• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Axiom_Blade said:
Nobody's trying to outlaw BB guns. I'm certainly not. I have no problem with people hitting tin cans, clay pigeons, etc. I am also not trying to outlaw water guns, Nerf guns, or paintball guns.
Click to expand...
Some are.

http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisc...da-and-state-law-disagree/Content?oid=2174412

According to the San Francisco Police Department, that's the response befitting anyone hoping to own a BB gun — or even a paintball gun — within city limits. No one, they say, may own a BB gun — even if you keep it in a gun safe alongside your legal firearms.
Click to expand...

Ranb
 
Yuchi1 said:
IIRC, Utah has allowed CCW in schools for decades and (IIRC) there have been no mass shootings in that states' schools.
Click to expand...

So I assume your position is legalizing CCW for schools in other states.

I, personally, would like to hear your opinions on other aspects of gun ownership. Can you elaborate on the rest of your position?
Background checks?
Insurance?
Other issues discussed in this thread?
 
Last edited:
The demographics say that fewer and fewer households have guns while more and more guns enter the system. Eventually we will have a bunch of crazy people with arsenals and they will not be a large enough political force to maintain the second amendment, and we will finally repeal it and take away their sex toys.
 
Noztradamus said:
Tell the Brady Bunch. According to them, rising 3000 cute 4 year old girls die by guns every year

https://thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/gun-nuts14.jpg
Click to expand...

When I made that post, it was in regards to the comparison between guns and blunt objects. Why is one more frightening than the other.

My claim was that with a drive-by blunt object beating you can't accidentally "hit a child in a house" nearby.

Naturally that brought the gun hugger to reply about some statistics regarding children being shot. Which wasn't the point. The point was and still is that you have essentially zero chance of getting killed by a stray swing and a miss with a baseball bat. Not so with a gun.
 
Ladewig said:
So I assume your position is legalizing CCW for schools in other states.

I, personally, would like to hear your opinions on other aspects of gun ownership. Can you elaborate on the rest of your position?
Background checks?
Insurance?
Other issues discussed in this thread?
Click to expand...


Sir/Madam,

Yes, to the first question and the why is simply the fact perpetrators of these mass killings have an established pattern of hitting "soft targets" which are predominately areas where CCW is forbidden. Naysayers to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves.

A citizen's right to self defense is well rooted in english common law and modern firearms have a high degree of efficacy in such actions especially for those with age/health related impediments to physical exertion.

Using lethal force is not something to be taken lightly and thankfully, I have not had to experience such like my son did when deployed in Iraq. Even though it was a war situation, he will carry those images forever as Matt has stated, you never forget the sound a human makes just as it dies or the smell of burning flesh.

Background checks? Yes, to private sales (as they are currently done for commercial sales) as they could simply be facilitated through a FFL holder as most vendors at gunshows are so licensed.

Insurance? Not really as insurance companies already dictate so much of our daily activities of life. With a CWL (Oklahoma) and the use of lethal force, if found by the local DA to be justified, you are exempt from civil suit by any other party.

It would be nice to live in a Utopian Society but the reality is not conducive to such and the justifiable fear many have from social engineering attempts is the historical context that governments tend to become drunk with power once the tipping point is reached as after all, humans run them.
 
NoahFence said:
When I made that post, it was in regards to the comparison between guns and blunt objects. Why is one more frightening than the other.

My claim was that with a drive-by blunt object beating you can't accidentally "hit a child in a house" nearby.

Naturally that brought the gun hugger to reply about some statistics regarding children being shot. Which wasn't the point. The point was and still is that you have essentially zero chance of getting killed by a stray swing and a miss with a baseball bat. Not so with a gun.
Click to expand...

You also have a ~12:1 chance of choking to death from food than getting hit by a stray bullet as well as from other daily activities.*

* http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts.aspx
 
NoahFence said:
My claim was that with a drive-by blunt object beating you can't accidentally "hit a child in a house" nearby.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we can at least find common ground in your lack of opposition to hollow point bullets.
 
Yuchi1 said:
Yes, to the first question and the why is simply the fact perpetrators of these mass killings have an established pattern of hitting "soft targets" which are predominately areas where CCW is forbidden. Naysayers to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
Only if you cherry pick your data.

Was Chris Kyle a soft target? Was Keith Ratliff a soft target? Both were armed and well trained to respond to danger. Both shot.

How about a military base? Are they "soft targets"?

Shootings at U.S. military bases over the years - USA Today

Now, there are millions of places with no guns that no one ever mass kills people in. You of course ignore them and do so dishonestly as it's been pointed out to you time and again. So, you are wrong on about every level.
 
RandFan said:
Only if you cherry pick your data.

Was Chris Kyle a soft target? Was Keith Ratliff a soft target? Both were armed and well trained to respond to danger. Both shot.
Click to expand...

Neither of these was a mass shooting, so they aren't really relevant to the claim.

How about a military base? Are they "soft targets"?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, they basically are. Very few military personnel are allowed to carry weapons on base, and you can't carry concealed.
 
NoahFence said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

Hollow point bullets reduce over-penetration, and thus reduce the risk to people (including children) who might be on the other side of a wall. Yet some gun control advocates want to ban them, despite this important safety advantage.

I'm assuming that you are not among the people who want to ban hollow point bullets, since you obviously recognize the risk posed by over-penetrating rounds.
 
Ziggurat said:
Neither of these was a mass shooting, so they aren't really relevant to the claim.
Click to expand...
Completely relevant. Having a gun doesn't mean it will protect you.

Actually, yes, they basically are. Very few military personnel are allowed to carry weapons on base, and you can't carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Stop. I thought that if we put armed gaurds at school it would make them less of a soft target. What if there were also police there?

Armed guards & base police were at Fort Hood, TX
 
Ziggurat said:
Hollow point bullets reduce over-penetration, and thus reduce the risk to people (including children) who might be on the other side of a wall. Yet some gun control advocates want to ban them, despite this important safety advantage.

I'm assuming that you are not among the people who want to ban hollow point bullets, since you obviously recognize the risk posed by over-penetrating rounds.
Click to expand...

What are the arguments for banning them?
 
Ziggurat said:
Hollow point bullets reduce over-penetration, and thus reduce the risk to people (including children) who might be on the other side of a wall. Yet some gun control advocates want to ban them, despite this important safety advantage.

I'm assuming that you are not among the people who want to ban hollow point bullets, since you obviously recognize the risk posed by over-penetrating rounds.
Click to expand...
I'm neither for nor against them. I only know that they typically transfer all kinetic energy when they enter a body thus increasing the likelihood of death.

So, when the neighborhood kid finds his fathers gun and shoots his friend on accident we can be certain that there is a much better chance of the child dying if there are hollow point bullets.

You don't need a gun. If you want one that is your right. If you think your life is at risk without one in every day situations then you are just irrational. Please don't try to convince other people the sky is falling and they need to run out and get a gun with hollow points to protect themselves.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Completely relevant. Having a gun doesn't mean it will protect you.
Click to expand...

And wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean it will protect you either.

Honestly, RF, you should know better than to try that argument. Protective measures do not need to be perfect to be worthwhile. You have demonstrated that being armed is not a perfect protective measure, but nothing about these two examples tells is that being armed never works, or even that it's not worthwhile.

Stop. I thought that if we put armed gaurds at school it would make them less of a soft target. What if there were also police there?
Click to expand...

Guards (armed or not) do nothing to prevent the entry of someone who is authorized to enter, as Hassan was. Nobody in the room where Hassan started his killing spree was armed. Nobody in that was allowed to be armed. Hassan knew that nobody there was allowed to be armed. The fact that there were armed guards somewhere else doesn't change that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom