• 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

NoahFence said:
What are the arguments for banning them?
Click to expand...

Hollow points expand when they hit the target, so they're seen as deadlier. (And as Zig pointed out, the same qualities that make them "deadlier" also make them safer to use in self-defense situations, especially in close quarters.)

Some people also think hollow points are "armor piercing." These are the same people who think the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle," but they feel very strongly about it.
 
Last edited:
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...
Not soft targets. But shot by someone they trusted enough to make a gun available to. Sometimes the biggest threat comes from within. The WTC attacks are an example as is the DC Navy Yard shooting and others.

RandFan said:
How about a military base? Are they "soft targets"?
Click to expand...
They sure can be. Walk around a military base sometime; the parts that are open to anyone. Other than base security and those who are at firing ranges, there isn't really any guns to be seen. This makes them a very soft target to someone who wants to kill people without much thought of escaping. Not so soft when it comes time to evade after the deed is done. As far as I know most of the shooters on military bases seemed to think a body count was more important than escaping to kill another day.

Ranb
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a straw man. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I never said having a gun wasn't worthwhile. I said you don't need one.
 
RandFan said:
What do you need a gun for? Why don't I need one?
Click to expand...

Depends on the person and the situation.

Someone who lives in rural Alaska or manages livestock in Montana might not "need" a gun in the strictest sense, but going without would be a pretty bad idea.
 
Ranb said:
Not soft targets. But shot by someone they trusted enough to make a gun available to. Sometimes the biggest threat comes from within.
Click to expand...
Like when someone shoots their spouse. Or the kid next door whose father has a gun.

Guns are not the problem. Our attitudes about guns are the problem. The belief that guns solve problems or gives us bigger egos.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Like when someone shoots their spouses. Or the kid next door whose father has a gun.

Guns are not the problem. Our attitudes about guns are the problem. The belief that guns solve problems or gives us bigger egos.
Click to expand...

They solve one problem pretty well - figuring out what I'll be doing for the next 20 years to life.
 
Cleon said:
Depends on the person and the situation.

Someone who lives in rural Alaska or manages livestock in Montana might not "need" a gun in the strictest sense, but going without would be a pretty bad idea.
Click to expand...
I did say in "every day" circumstances. In any event, I grew up on a farm in a rural area of Utah. Everyone had guns but I've not a clue what the connection is between guns and managing livestock on a modern farm would be. Unless you are talking about predators. It's not that frequent of an occurrence, well, not for anyone I know of. It may well be that predation is worse in Montana. Sorry if I'm coming off as condescending. I didn't mean to be.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
Another opportunity to see reactions from the...er...gun hobbyists, when their toy of choice is used to kill a bunch of people.



Right.
Which is scarier...Dylann Roof with an icepick?
Dylann Roof with a kitchen knife?
Or Dylann Roof with a gun?
Click to expand...
Dylan Roof with intent to kill.

As long as we have Dylann Roofs walking around (and we will), why make it easier for them to kill people?
Click to expand...

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
Lives saved and crimes prevented by guns. Any critical thinker worth his salt would always want as much data possible before they came down on one side or the other.


That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. I can understand it, though. I mean, if I sold a gun to somebody who used it to kill 9 people, it would weigh heavily on my conscience. If only we could detect these "mentally ill" folks before they go on a killing rampage!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's a crock of horse pucky. Any person who sells liquor, cigs, etc., would, according to your logic, "...it would weigh heavily on my conscience."

One way to look at the situation is this: there are basically, three groups of people who own and use guns:
1. The govt. They have the biggest, the baddest and the most.
2. Criminals. Not nearly as many, by far, but still some pretty nasty ones. Also, many of these criminals have intent to use them at some time.
3. We, The People. Again, not nearly as many as the govt. and not as sophisticated by far.

We know that the govt. will always have their guns and weapons, as well they should, but have, on occasion, used them on the people.

We know that criminals will always have them. If they banned all guns today, the price of illegal firearms would sky rocket through the roof tomorrow.

So the most important group, the people, are unarmed and can't defend themselves from bad guys on the street or in the "White House". Why would people like yourself and Pelosi want to "bare your breast to the blade of the aggressor"?
 
RandFan said:
What do you need a gun for? Why don't I need one?
Click to expand...

I personally don't need one, and I don't have one. But I live in a low-crime area, I'm not a rancher, I'm not a hunter, and I'm not a sport shooter.

I have no idea whether or not you need one. I expect you to be able to make that decision yourself, but I also expect you to let me make that decision for myself as well.
 
RandFan said:
This is a straw man. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I never said having a gun wasn't worthwhile. I said you don't need one.
Click to expand...

I still don't know what you mean by "need". Nor do I know why whether or not guns are needed is relevant.
 
jakesteele said:
Why would people like yourself and Pelosi want to "bare your breast to the blade of the aggressor"?
Click to expand...

Pelosi will never bare her breast (thank god! :covereyes), to an aggressor or otherwise. She'll hire armed security. Just like all the other rich advocates of gun control.
 
Yuchi1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I am less interested in changing people's opinions as I am learning about precisely what their opinions are and how they reached them.
 
Ziggurat said:
I personally don't need one, and I don't have one. But I live in a low-crime area, I'm not a rancher, I'm not a hunter, and I'm not a sport shooter.

I have no idea whether or not you need one. I expect you to be able to make that decision yourself, but I also expect you to let me make that decision for myself as well.
Click to expand...
Of course. I only want to change attitudes not laws. I don't think our laws are the problem. I don't think guns are the problem. I think the idea that guns are needed to keep one safe is part of a much larger problem.
 
Ziggurat said:
I still don't know what you mean by "need". Nor do I know why whether or not guns are needed is relevant.
Click to expand...
I made it quite clear. Most people do not need a gun for safety in most every day situations. If you have a gun and I don't, on average, you are no more safer than I am.

I want people, not you particularly, to understand that a person can live a perfectly happy and well adjusted life without guns. We don't need new laws.
 
RandFan said:
I made it quite clear. Most people do not need a gun for safety in most every day situations. If you have a gun and I don't, on average, you are no more safer than I am.
Click to expand...

This is not a very useful statement. Very few people are actually "average", and net gun safety/risk statistics are highly contaminated from gun owners who are involved in risky criminal activities (notably but not exclusively the drug trade). The average says basically nothing about individuals, some of whom may very well lower their risk by obtaining a gun. A home invasion is not an "every day situation", but if you live in a high-crime area, it can be a very significant risk, and a gun can do a lot to protect you in such situations. And people are frequently very aware of the individual circumstances of their lives which may separate them from the average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom