Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm trying to be just like you.

Stop it dumb ass my question was easy to answer. It was not a stupid question. But a god damn moron would think a logical question is stupid. So shit stain tell me how many of those 8000 plus people murdered did not have a firearm or restrictive laws that prevented them from having a firearm?

What 8,000 people...................ummm...shit stain...?

I said 8000 PLUS dumb ass

But the figure is more like 11,101
Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

So how many of that 11000 plus number died unarmed?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Did I say that?
Oh well.

One mass shooting in 15 years compared to something like 13 in the 18 years previous to the new laws ( I can't be bothered to Google).
That can't be a bad thing don't you think?
Bad for the folk involved in that one incident I'll grant you but still good for all the other people that never got shot over the years.

It's always a good thing to reduce mass shootings. However...

One must consider what you're giving up. Who's to say that the US won't be facing a threat (either foreign or domestic) in 25-50 years from now that will require the citizens to be armed with somewhat capable weapons in order to overcome that threat?

History tells us that things do change, and that gov'ts do become tyrannical, and that economic collapses do happen, and countries do get invaded...

Personally, I'd rather keep the weapons.

.

I honestly don't object to reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them--like some of the mentally ill or convicted felons or others who should be on a 'do not sell to' list. In this day and age a universal 'do not sell to' list should not be all that difficult to compile, maintain, and made available to all gun dealers etc.

But does anybody seriously believe it is worse to get shot during a violent act than to be bludgeoned to death with a ball bat, or knifed, or blown up with an explosive, or poisoned, or whatever means somebody would use to commit mayhem? And if you are confronted by somebody determined to commit mayhem, what weapon do you prefer an option to choose to deter him?

But it is noted that in almost every single case of mass murders, they were committed in gun free zones. And if making guns illegal was a guarantee that people wouldn't have them, then making drugs, Prostitution, bootlegging, rape, robbery, and assault illegal would mean those things wouldn't exist.

I just don't see how taking rights away from law abiding citizens makes us safer.

So you think that any Monkey with the ca$h should be able to purchase tanks, grenade launchers, fully armed F-16 Fighters and nuclear weapons?

Any one of which would be awesome for self defense.....

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?



Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine? Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

who needs a car that will go 150 mph? who needs alcohol stronger than beer? who needs a house more than 1000 sq ft? when did it ever become about need? its a right. a right to own uninfringed.

So... any Monkey with the cash should be able to acquire any weapon with a price tag?

Does that really make any sense?

Really?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's always a good thing to reduce mass shootings. However...

One must consider what you're giving up. Who's to say that the US won't be facing a threat (either foreign or domestic) in 25-50 years from now that will require the citizens to be armed with somewhat capable weapons in order to overcome that threat?

History tells us that things do change, and that gov'ts do become tyrannical, and that economic collapses do happen, and countries do get invaded...

Personally, I'd rather keep the weapons.

.

I honestly don't object to reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them--like some of the mentally ill or convicted felons or others who should be on a 'do not sell to' list. In this day and age a universal 'do not sell to' list should not be all that difficult to compile, maintain, and made available to all gun dealers etc.

But does anybody seriously believe it is worse to get shot during a violent act than to be bludgeoned to death with a ball bat, or knifed, or blown up with an explosive, or poisoned, or whatever means somebody would use to commit mayhem? And if you are confronted by somebody determined to commit mayhem, what weapon do you prefer an option to choose to deter him?

But it is noted that in almost every single case of mass murders, they were committed in gun free zones. And if making guns illegal was a guarantee that people wouldn't have them, then making drugs, Prostitution, bootlegging, rape, robbery, and assault illegal would mean those things wouldn't exist.

I just don't see how taking rights away from law abiding citizens makes us safer.

So you think that any Monkey with the ca$h should be able to purchase tanks, grenade launchers, fully armed F-16 Fighters and nuclear weapons?

Any one of which would be awesome for self defense.....

`​

Isn't that straw man worn out?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms. The Declaration of Independence is neither the Constitution nor a law. If you don't realize where the phrase ""life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes from, I will be happy to refer you to some history books.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms.


then you have no problem with:

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

that isn't how the framers who wrote the constitution saw it.

Do you really think they'd see Newton and the other mass shootings as an acceptable cost?

For all I know they may have, they found slavery in the midst of their proposed land of freedom to be an acceptable cost of getting America started. That was quite the moral compromise, but the profits made it palatable... perhaps the same morals applies here.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I honestly don't object to reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them--like some of the mentally ill or convicted felons or others who should be on a 'do not sell to' list. In this day and age a universal 'do not sell to' list should not be all that difficult to compile, maintain, and made available to all gun dealers etc.

But does anybody seriously believe it is worse to get shot during a violent act than to be bludgeoned to death with a ball bat, or knifed, or blown up with an explosive, or poisoned, or whatever means somebody would use to commit mayhem? And if you are confronted by somebody determined to commit mayhem, what weapon do you prefer an option to choose to deter him?

But it is noted that in almost every single case of mass murders, they were committed in gun free zones. And if making guns illegal was a guarantee that people wouldn't have them, then making drugs, Prostitution, bootlegging, rape, robbery, and assault illegal would mean those things wouldn't exist.

I just don't see how taking rights away from law abiding citizens makes us safer.

So you think that any Monkey with the ca$h should be able to purchase tanks, grenade launchers, fully armed F-16 Fighters and nuclear weapons?

Any one of which would be awesome for self defense.....

`​

Isn't that straw man worn out?

No. If it's reasonable to restrict the sales of some weapons to the military, it's reasonable to discuss the impact of selling the AR-15 to the general public.

 

[AVG-JOE]

But once again, the point is that you don't get to decide what another man needs.

So... tanks, mortar tubes, anti-aircraft guns, full-auto machine guns and shoulder launched heat-seeking missiles should all be for sale at Wal-Mart?

That's the only logical conclusion to that argument.

 

[Brain357]

You said:



Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?

Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.

You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.

On the contrary, it is you in need of a dictionary. Arbitrary does not mean random. It means: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

What you are suggesting is arbitrary.

Google says it means random.

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Your definition seems to be for some legal term arbitrary standard.

 

[PratchettFan]

So you think that any Monkey with the ca$h should be able to purchase tanks, grenade launchers, fully armed F-16 Fighters and nuclear weapons?

Any one of which would be awesome for self defense.....

`​

Isn't that straw man worn out?

No. If it's reasonable to restrict the sales of some weapons to the military, it's reasonable to discuss the impact of selling the AR-15 to the general public.

Certainly. So long as the discussion is reasonable. That does seem to be the problem.

 

[PratchettFan]

You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.

On the contrary, it is you in need of a dictionary. Arbitrary does not mean random. It means: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

What you are suggesting is arbitrary.

Google says it means random.

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Your definition seems to be for some legal term arbitrary standard.

I gave you a direct quote from the Oxford dictionary. If that is not good enough for you, that is your problem. Your position in entirely arbitrary. I realize you want to play word games, but that changes nothing.

 

[Brain357]

You don't want to own a firearm, than don't. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others they can't. Constitutional Rights trump opinions & agendas. Period, end of story.

I've not argued to take guns from anyone. But there are already lots of arms that are illegal so apparently it can be done.

What arms are a lot that you are talking about slick.

Grenades, rocket launchers, mines....

 

[jon_berzerk]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

they do use them they also use illegal firearms like sawed off shotguns

and sawed off rifles

 

[Brain357]

On the contrary, it is you in need of a dictionary. Arbitrary does not mean random. It means: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

What you are suggesting is arbitrary.

Google says it means random.

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Your definition seems to be for some legal term arbitrary standard.

I gave you a direct quoute from the Oxford dictionary. If that is not good enough for you, that is your problem. Your position in entirely arbitrary. I realize you want to play word games, but that changes nothing.

Oxford agrees with me
Definition of arbitrary in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've not argued to take guns from anyone. But there are already lots of arms that are illegal so apparently it can be done.

What arms are a lot that you are talking about slick.

Grenades, rocket launchers, mines....

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you think that any Monkey with the ca$h should be able to purchase tanks, grenade launchers, fully armed F-16 Fighters and nuclear weapons?

Any one of which would be awesome for self defense.....

`​

Isn't that straw man worn out?

No. If it's reasonable to restrict the sales of some weapons to the military, it's reasonable to discuss the impact of selling the AR-15 to the general public.

Still is a straw man and is worn out.

 

[Brain357]

What arms are a lot that you are talking about slick.

Grenades, rocket launchers, mines....

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

 

[idb]

Stop it dumb ass my question was easy to answer. It was not a stupid question. But a god damn moron would think a logical question is stupid. So shit stain tell me how many of those 8000 plus people murdered did not have a firearm or restrictive laws that prevented them from having a firearm?

What 8,000 people...................ummm...shit stain...?

I said 8000 PLUS dumb ass

But the figure is more like 11,101
Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

So how many of that 11000 plus number died unarmed?

Well, if I use the same logic that you've used in other threads I can calculate the number.
According to your link, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US.
Therefore 88.8% of the population are armed.
Therefore 8,857 of the 11,101 were armed...and they still got shot and died!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What 8,000 people...................ummm...shit stain...?

I said 8000 PLUS dumb ass

But the figure is more like 11,101
Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

So how many of that 11000 plus number died unarmed?

Well, if I use the same logic that you've used in other threads I can calculate the number.
According to your link, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US.
Therefore 88.8% of the population are armed.
Therefore 8,857 of the 11,101 were armed...and they still got shot and died!!!

***** answer the god damn question or shut the **** up and leave this discussion with you tail tucked between your legs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Grenades, rocket launchers, mines....

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

 

[idb]

I said 8000 PLUS dumb ass

But the figure is more like 11,101
Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

So how many of that 11000 plus number died unarmed?

Well, if I use the same logic that you've used in other threads I can calculate the number.
According to your link, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US.
Therefore 88.8% of the population are armed.
Therefore 8,857 of the 11,101 were armed...and they still got shot and died!!!

***** answer the god damn question or shut the **** up and leave this discussion with you tail tucked between your legs.

I just did...using logic and the science of mathematics.

The answer is 8,857 of the 11,101 people killed by firearms in 2011 in the US were armed.

I even showed my working.
Please explain where I went wrong...slut.