Gun control debate (merged)

[theFallGuy]

That with an hour of training, you can, like, kneel down behind a car door, and pick off the bad guys from 50 yards away with your handgun. Or hid behind a theater chair and start turkey shooting the terrorists in the balcony armed with assault rifles they converted to automatics.

I don't know any gun owners who think that. Clearly only an idiot liberal would think something like that were true. Kind of like how we are told cops should just shoot people in the knee caps to stop them.

 

[tumscalcium]

My point is that, whether its Die Hard or a John Wayne movie, the far right has a whole bunch of idiots within it who have romanticized gun ownership, and who have bought into the notion that its "cool" or "manly" to possess a gun. That one day, you could be the hero that stops terrorists (or even just a mugging).

That with an hour of training, you can, like, kneel down behind a car door, and pick off the bad guys from 50 yards away with your handgun. Or hid behind a theater chair and start turkey shooting the terrorists in the balcony armed with assault rifles they converted to automatics.

It is not impossible to find incidents where people have successfully used firearms to prevent crime. But the simple fact is that it is extremely rare combined to uses of guns to commit crime. And in terms of terrorists incidents, the claim that if everyone was strapped then they could kill off the terrorists out of the blue is just really absurd, and is based on this naivete born of Hollywood.

Who has ever brought up these scenarios, except for you of course?

Self-defense with guns happen all the time, but you seem to have romanticized what the scene actually looked like.

 

[TNsnyper20]

It is not impossible to find incidents where people have successfully used firearms to prevent crime. But the simple fact is that it is extremely rare combined to uses of guns to commit crime.

So. It's completely acceptable to instate stricter gun laws. Even if it only saves one life, it's worth it, according to your lefts stance. However having an armed citizen stop an attack and save one possibly more is not acceptable? Given that you stated there are instances where people have used firearms to stop crimes. Name one instance where having a gun free zones has stopped a crime or a shooting. You can't.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think most sane people are skeptical of the notion that some office worker with an hour long concealed weapon permit class under his belt and a Glock is going to get into an effective firefight with terrorists armed with assault rifles.

Absolutely correct. Even if that person spends hours each week at the range, jihadis are much better trained. But that isn't the issue now is it? As you are so fond of pointing out, the terrorists are not the problem, workplace violence is, and that office worker just might give everybody else a fighting chance to escape with their lives. I'll take those odds any day.

By the way, what is an assault rifle?

 

[hndog609]

He's a well known fraud.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Forget Lott...there's all kinds of studies done on defensive gun uses and what keeps coming up is that even the bottom numbers come out in the thousands.

You do know there was a CDC study, commissioned by Obama no less, that had these neat little bullet points.

“almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

Hell, I'd even be happy citing the really low estimates, you know, like 30-50K annually. That's PLENTY to support any argument as far as I'm concerned.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

And blaming guns is the coward's approach anyway...that's how it goes demonizing the inanimate. It's MUCH harder to deal with, and probably political suicide, the human aspect of firearm violence. For instance this little observation.

African American males are most affected by firearm-related violence, with “32 per 100,000” deaths. Risk factors and predictors of violence include income inequality, “diminished economic opportunities . . . high levels of family disruption” and “low levels of community participation.”

How many politicians want to seriously stick their pecker in that hornet's nest? Yeah...I don't think so either.

I happen to find this a pretty good read in general on the subject.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns

 

[lawgator1]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. The debate is getting pretty repetitive.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

typically those never exposed to guns fear them and as a result think they're the devil.

Everything about diseased brain liberals revolves around fear. Fear of life without a nanny government is the biggest among these. Fear of inanimate objects they do not understand is next.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I guarantee you if a mass shooting occurred in TN where guns are allowed, there'd be numerous armed citizens present. The numbers are growing every day.

This one I can definitely say this without reservation: Thanks Obama!

 

[hog88]

proof to support this?

.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I actually have no desire to control any aspect of your life UNLESS it affects my life and the life of my family. The last time I checked TVs and college educations don't kill anyone (at least not directly anyway). However, guns do. Again, I have no desire to take away all of your guns, but I think that more strict gun regulation is hard to argue against. If it takes you a few extra days or weeks for you to get your next gun, but that same regulation stops at least one shooting that kills innocent people and children, then don't you agree that it is more than worth it?

Do you seriously think you are solving any of these violence problems by making me wait to buy a weapon? How can you PROVE that my waiting to buy a weapon via legitimate means will stop a shooting that kills an innocent? I would love to see some empirical data to back up this asinine assertion. Are you liberals really that delusional? Nevermind, asked and answered. You idiots are shooting at the wrong people, and you think that because you cannot aim, neither can I. In a workplace shooting situation, I would rather that even YOU had a weapon than be shot dead defenseless, although from your posts, you might be the one shooting me rather than the perp due to your fear of inanimate objects that can't kill you by themselves.

 

[hndog609]

Not a terrorist, or group of terrorists, randomly spraying a crowd with an automatic weapon on a suicide mission.

That's almost like arguing 2+3=5 vs 3+2=5. It's that bad.

 

[hog88]

I actually have no desire to control any aspect of your life UNLESS it affects my life and the life of my family. The last time I checked TVs and college educations don't kill anyone (at least not directly anyway). However, guns do. Again, I have no desire to take away all of your guns, but I think that more strict gun regulation is hard to argue against. If it takes you a few extra days or weeks for you to get your next gun, but that same regulation stops at least one shooting that kills innocent people and children, then don't you agree that it is more than worth it?

The number of guns I own will never affect your life or your families life unless you or your family tries to affect mine.

 

[hog88]

Not a terrorist, or group of terrorists, randomly spraying a crowd with an automatic weapon on a suicide mission.

For every one incident you can point to where a person armed with a gun prevented crime, there are many, many others, where gun violence has taken a life.

One recent study puts it at 38 to 1.

Gun and self-defense statistics that might surprise you -- and the NRA - LA Times

Even if its just half that, or a third, or a quarter, the simple fact is that guns are used FAR MORE OFTEN to commit crime, rather than to prevent it.

If they had an automatic weapon they committed a crime before they "sprayed" anyone.

 

[theFallGuy]

I'll rely on the armed forces and law enforcement (although if I was a minority I might be a little wary of this one).

You'll be the first one to voluntarily give up all of your constitutional rights I bet. #safespace

 

[hog88]

My point is that, whether its Die Hard or a John Wayne movie, the far right has a whole bunch of idiots within it who have romanticized gun ownership, and who have bought into the notion that its "cool" or "manly" to possess a gun. That one day, you could be the hero that stops terrorists (or even just a mugging).

That with an hour of training, you can, like, kneel down behind a car door, and pick off the bad guys from 50 yards away with your handgun. Or hid behind a theater chair and start turkey shooting the terrorists in the balcony armed with assault rifles they converted to automatics.

It is not impossible to find incidents where people have successfully used firearms to prevent crime. But the simple fact is that it is extremely rare combined to uses of guns to commit crime. And in terms of terrorists incidents, the claim that if everyone was strapped then they could kill off the terrorists out of the blue is just really absurd, and is based on this naivete born of Hollywood.

At least there would be a chance. Unarmed I would just be target practice for them.

 

[bnhunt]

My point is that, whether its Die Hard or a John Wayne movie, the far right has a whole bunch of idiots within it who have romanticized gun ownership, and who have bought into the notion that its "cool" or "manly" to possess a gun. That one day, you could be the hero that stops terrorists (or even just a mugging).

That with an hour of training, you can, like, kneel down behind a car door, and pick off the bad guys from 50 yards away with your handgun. Or hid behind a theater chair and start turkey shooting the terrorists in the balcony armed with assault rifles they converted to automatics.

It is not impossible to find incidents where people have successfully used firearms to prevent crime. But the simple fact is that it is extremely rare combined to uses of guns to commit crime. And in terms of terrorists incidents, the claim that if everyone was strapped then they could kill off the terrorists out of the blue is just really absurd, and is based on this naivete born of Hollywood.

^^^ BINGO!!! I couldn't agree with you more and this encompasses the thought process of a lot of these people.

 

[hndog609]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. The debate is getting pretty repetitive.

If by "repetitive" you mean you keep coming up with the same losing arguments then I very much agree. Your best bet is to keep those arguments between yourself and those less well versed on the opposing side of your assertions.

If we agree on anything it's that we've got way, WAY too many people in this country willing to harm others for one reason or another. Having said that making it seem like the biggest issue is the inanimate objects which are sometimes used is more than just wrongheaded it's outright counterproductive.

 

[bnhunt]

Who has ever brought up these scenarios, except for you of course?

Self-defense with guns happen all the time, but you seem to have romanticized what the scene actually looked like.

Wrong - a lot of people on the right argue that they need to own guns in the event of a terrorist attack or when Obama turns the US into a Muslim state or whatever irrational crap they can come up with to support their narrative that they are entitled to unlimited gun ownership.

 

[tumscalcium]

Wrong - a lot of people on the right argue that they need to own guns in the event of a terrorist attack or when Obama turns the US into a Muslim state or whatever irrational crap they can come up with to support their narrative that they are entitled to unlimited gun ownership.

Wrong. People use them for self defense everyday.

His specific scenarios. Die hard, ducking behind cars popping people, etc... Who has said these will happen?

 

[hog88]

Wrong - a lot of people on the right argue that they need to own guns in the event of a terrorist attack or when Obama turns the US into a Muslim state or whatever irrational crap they can come up with to support their narrative that they are entitled to unlimited gun ownership.

We are per the constitution. What's so hard about this that you and your like can't grasp the concept?

 

[Grand Vol]

My point is that, whether its Die Hard or a John Wayne movie, the far right has a whole bunch of idiots within it who have romanticized gun ownership, and who have bought into the notion that its "cool" or "manly" to possess a gun. That one day, you could be the hero that stops terrorists (or even just a mugging).

That with an hour of training, you can, like, kneel down behind a car door, and pick off the bad guys from 50 yards away with your handgun. Or hid behind a theater chair and start turkey shooting the terrorists in the balcony armed with assault rifles they converted to automatics.

It is not impossible to find incidents where people have successfully used firearms to prevent crime. But the simple fact is that it is extremely rare combined to uses of guns to commit crime. And in terms of terrorists incidents, the claim that if everyone was strapped then they could kill off the terrorists out of the blue is just really absurd, and is based on this naivete born of Hollywood.

The far right, as you say, hasn't romanticized the ideal of gun ownership being "macho" by any means. Do you actually know what the fastest growing segment of gun owners is?

Women.

And the most common reason given for arming themselves? For protection. Now of course you could take said firearms away from women since the idea of gun ownership is "manly" and "macho" and inspired by John Wayne, Bruce Willis, et al and those women should know their place! Don't you know the NRA doesn't want you armed since gun ownership is a manly concept?

Oh wait...

NRA Women's Leadership Forum: Home

Women's Programs|Women's Programs

Never mind...how thoughtless of me to spoil your myth that Hollywood perpetrates the manliness of guns.

Let's face facts here, if you stoop to using fictional Hollywood movies to try to prove your point, you've lost the debate.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Wrong - a lot of people on the right argue that they need to own guns in the event of a terrorist attack or when Obama turns the US into a Muslim state or whatever irrational crap they can come up with to support their narrative that they are entitled to unlimited gun ownership.

I have 2 weapons. 1 is a government issued handgun, 1 is an AR15 with a 30 shot magazine. They are both really fun to shoot. Do I "need" the 30 shot magazine? Nope. But I like it. A lot. And it hasn't killed anybody, and won't either, contrary to your fears.

The absolute fear that you project in your posts is staggering. I am surprised you can even use the word "hunt" in your screen name without having a convulsion.

 

[Grand Vol]

Wrong - a lot of people on the right argue that they need to own guns in the event of a terrorist attack or when Obama turns the US into a Muslim state or whatever irrational crap they can come up with to support their narrative that they are entitled to unlimited gun ownership.

I'm still waiting on a response to the questions I posed to you yesterday.

Or are you taking the chicken**** method and ignoring it like LG?

 

[hog88]

I'm still waiting on a response to the questions I posed to you yesterday.

Or are you taking the chicken**** method and ignoring it like LG?

He's the little white spec.

 

[hndog609]

The far right, as you say, hasn't romanticized the ideal of gun ownership being "macho" by any means. Do you actually know what the fastest growing segment of gun owners is?

Women.

And the most common reason given for arming themselves? For protection. Now of course you could take said firearms away from women since the idea of gun ownership is "manly" and "macho" and inspired by John Wayne, Bruce Willis, et al and those women should know their place! Don't you know the NRA doesn't want you armed since gun ownership is a manly concept?

Oh wait...

NRA Women's Leadership Forum: Home

Women's Programs|Women's Programs

Never mind...how thoughtless of me to spoil your myth that Hollywood perpetrates the manliness of guns.

Let's face facts here, if you stoop to using fictional Hollywood movies to try to prove your point, you've lost the debate.

They've got their own shooting magazine now in fact.

http://www.womenandguns.com/