how gun owners react using your Hollywood knowledge.

Btw - have you ever seen a gun fire? It's not like it is in the movies. The sound of the gun is minimal (in real life, pistol is LOUD), there is no recoil (depending on which gun I'm firing, my hand flips up 45 degrees after each shot.

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
26-04-2014, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2014 07:52 AM by Chas.)
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(26-04-2014 01:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-04-2014 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not in your country.
There certainly seems to be some kind of propaganda game going on in USA.
It's very hard to do internet research on this topic and come up with decisive conclusions.

It seems the pro gun, anti gun control people cite the LA riots and the Korean defensive as their poster child in support for civilian ownership of assault rifles.
This is a one off, one incident and no-one knows how many lives were saved by the Korean defense.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/wh...koreatown/
Quote:During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured.
Quote:Rhee claimed that the storeowners shot off 500 rounds into the sky and ground in order to break up the masses of people. The only weapons able to clear that much ammo in a very short time are assault weapons. Single shot pistols or rifles might not have been able to deter the crowd hell-bent on destroying the neighborhood.

By the end of the day storeowners had slain four looters and fended off the mob. It would be 24 more hours until the National Guard arrived and another two days before the riots were completely put down.

On the other side of the argument I find this on the internet.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...otings-map
Quote:Since 1982, there have been at least 67 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Thirty of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. Seven of them took place in 2012, and another five occurred in 2013

Quote:Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines.
[Image: new_guns_630_0228_0.png]

Also another interesting article here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ed-states/
This article BTW pointed to the one above

Quote:15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.
The South is the most violent region in the United States
More guns tend to mean more homicide.
States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence
Of course I don't know whether these articles are true or not. Just highlighting these, I'm not promoting them as verified truth.

Look, until you are willing to learn some actual facts about firearms, you are not worth my time.

Talking about this with you is like talking to a creationist about evolution.
The articles you cite are full of factual errors and bias, you are unwilling to learn anything about the subject, and what you do 'know' is wrong. You're just regurgitating pre-chewed baloney.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-04-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
How is the south the most violent part of the US? According to the FBI, only 1 of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US is in the south, Birmingham, AL at number 10. Most of the rest are in the north.
http://www.examiner.com/article/most-dan...s-2014-fbi

By state they are kind of spread around.
http://www.examiner.com/article/most-dan...ted-states

I am of mixed feeling on gun control laws. I grew up really rural so guns were a part of life. We used them for hunting. We were and are not the TV cajuns so take that image out of your head. I was taught at a young age the dangers of guns and how to properly handle them.

I think guns have a valid place in the US, for hunting, target shooting and self defense. We go have problems with the current laws. There are reasonable things that could be do to make the public safer while keeping gun ownership legal. Training, licensing, mandatory safe storage, tougher sentencing for gun crimes, just to name a few. The big problem I see with a gun ban is there are so many unregistered guns and criminals that would not surrender their guns that we could have a crime wave if legal gun ownership was taken away. Also, any measure to limit the functionality of the guns will also only negatively impact the law abiding citizen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like wazzel's post
26-04-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: Atheists; Gun Rights Acknowledgement
(26-04-2014 07:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You understand that self defense occurs outside the home as well? I carry a pistol on my body at all times. It doesn't matter where I am.

Self defense doesn't not mean home defense.
We were talking specifically about the situation of a uninvited person in your home at the same time as you. Whether they are likely to be a person wanting to do physical harm to you or whether they are likely to be a confussed drunk person.
It makes no sense to switch the emphasis like you have done. This is deflection.

(26-04-2014 07:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  My stickler for the terms is important because the subtle nuance actually changes what you are talking about. If you say "semi-automatic firearms", you include pistols and revolvers in that discussion.
Yes, I am concerned about the dangers that the gun presents rather than the label put on the gun. If you have a semi automatic rifle with a 50 round mag then it is similar to a semi automatic pistol with a 50 round mag.
Of course the rifle will be much more accurate though, but the pistol is easier to conceal.

It would make no sense what-so-ever for me to get scared of the ability for a gun to switch between firing modes. It is the modes themselves that present the danger rather than the ability to switch between them.

(26-04-2014 07:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Do you know how fast I can empty my gun with maximum mag capacity (10 rounds)? Less than 5 seconds. Do you know how fast I can change my magazine in my 9 mm pistol and chamber a round? Less than 3 seconds. Do you know how many targets I can hit with 10 rounds? 10.
The bizzare thing, when talking to anti gun restriction people is that they often use these silly arguments.
Oh but I can fire off heaps of rounds very quickly even with a pump action, Oh but a person is more likely to die with a stab wound than with a bullet wound. Oh, I'd rather die quickly by a bullet than a lengthy death by a knife.

If these people really think knives or bolt action guns or pump actions guns or pistols are so dangerous then how do they reconcile that armies go in with assault rifles at the ready rather than their knives unsheathed?

How does a person reconcile that they can sit atop their roof alone and fight off an "army" of armed rioters when USA sends tens of thousands of people to war. Why don't USA just send one elite soldier to win the war? Rambo could do it right?


(26-04-2014 07:04 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Btw - have you ever seen a gun fire?
I've been skeet shooting, I've shot and killed magpies with a shot gun. I have shot and killed possums, rabbits and cats with a 22, I have shot and killed rabbits, and birds with several air rifles, I have used an air pistol. I have used pistols, and a 308 at a shooting range. I have had a fire arms licence which I gained by taking some courses, sitting a test and having a background check done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: