Firearms are for sporting and hunting

[Fudbucker]

One of the cool things about guns is that, unlike children, you can never have too many of them. As an added bonus, you don't need to pretend you love all of your guns equally.

You need a new shtick.

 

[arthwollipot]

So the 240+ instances of DGU then have what significance for you?

I just explained what significance it has for me. It completely disproves the gun advocates' claim of millions of DGU per year.

You've made it very clear you disapprove of the use of firearms in self defense, but specifically cited the use of a baseball bat.

In your pov, is a bad actor injured or killed by a would be victim somehow less of a issue if done by an impact weapon instead of a firearm?

I understand your desire for brevity - typing out complete words is hard - but where I come from "pov" is a slur used to insult and denigrate people of a low socioeconomic background, and I'd rather you chose a different way to not type out full words.

More individuals are killed in criminal acts with blunt objects (impact weapons) per year than rifles

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

Does that figure into your pov at all?

Than rifles? Yeah, sure, I totally believe that. How does it compare to handguns?

 

[BStrong]

I just explained what significance it has for me. It completely disproves the gun advocates' claim of millions of DGU per year.

I understand your desire for brevity - typing out complete words is hard - but where I come from "pov" is a slur used to insult and denigrate people of a low socioeconomic background, and I'd rather you chose a different way to not type out full words.

Than rifles? Yeah, sure, I totally believe that. How does it compare to handguns?

Point Of View.

Thanks for the non-answers though.

Apparently, the possibility that a certain number of individuals did use a firearm (usually with out firing a shot) to protect themselves remains problematic to some folks, but I understand.

It's a hell of a lot easier to dismiss folks as a group than to consider the nuances of individual situations or incidents.

It's become a mantra in the U.S. and elsewhere - all Muslims can not be blamed for the acts of a few, all illegal aliens can't be blamed (see my sig line) for the one's that murder innocent people, but every firearms owner is a deadbeat loser that is violent and/or incompetent and no one really needs a firearm to defend themselves.

Got it.

 

[sadhatter]

I just explained what significance it has for me. It completely disproves the gun advocates' claim of millions of DGU per year.

I understand your desire for brevity - typing out complete words is hard - but where I come from "pov" is a slur used to insult and denigrate people of a low socioeconomic background, and I'd rather you chose a different way to not type out full words.

Than rifles? Yeah, sure, I totally believe that. How does it compare to handguns?

I can honestly say that is the most dodging I've ever seen a legit poster do.

 

[BStrong]

I can honestly say that is the most dodging I've ever seen a legit poster do.

I've seen worse in the Conspiracy Theory forum, but there is a whole lotta hand waving goin' on.

 

[arthwollipot]

Point Of View.

I know what it means, thank you.

Thanks for the non-answers though.

I did answer. You might need to take another look at my post.

Apparently, the possibility that a certain number of individuals did use a firearm (usually with out firing a shot) to protect themselves remains problematic to some folks, but I understand.

Why do you think it's "problematic"?

It's a hell of a lot easier to dismiss folks as a group than to consider the nuances of individual situations or incidents.

No, it's just that arguing about what a particular person could or should have done in a particular circumstance is utterly pointless and isn't even remotely helpful.

It's become a mantra in the U.S. and elsewhere - all Muslims can not be blamed for the acts of a few, all illegal aliens can't be blamed (see my sig line) for the one's that murder innocent people, but every firearms owner is a deadbeat loser that is violent and/or incompetent and no one really needs a firearm to defend themselves.

Got it.

Has anyone here ever said that? Have I ever said that? Quote please.

 

[theprestige]

I understand your desire for brevity - typing out complete words is hard - but where I come from "pov" is a slur used to insult and denigrate people of a low socioeconomic background, and I'd rather you chose a different way to not type out full words.

Point Of View.

This won't end well.

 

[BStrong]

I know what it means, thank you.

I did answer. You might need to take another look at my post.

Why do you think it's "problematic"?

No, it's just that arguing about what a particular person could or should have done in a particular circumstance is utterly pointless and isn't even remotely helpful.

Has anyone here ever said that? Have I ever said that? Quote please.

Jeez, I think this quote from one of your posts in this thread does exactly what you dismiss in the above bolded:

"That is an example of firearms being used for self-defence. Was it necessary to use the firearm? Could she not have defended her home and family with a baseball bat instead? Or maybe a better lock on her door? Any other nonlethal method could have been used. There are literally dozens. But no, she had a gun. And when you have a gun, everything looks like a target."

And then from another post of yours in this very thread:

"And Bikewer is also putting words into my mouth. You know I really hate that. I never said that firearms were never required for self-defense. But when your attacker doesn't have a gun, you don't always need a gun to defend yourself. See, the gun culture in America is self-perpetuating. Criminals have guns, therefore citizens need guns to defend themselves from them. Even though by the time you have brought your gun from idle to action, the criminal may well have already shot you. Criminals have guns expecting to use them. They use them to threaten and intimidate - they already have it drawn. When a criminal has a gun drawn on you, the expectation that you will be able to draw your own gun from its concealed holster, disengage the safety, aim and fire before the criminal has a chance to move a single finger is pure Hollywood Wild West fantasy."

Underlining mine - really?:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Santa-Clara-Gun-Club-Shooter-Wanted-to-Kill-Self-2920923.php

"1999-07-07 04:00:00 PDT SANTA CLARA -- A San Jose man intended to kill himself and others when he took three Santa Clara gun club employees hostage with a rented semiautomatic rifle Monday night, police said yesterday.

Richard Gable Stevens, 21, was in critical condition at Valley Medical Center in San Jose last night after one of the National Shooting Club employees shot him twice with a handgun. Police also later shot Stevens with plastic bullets to subdue him."

Bad actor with assault rifle (I'd abbreviate it to AW but I don't want to perhaps trigger something for you) intending to commit mass murder gets stopped by range employee with a Glock Model 30 semi-automatic handgun (again, I don't want to maybe trigger something by using common abbreviations) drawn from concealment..how is that possible in the universe as you view it?

From the SFgate article:

" Although no one else was injured during the shootout, Stevens made it clear in a suicide note to his parents that he would take others' lives as well as his own, and make his parents pay for his act, according to Sergeant Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department.

In the note, Morec said, Stevens wrote, "You both had warnings of exactly what I intended to do. You did nothing to help. Now, you'll spend the rest of your lives fighting lawsuits from my victims' relatives and die with only dimes perhaps."

Richard Gable Stevens survived to be sentenced to 50 years in prison on various charges.

In general, interested parties can go here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jewelry+store+owner+shoots+armed+robbers

And here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=store+clerk+shoots+armed+robbers

And Art, I'm sure you'll have an opinion on this particular individual:



I made a comment above concerning unarmed self defense, and my personal inability to either go to hands or run.

Do I retire to the relative safety of my home, only go out in groups in daylight hours or in your point of view do I as a human being have the right to take the means to defend myself under my state and local law and carry a firearm?

 

[arthwollipot]

Jeez, I think this quote from one of your posts in this thread does exactly what you dismiss in the above bolded:

Yes, and did you notice when I regretted posting that, and indicated that as the very reason for going of on an unhelpful tangent?

And Art, I'm sure you'll have an opinion on this particular individual:

I'm sure I probably would. But I choose not to express it, because it will be unhelpful and pointless.

Do I retire to the relative safety of my home, only go out in groups in daylight hours or in your point of view do I as a human being have the right to take the means to defend myself under my state and local law and carry a firearm?

You as a human being have a right to be able to walk about your neighbourhood without the expectation that you will be suddenly murdered if you are not armed (cf. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

There are dodgy neighbourhoods everywhere. The difference is, in your dodgy neighbourhood, you expect that the dodgy people you meet there will be armed. In my dodgy neighbourhood, I expect that they won't. And that's the difference.

 

[BStrong]

Yes, and did you notice when I regretted posting that, and indicated that as the very reason for going of on an unhelpful tangent?

I'm sure I probably would. But I choose not to express it, because it will be unhelpful and pointless.

You as a human being have a right to be able to walk about your neighbourhood without the expectation that you will be suddenly murdered if you are not armed (cf. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

There are dodgy neighbourhoods everywhere. The difference is, in your dodgy neighbourhood, you expect that the dodgy people you meet there will be armed. In my dodgy neighbourhood, I expect that they won't. And that's the difference.

I see that you're too busying warding off a swarm of bees to address the facts.

Individuals do use firearms successfully to defend themselves. Your point of view on the subject notwithstanding, and I'm so relieved that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in (what's cf? is that a slur against Sicilians or Italians? trigger warning! trigger warning!) in Article Three takes a completely useless stand on a subjective state of mind.

I'll take our ********** up system over the alternative if it's the (I was going to type UDHR but I don't want to infer some slur I have no way to know is a slur) Universal blah, blah, blah.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes, and did you notice when I regretted posting that, and indicated that as the very reason for going of on an unhelpful tangent?

I'm sure I probably would. But I choose not to express it, because it will be unhelpful and pointless.

You as a human being have a right to be able to walk about your neighbourhood without the expectation that you will be suddenly murdered if you are not armed (cf. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

There are dodgy neighbourhoods everywhere. The difference is, in your dodgy neighbourhood, you expect that the dodgy people you meet there will be armed. In my dodgy neighbourhood, I expect that they won't. And that's the difference.

Stop saying dodge, the irony is actually causing me contact dermatitis.

 

[BStrong]

Stop saying dodge, the irony is actually causing me contact dermatitis.

No joke.

My friend Julius Long was murdered in a road rage incident while he was riding, and the murderer was driving a Dodge pick up.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Road-Rage-Driver-Jailed-His-truck-killed-2951208.php

I might need to notify a hall monitor.

 

[Cain]

One of the cool things about guns is that while statistically they may not make you any safer, they will objectively make you feel safer. If you have the right attitude.

 

[Noztradamus]

I understand your desire for brevity - typing out complete words is hard - but where I come from "pov" is a slur used to insult and denigrate people of a low socioeconomic background, and I'd rather you chose a different way to not type out full words.

Parliament of Victoria? Yeah that's a nasty slur.

 

[Noztradamus]

One of the cool things about guns is that while statistically they may not make you any safer, they will objectively make you feel safer. If you have the right attitude.

And a certain sector of the gun-control debate insists that people have a right to feel safe. Sorted

 

[cullennz]

And a certain sector of the gun-control debate insists that people have a right to feel safe. Sorted

Safe from what.

I'm beginning to think the US has to be the most paranoid country on earth

 

[fuelair]

I see that you're too busying warding off a swarm of bees to address the facts.

Individuals do use firearms successfully to defend themselves. Your point of view on the subject notwithstanding, and I'm so relieved that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in (what's cf? is that a slur against Sicilians or Italians? trigger warning! trigger warning!) in Article Three takes a completely useless stand on a subjective state of mind.

I'll take our ********** up system over the alternative if it's the (I was going to type UDHR but I don't want to infer some slur I have no way to know is a slur) Universal blah, blah, blah.

cf is: Adv. 1. cf - compare (used in texts to point the reader to another location in the text)

 

[fuelair]

In the case noted, it meant compare/see also Article 3 of......... as in the post you quoted.

 

[Jules Galen]

Safe from what.

I'm beginning to think the US has to be the most paranoid country on earth

In a way, it is. I mean, there are a lot of yahoos carrying guns who have little real understanding of who is really a danger to them and how it might come to pass. All the while, they chant the self-defense dogma of "Situational Awareness" without the slightest clue as to what a badly developing situation looks like, so they are always on guard against "evil"...or something.

"Situational Awareness" without a knowledge of how bad situations develop really is dogma for the paranoid.

 

[Cain]

Safe from what.

I'm beginning to think the US has to be the most paranoid country on earth

You're not paranoid if everyone's out to get ya. "Paranoia" is just a demeaning slur used by the kind of men who travel via black helicopters.