|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related.
Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen.
Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals.
|
On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make.
It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator.
On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals.
Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason.
Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries.
This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 12:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:27 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make. It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator. On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals. Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason. Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries. This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread. So you think the solution to violent crime is solve poverty, and not at all related to guns. Do you think that giving easy access to guns to extra violent criminals is good? And how do you think you can make poverty less of an issue, and do you think following these comparable countries with less violent criminals policies would be a reasonable place to stary?
Straw manning me (aka misrepresenting my argument) isn't going to do anything but demonstrate why so many center right conservatives vote to maintain the status quo on gun control.
Compulsory firearm education and changing the views on firearms would assist in curbing firearm violence in general. Stronger social and health programs also would likely assist in curbing violence in general also. And yes, stronger gun control legislation such as banning of bump stocks, expanded background checks, and maybe even a registration system could all contribute to a better society overall.
With 900 million firearms in circulation, just simply 'banning' or 'restricting' guns isn't going to work. Russia, Mexico, and Brazil already tried that, and that clearly hasn't worked for any of them.
|
On November 09 2018 12:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 09:31 micronesia wrote:
Typically in a home defense situation, the intruder comes to you, and you shoot only if needed. If you are running around your house chasing after a robber to shoot him you are doing something wrong.
Also, superstartran already addressed penetration... .223 is actually pretty favorable in that regard for home defense.
You are making this too easy for him. Again. I love how you dump your other bullshit argument to hop on with another person's. I really wish you would stop posting in this thread because your overly aggressive, hyperbolic tone is actively harmful to anyone making a reasonable discussion about gun control.
Calling something what it is, isn't hyperbolic.
11 people are dead again... how many times has it happened now? How many more times does it need to happen before it becomes any thing than a "calm library discussion"?
If people want to say, "well that's too bad, maybe if you defined your terms better we would have better laws in the country."
That's bullshit. There's no discussion there, just garbage.
At least Superstartran made some decent points, even if I don't completely agree with them they sound like they come from an informed point of view. Unlike statements about technical definitions.
|
|
|
On November 09 2018 09:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. My father was a marine corp drill sergeant and trained in multiple home defense/police defense/ concealed carry courses, as well as many years of military training. He never recommended an assault rifle for home defense. Try turning around in a narrow hallway with an AR at your shoulder. He had always recommended a shotgun and a colt 45. with hollow points. Also consider the possibility you miss... you have to think about who is behind your target. Why would you be turning the hallway with a rifle? Proper training dictates that you should NEVER confront the intruder unless you NEED to. The ONLY time you should ever pursue an intruder inside your home is if your family members are in imminent danger. That's it. You should get your family inside of whatever room you can get into, barricade the door, and be ready to fire if the intruder tries to break in. And possibility of missing means that you should 100% be using a low recoil semi-automatic rifle versus a shotgun, especially as a civilian who is not properly trained to handle recoil in a combat situation. Not to mention that you can also have a SBR .223 rifle which would more than suffice in a CQB situation if you absolutely needed to move within narrow hallways. The only REAL argument against a .223 semi-automatic weapon is that shit is loud as fuck. Depending on how your home is built, it could echo and be so loud it is possible that shit could disorient the hell out of you.
I'm not a gun expert, you could very well be right... I also don't know your background, but you sound like you speak from training or informed points of view. That being said...
I still trust my dad over you, because I know he had experience, specifically with home defense. A bat shit crazy ex-navy seal threaten to kill him and he trained to protect against that level of threat. The advice he got came directly from law enforcement and law enforcement training.
It also took me 10 minutes of research to find an article citing 8 firearms experts discussing best guns for home defense. The majority chose the hand gun (while the rifle did come close second). While rifles might be good in a particular situation, they are not absolute best choices... As these experts state.
https://www.ballisticmag.com/2015/08/28/8-experts-pick-their-home-defense-weapon-of-choice/
Of the concerns penetration was listed as one of the primary reasons for choosing a handgun. Reliability (a revolver) was another listed preference. My guess is there are many different reasons for anyone to prefer different guns for home defense... Being trained largely in the use of a handgun... it might make more sense for that person to choose a handgun over an AR. just for sake of proficiency.
*The much larger point is that you will most certainly go your whole life, just like your parents lives went, and you children will likely go... without ever being attacked in your home or on the street in a life threatening way. It's just not something that will likely ever happen to any of us.
But the more guns that get out there on the street and the more the corporate oligarch class makes life shittier and poorer for the masses, the more likely all of us are to die in a mass shooting.
Even more, if someone in this country wants to shoot you... likely you'll never see it coming. Someone would just post up and wait for you... then bang. Someone had a gun at the bar shooting... Idk how he died, but my guess is he never had a chance to draw, because you can't look over your back 24/7.
|
On November 09 2018 13:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 09:34 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 09:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. My father was a marine corp drill sergeant and trained in multiple home defense/police defense/ concealed carry courses, as well as many years of military training. He never recommended an assault rifle for home defense. Try turning around in a narrow hallway with an AR at your shoulder. He had always recommended a shotgun and a colt 45. with hollow points. Also consider the possibility you miss... you have to think about who is behind your target. Why would you be turning the hallway with a rifle? Proper training dictates that you should NEVER confront the intruder unless you NEED to. The ONLY time you should ever pursue an intruder inside your home is if your family members are in imminent danger. That's it. You should get your family inside of whatever room you can get into, barricade the door, and be ready to fire if the intruder tries to break in. And possibility of missing means that you should 100% be using a low recoil semi-automatic rifle versus a shotgun, especially as a civilian who is not properly trained to handle recoil in a combat situation. Not to mention that you can also have a SBR .223 rifle which would more than suffice in a CQB situation if you absolutely needed to move within narrow hallways. The only REAL argument against a .223 semi-automatic weapon is that shit is loud as fuck. Depending on how your home is built, it could echo and be so loud it is possible that shit could disorient the hell out of you. I'm not a gun expert, you could very well be right... I also don't know your background, but you sound like you speak from training or informed points of view. That being said... I still trust my dad over you, because I know he had experience, specifically with home defense. A bat shit crazy ex-navy seal threaten to kill him and he trained to protect against that level of threat. The advice he got came directly from law enforcement and law enforcement training. It also took me 10 minutes of research to find an article citing 8 firearms experts discussing best guns for home defense. The majority chose the hand gun (while the rifle did come close second). While rifles might be good in a particular situation, they are not absolute best choices... As these experts state. https://www.ballisticmag.com/2015/08/28/8-experts-pick-their-home-defense-weapon-of-choice/Of the concerns penetration was listed as one of the primary reasons for choosing a handgun. Reliability (a revolver) was another listed preference. My guess is there are many different reasons for anyone to prefer different guns for home defense... Being trained largely in the use of a handgun... it might make more sense for that person to choose a handgun over an AR. just for sake of proficiency. *The much larger point is that you will most certainly go your whole life, just like your parents lives went, and you children will likely go... without ever being attacked in your home or on the street in a life threatening way. It's just not something that will likely ever happen to any of us. But the more guns that get out there on the street and the more the corporate oligarch class makes life shittier and poorer for the masses, the more likely all of us are to die in a mass shooting. Even more, if someone in this country wants to shoot you... likely you'll never see it coming. Someone would just post up and wait for you... then bang. Someone had a gun at the bar shooting... Idk how he died, but my guess is he never had a chance to draw, because you can't look over your back 24/7.
#1 .223 is less likely to penetrate over a 9mm round. This is an actual fact. Especially if you're using something like the Hornady TAP. Law Enforcement switched from the MP5 to SBR 5.56 guns for this very reason. For reference, see here.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?id=14&option=com_content&task=view
#2 The guys you listed are experts or former military. Not ordinary citizens. Their choice in weaponry in terms of self-defense is going to be different due to circumstance and training. Not to mention handguns won 4-3, which isn't by very much.
#3 In an ideal set situation, the AR-15 .223 is the ultimate self-defense weapon. It's low recoil, high velocity, and due to the way the round is designed will tumble and fragment thus meaning less likely to over penetrate. Sometimes you won't be in an ideal situation, but you should be prepared. It's also the best weapon to use in the event you must discharge as a non-expert firearm user. If you don't shoot that much at the range, your best bet at hitting a target and stopping them is a high velocity center fire rifle. More shots and lower recoil > pistol. Any day of the week.
|
On November 09 2018 13:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 13:14 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 09:34 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 09:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 09 2018 09:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:52 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 08:33 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 08:29 superstartran wrote:On November 08 2018 23:25 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is time to focus on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment that everyone ignores, but it appears to me like most people have given up on finding a solution. The Supreme Court has already had a landmark ruling that has decided that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to ownership of firearms, while also stating that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. That means that regulations can be placed upon them. With the recent conservative appointments that have already been confirmed, it is likely that any case brought against the right to bear firearms won't go over well either, at least for the foreseeable future. Not to mention it's realistically impossible to get the 2nd Amendment repealed or done away with. You want a majority of Congress to agree on any kind of proposal, and then have 3/4 of the States ratify it? Good luck. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and trying to get rid of it/amend it is absolutely useless, even the most prominent gun control advocates will tell you that. Not only is it a colossal waste of time since you can't even get Congress to agree on things like a bump stock ban or a more robust background check, but you also show that you are more than willing to go after the guaranteed rights of law abiding gun owners, which will turn many of them against your position, which could have had success if you took a more moderate and sensible approach. Not that I would be personally against what you stated, but in asking to focus on one part I was not suggesting to repeal or do away with the second amendment. I was suggesting people focus on regulating guns. And pointing out how hard that is to get done is a little like pointing out the grass is green, because if it was easy some thing would already be done after the numerous mass shootings. And how should it be regulated? See, that's the issue. The vast majority of posters in this thread for example are not very well educated on why someone needs a .223/5.56 round to defend themselves (aka the same caliber round fired from the AR-15). I could explain until my face is blue as to the realistic nature as to why you would want a center fire, low recoil firearm, but most people wouldn't understand nor want to understand that. They'll just completely ignore it and just argue their agenda. Another great example of this is that almost 9/10 'gun control' advocates in this thread completely ignored the fact that the vast majority of non-suicide gun violence is urban gang related. Notice how almost all of the gun control posts are geared towards mass shootings? Everyone loves to talk about mass shootings, but no one talks about how urban gang member A killed urban gang member B. The media doesn't even cover this, because none of that really matters on the national news. When someone shoots up a night club of white folks though? All over the news. I'm not saying that to be insensitive, but it's very obvious that the media and a ton of posters here really doesn't care about gun violence in general, rather they care about mass shootings. I'm not saying that we shouldn't solve mass shootings either; I'm making the point that most of the gun control laws that have been proposed here probably wouldn't really have prevented or reduced the death tolls in many of the mass shootings, outside of the bump stock ban which I am completely on board with. I'm fully aware about how most of the killings are not mass shootings, I think most are aware, the reason they key on mass shootings is people are not as numb to it as they are to the day to day killing you mention. Most countries have gang problems, most countries do not have the level of gun violence that you have. As for your first paragraph, I'm not sure that your knowledge on the best and most effective way to kill someone is that relevant. The point of gun control is to make the chances that you would "need to" be so statistically irrelevant that it doesn't make sense. I mean, that is really the way it is now even in the USA the chances of you being shot by your own weapon are way higher then being shot by anyone elses. I'm fully aware that the AR/15 is extremely effective at killing people, it is just that I see this as a problem not a benefit. See, your reaction instantly shows your ignorance on the matter. The AR-15 is no more effective at killing than a 12 gauge shotgun or a 9mm pistol at close range within a home on a single person. The reason why you want an AR-15 is because you have a combination of stopping power, low recoil, easy to use in a ready position, and a significantly less chance of over penetration and causing collateral damage (aka hitting your neighbor or someone in another room). The last part is crucial and the primary reason why you'd actually want to use an AR-15 over something like a 9mm Glock. See what most gun owners mean about how they would be extremely uneasy in allowing some politicians dictate what I can and cannot use? You didn't even know that the AR-15 would be the primary choice as a self-defense weapon because of the fact that you'd have less chance of collateral damage, rather than it's 'awesome stopping power'. My father was a marine corp drill sergeant and trained in multiple home defense/police defense/ concealed carry courses, as well as many years of military training. He never recommended an assault rifle for home defense. Try turning around in a narrow hallway with an AR at your shoulder. He had always recommended a shotgun and a colt 45. with hollow points. Also consider the possibility you miss... you have to think about who is behind your target. Why would you be turning the hallway with a rifle? Proper training dictates that you should NEVER confront the intruder unless you NEED to. The ONLY time you should ever pursue an intruder inside your home is if your family members are in imminent danger. That's it. You should get your family inside of whatever room you can get into, barricade the door, and be ready to fire if the intruder tries to break in. And possibility of missing means that you should 100% be using a low recoil semi-automatic rifle versus a shotgun, especially as a civilian who is not properly trained to handle recoil in a combat situation. Not to mention that you can also have a SBR .223 rifle which would more than suffice in a CQB situation if you absolutely needed to move within narrow hallways. The only REAL argument against a .223 semi-automatic weapon is that shit is loud as fuck. Depending on how your home is built, it could echo and be so loud it is possible that shit could disorient the hell out of you. I'm not a gun expert, you could very well be right... I also don't know your background, but you sound like you speak from training or informed points of view. That being said... I still trust my dad over you, because I know he had experience, specifically with home defense. A bat shit crazy ex-navy seal threaten to kill him and he trained to protect against that level of threat. The advice he got came directly from law enforcement and law enforcement training. It also took me 10 minutes of research to find an article citing 8 firearms experts discussing best guns for home defense. The majority chose the hand gun (while the rifle did come close second). While rifles might be good in a particular situation, they are not absolute best choices... As these experts state. https://www.ballisticmag.com/2015/08/28/8-experts-pick-their-home-defense-weapon-of-choice/Of the concerns penetration was listed as one of the primary reasons for choosing a handgun. Reliability (a revolver) was another listed preference. My guess is there are many different reasons for anyone to prefer different guns for home defense... Being trained largely in the use of a handgun... it might make more sense for that person to choose a handgun over an AR. just for sake of proficiency. *The much larger point is that you will most certainly go your whole life, just like your parents lives went, and you children will likely go... without ever being attacked in your home or on the street in a life threatening way. It's just not something that will likely ever happen to any of us. But the more guns that get out there on the street and the more the corporate oligarch class makes life shittier and poorer for the masses, the more likely all of us are to die in a mass shooting. Even more, if someone in this country wants to shoot you... likely you'll never see it coming. Someone would just post up and wait for you... then bang. Someone had a gun at the bar shooting... Idk how he died, but my guess is he never had a chance to draw, because you can't look over your back 24/7. #1 .223 is less likely to penetrate over a 9mm round. This is an actual fact. Especially if you're using something like the Hornady TAP. Law Enforcement switched from the MP5 to SBR 5.56 guns for this very reason. For reference, see here. http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?id=14&option=com_content&task=view#2 The guys you listed are experts or former military. Not ordinary citizens. Their choice in weaponry in terms of self-defense is going to be different due to circumstance and training. Not to mention handguns won 4-3, which isn't by very much. #3 In an ideal set situation, the AR-15 .223 is the ultimate self-defense weapon. It's low recoil, high velocity, and due to the way the round is designed will tumble and fragment thus meaning less likely to over penetrate. Sometimes you won't be in an ideal situation, but you should be prepared. It's also the best weapon to use in the event you must discharge as a non-expert firearm user. If you don't shoot that much at the range, your best bet at hitting a target and stopping them is a high velocity center fire rifle. More shots and lower recoil > pistol. Any day of the week.
While you addressed the firearm portion of my post you completely dodged the larger and more relevant point I made.
If this is to really be a discussion you actually have to cross that bridge.
The one that demands you make a case for the relevance of firearms in our country as a need for self defense.
Because right now, in civilian life... guns take far more life than they defend.
|
On November 09 2018 12:41 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:27 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make. It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator. On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals. Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason. Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries. This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread. So you think the solution to violent crime is solve poverty, and not at all related to guns. Do you think that giving easy access to guns to extra violent criminals is good? And how do you think you can make poverty less of an issue, and do you think following these comparable countries with less violent criminals policies would be a reasonable place to stary? Straw manning me (aka misrepresenting my argument) isn't going to do anything but demonstrate why so many center right conservatives vote to maintain the status quo on gun control. Compulsory firearm education and changing the views on firearms would assist in curbing firearm violence in general. Stronger social and health programs also would likely assist in curbing violence in general also. And yes, stronger gun control legislation such as banning of bump stocks, expanded background checks, and maybe even a registration system could all contribute to a better society overall. With 900 million firearms in circulation, just simply 'banning' or 'restricting' guns isn't going to work. Russia, Mexico, and Brazil already tried that, and that clearly hasn't worked for any of them.
you cant look at examples of countries that failed with gun regulation and use them as points to support your argument, and then turn right around and deflect all the cases of countries that successfully regulated guns and say "our country is different". youve made it clear before and youre still making it clear now, your own arguments are filled with hypocrisies and double standards.
|
On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals. My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia.
If American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that they are placed into, doesn't 'living in a culture that guarantees access to firearms' count as one of those situations? - ie gun culture is a part of a causal relationship that places US criminals in more dangerous situations.
If it was harder to get guns, criminals would be less deadly, the police would be less paranoid and freaked, so the criminals would be less paranoid and freaked etc. etc.
|
On November 09 2018 18:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals. My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia. If American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that they are placed into, doesn't 'living in a culture that guarantees access to firearms' count as one of those situations? - ie gun culture is a part of a causal relationship that places US criminals in more dangerous situations. If it was harder to get guns, criminals would be less deadly, the police would be less paranoid and freaked, so the criminals would be less paranoid and freaked etc. etc.
Think about all the videos of cops shooting unarmed black people after hysterically shouting 'gun' over and over.
It's a sideline to the discussion in some ways, but the police force has to assume everyone is armed because anyone can be. I'm not sure second amendment supporters appreciate the corroding affect that one dynamic is having on the US.
|
On November 09 2018 12:41 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:27 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make. It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator. On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals. Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason. Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries. This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread. So you think the solution to violent crime is solve poverty, and not at all related to guns. Do you think that giving easy access to guns to extra violent criminals is good? And how do you think you can make poverty less of an issue, and do you think following these comparable countries with less violent criminals policies would be a reasonable place to stary? Compulsory firearm education and changing the views on firearms would assist in curbing firearm violence in general. Stronger social and health programs also would likely assist in curbing violence in general also. And yes, stronger gun control legislation such as banning of bump stocks, expanded background checks, and maybe even a registration system could all contribute to a better society overall.
I like where this is going. Now remember this the next time people talk about a real healthcare system and social security. And not only when people talk about guns.
The problem here is that there is a big cross-section in the US between people who want guns, and people who are absolutely against any functioning healthcare system or social security because that would be communism.
I will take any positive move you make. If you want to deal with healthcare and social security first (And possibly with your prison and justice system too, because i am pretty sure that those have a big part in why your criminals might be more dangerous (Though i would like some source for that)), i am actually fine with that. Just don't turn around when people talk about healthcare and say "Everything is fine, or we should actually reduce government involvement in healthcare, or whatever." If you don't use those themes only as a shield when people talk about guns, but actively do something about healthcare and social security, i will stop talking about how silly your gun laws are. What about that compromise?
|
On November 09 2018 18:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 18:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals. My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia. If American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that they are placed into, doesn't 'living in a culture that guarantees access to firearms' count as one of those situations? - ie gun culture is a part of a causal relationship that places US criminals in more dangerous situations. If it was harder to get guns, criminals would be less deadly, the police would be less paranoid and freaked, so the criminals would be less paranoid and freaked etc. etc. Think about all the videos of cops shooting unarmed black people after hysterically shouting 'gun' over and over. It's a sideline to the discussion in some ways, but the police force has to assume everyone is armed because anyone can be. I'm not sure second amendment supporters appreciate the corroding affect that one dynamic is having on the US.
Cops do not shoot unarmed blacks at any alarming rate. Statistics actually bear this out. In 2017 alone there were only 20 unarmed blacks shot according to the Washington Post's fatal shooting database. Remember, an unarmed person does not mean they are not dangerous also. That brings that number down much further in regards to whether it was a justified shooting or not.
On November 09 2018 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:41 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:27 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make. It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator. On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals. Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason. Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries. This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread. So you think the solution to violent crime is solve poverty, and not at all related to guns. Do you think that giving easy access to guns to extra violent criminals is good? And how do you think you can make poverty less of an issue, and do you think following these comparable countries with less violent criminals policies would be a reasonable place to stary? Straw manning me (aka misrepresenting my argument) isn't going to do anything but demonstrate why so many center right conservatives vote to maintain the status quo on gun control. Compulsory firearm education and changing the views on firearms would assist in curbing firearm violence in general. Stronger social and health programs also would likely assist in curbing violence in general also. And yes, stronger gun control legislation such as banning of bump stocks, expanded background checks, and maybe even a registration system could all contribute to a better society overall. With 900 million firearms in circulation, just simply 'banning' or 'restricting' guns isn't going to work. Russia, Mexico, and Brazil already tried that, and that clearly hasn't worked for any of them. you cant look at examples of countries that failed with gun regulation and use them as points to support your argument, and then turn right around and deflect all the cases of countries that successfully regulated guns and say "our country is different". youve made it clear before and youre still making it clear now, your own arguments are filled with hypocrisies and double standards.
Are you saying that we should be comparing a country that is geographically much larger than Europe and call that a fair comparison? Because that's essentially what you're doing. If you're allowed to do that, I'm allowed to use Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and other countries where gun control has failed despite strong gun laws as a proving point. Since you're not fairly comparing, why should I need to? See where this needlessly dumb discussion leads to? When you're not controlling for certain factors or not making fair comparisons, it's very easy to pick and choose. You say that I'm picking and choosing, and yet you try to compare countries that are highly homogeneous and then compare it to a country which is totally not. Good one.
And Brazil is a really good case study of why gun control laws alone on their own will not work. They essentially all but outlawed the purchase of firearms in Brazil, and yet firearm murder rates actually skyrocketed in the aftermath of such a ban. The idea that gun control laws alone would reduce firearm violence rates is false. It can only be a smaller part of the solution.
On November 09 2018 18:50 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:41 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:39 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:27 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. But why? That is the point Im trying to make. It's not due to the prevalence of firearms, unless you're saying that stabbings are now done by firearms. Your point is asinine. Firearms do not correlate with increased violent crime rates; poverty is a much bigger indicator. On November 09 2018 12:25 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Like easier access to illegal fire arms than the other first world countries? I would also point out that is has never been safer to be a police officer in the US. Or an American citizen. Self defense is a reason to own a fire arm. We have rural parts of the country with limited police coverage, so it makes sense. We don’t need to make arguments that the US is drastically more dangerous that other countries to justify guns as self defense. Or that we have super criminals. Said poster doesn't believe in self-defense for whatever reason. Two, I never said we have super criminals. I said our criminals are on average are alot worse than other countries. This is statistically true. We have higher rates of assault, rape, stabbings, beatings, whatever violent crime you want to look at, whether it involves a firearm or not. Just because we are safer than ever before doesn't mean the types of criminals we still have aren't worse than other countries. This is partially because we have some of the worst socioeconomic status gaps among 1st world countries, but that's a discussion for another thread. So you think the solution to violent crime is solve poverty, and not at all related to guns. Do you think that giving easy access to guns to extra violent criminals is good? And how do you think you can make poverty less of an issue, and do you think following these comparable countries with less violent criminals policies would be a reasonable place to stary? Compulsory firearm education and changing the views on firearms would assist in curbing firearm violence in general. Stronger social and health programs also would likely assist in curbing violence in general also. And yes, stronger gun control legislation such as banning of bump stocks, expanded background checks, and maybe even a registration system could all contribute to a better society overall. I like where this is going. Now remember this the next time people talk about a real healthcare system and social security. And not only when people talk about guns. The problem here is that there is a big cross-section in the US between people who want guns, and people who are absolutely against any functioning healthcare system or social security because that would be communism. I will take any positive move you make. If you want to deal with healthcare and social security first (And possibly with your prison and justice system too, because i am pretty sure that those have a big part in why your criminals might be more dangerous (Though i would like some source for that)), i am actually fine with that. Just don't turn around when people talk about healthcare and say "Everything is fine, or we should actually reduce government involvement in healthcare, or whatever." If you don't use those themes only as a shield when people talk about guns, but actively do something about healthcare and social security, i will stop talking about how silly your gun laws are. What about that compromise?
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
This is part of the reason why the solution is much more complex. It HAS to be a multifaceted approach. Switzerland has literally 0 mass shootings since 2001 despite a very high number of firearms, a strong gun culture, etc; This is due to the fact that A. They have a stronger education program in regards to firearms, and B. They have much happier people in general
That's going to be hard to ask for especially in a country the size of the U.S. with varying socioeconomic levels, but that's the target environment one should be striving for.
On November 09 2018 18:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals. My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia. If American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that they are placed into, doesn't 'living in a culture that guarantees access to firearms' count as one of those situations? - ie gun culture is a part of a causal relationship that places US criminals in more dangerous situations. If it was harder to get guns, criminals would be less deadly, the police would be less paranoid and freaked, so the criminals would be less paranoid and freaked etc. etc.
Criminals in America on average are worse due to their situation, not due to access in firearms. Poverty is a much stronger indicator of violence than firearms. If you look at where the vast majority of firearm related crimes are committed, most are concentrated in poor urban cities such as New Orleans.
|
On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with.
The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea.
Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God.
|
On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God.
^
Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control.
|
On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control.
You're right in that discussion of the legitimacy 2nd amendment alienates weapon owners. Of course it does, that's a necessary part of the discussion, in the same way that discussing tax reductions for the rich will alienate poor people who rely on that money for public programs.
Unfortunately none of this has any effect on whether or not the 2nd amendment is actually legitimate in modern America. The legitimacy of an idea is not dependent on who is or is not offended by discussing it.
I've also laid out the things I think should be done in terms of weapons legislation, and from what I remember they were fairly similar to the things that you suggested (with the added idea that people should be responsible for crimes/accidents committed with their weapon unless they can prove it was secure).
This extra idea that you won't even come to the table to discuss it with anyone unless they are already of the same opinion as you is just a bit silly though.
|
On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control.
But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma.
If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion.
"2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.)
It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this.
|
You could even argue that the second amendment should be rewriten because the way it is used today is not clearly what the text states.
Even that would make more sense than just letting it be like it is.
|
I'd like to point out that Superstartran never actually addressed my last point, which says a lot.
People can throw second amendment BS around all day, because it's an easy thing to argue about. But because there is a right to defend oneself, it doesn't make defense with a firearm a necessity.
For some context, here is something that recently happened in Australia recently, this is basically their worst case scenario. A terrorist with a knife blows up a car and runs around stabbing people... Sounds like a lot of people died right?
1 death.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/australia/melbourne-incident-intl/index.html
The main thing that changed for them, massive gun reform... They didn't take away everyones' guns, but they did have a ban on some and make the requirements to obtain guns much harder. They have had 0 mass shootings since then in the 22 years since the laws were passed.
https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-35048251?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEoAVgB#origin=https://www.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=54&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15417719483507&viewerUrl=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-35048251&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=swipe,navigateTo,cid,fragment,replaceUrl
For the people in this thread that are arguing for gun ownership, I think you all should be required to watch the videos of that father who lost his son, whom he clearly and absolutely loved, many times... Then imagine making your argument to that guy in his grief. I imagine he would actually talk to you about it, and I also imagine he wouldn't care about owning a gun anymore... I'm not him, but I imagine he would do anything to get his son back, including gun reform or giving up his right to gun ownership.
The only difference between you and the man that lost his son, is pure luck that it didn't happen to you.
The one armed person at that bar was killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
