2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Xantavia]

I tell you what, you tell me why you think I don't have a right to protect myself as I see fit, and tell me why I shouldn't own certain firearms. List the various features of firearms that make them so dangerous (despite their proliferation across the nation and statistically insignificant usage in crimes) that you think they should be banned.

If it is strictly for defending yourself, why would you need more than one gun? As a gun owner, I'm sure you are aware that dual-wielding guns would really hinder any accuracy. And as a responsible gun owner, any guns not in your hands should be locked up to prevent theft or access by anybody not trained in their use.

I think it would be refreshing if people just said they wanted to own more guns because they think they are cool. Instead it always seems to come down to second amendment rights if there is the implication they own too many. What bothers me the most is the ones that want to own as many as they can, but don't want to be put in any kind of registry because of tinfoil hat reasons. My personal feelings are that if we have a chain of ownership from factory to the present owner, maybe we can find where the breakdown is occuring that leads to all the illegal guns that kill people.

[Fhqwghads]

Point out a logical fallacy I made. I'm keenly interested.

You might think I don't have a right to the weapons you listed, but according to the 2nd amendment and in general what this country was founded on (life liberty and the pursuit of property) I absolutely should have that right. Now before you go on about hypocrite this or that, let me again remind you that I follow today's definition of the 2nd because that is the law of the land, so don't take what I say out of context again, thanks.

How in the hell can I justify a nuclear weapon? It's all about the right of the individual. I have a right to exist. To preserve that right, I have the right to self-defense. Using the principal of mutually-assured destruction, if someone else (including the government) can threaten violence against me, then I have a right to protect myself with equal force. The government can use nuclear weapons, and therefore I should be able to as well. Before you flip out and say how ridiculous that is, I agree - the likelihood that the US would engage in a nuclear conflict with one of their own citizens is absurd, as mutually-assured destruction dictates that the outcome would be unpleasant for both sides and would be avoided at all costs. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm able to preserve my right to exist using the same means the state uses to preserve its right to exist.

When you start to scale down the weaponry, it makes a lot more sense. Why should I not have a right to protect myself in the event the government goes tyrannical and starts rolling tanks down suburban America? I've already pointed out in other posts that the number of more conventional crimes (i.e. your average POS criminal) does not use overwhelming firepower as you suggested, and as statistics have demonstrated. So that said - how would me owning anti-aircraft cannons, or an F-16 be of any threat to you or fellow Americans? The answer is simple - it's not.

So then why should I, or other people who want our 2nd amendment preserved, have to deal with gun-grabbers taking away more of our rights, simply because of their unjustifiable fear of firearms? It didn't make any sense when gun control started, it doesn't make sense now, and it won't make sense in the future, either.

[Fhqwghads]

If it is strictly for defending yourself, why would you need more than one gun? As a gun owner, I'm sure you are aware that dual-wielding guns would really hinder any accuracy. And as a responsible gun owner, any guns not in your hands should be locked up to prevent theft or access by anybody not trained in their use.

I think it would be refreshing if people just said they wanted to own more guns because they think they are cool. Instead it always seems to come down to second amendment rights if there is the implication they own too many. What bothers me the most is the ones that want to own as many as they can, but don't want to be put in any kind of registry because of tinfoil hat reasons. My personal feelings are that if we have a chain of ownership from factory to the present owner, maybe we can find where the breakdown is occuring that leads to all the illegal guns that kill people.

Because different tools for different jobs. You wouldn't use a shotgun for long range purposes, and you wouldn't use a long rifle for short range purposes. Similarly you wouldn't use either in CQC as a handgun is a lot more effective. This also ignores the fact that at various times, especially lately, some types of ammo are not available. If all you have is your eggs in one basket, you're asking for trouble. It has nothing to do with the coolness factor.

[Kohan]

Huh, there sure is a lot of stupid in this thread.

I mean Fhqwghads. There sure is a lot of Fhqwghads in this thread.

[Fhqwghads]

Huh, there sure is a lot of stupid in this thread.

I mean Fhqwghads. There sure is a lot of Fhqwghads in this thread.

I'm disappointed that a moderator would stoop to silly insults. I haven't insulted anyone on this thread, is it difficult for you to return the favor? Nah you know what, never mind. If moderators don't reprimand others on here for insults, and themselves can't refrain from petty name calling, I am done. Apparently it's too difficult to act like adults when discussing this subject. I'll stick to lurking. You can go back to feeling good imagining what a glorious utopia you'd live in if you could wave a magic wand. I'll stick to my guns (literally) that you'll never take no matter how much you wish you could.

[zoobernut]

Point out a logical fallacy I made. I'm keenly interested.

You might think I don't have a right to the weapons you listed, but according to the 2nd amendment and in general what this country was founded on (life liberty and the pursuit of property) I absolutely should have that right. Now before you go on about hypocrite this or that, let me again remind you that I follow today's definition of the 2nd because that is the law of the land, so don't take what I say out of context again, thanks.

How in the hell can I justify a nuclear weapon? It's all about the right of the individual. I have a right to exist. To preserve that right, I have the right to self-defense. Using the principal of mutually-assured destruction, if someone else (including the government) can threaten violence against me, then I have a right to protect myself with equal force. The government can use nuclear weapons, and therefore I should be able to as well. Before you flip out and say how ridiculous that is, I agree - the likelihood that the US would engage in a nuclear conflict with one of their own citizens is absurd, as mutually-assured destruction dictates that the outcome would be unpleasant for both sides and would be avoided at all costs. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm able to preserve my right to exist using the same means the state uses to preserve its right to exist.

When you start to scale down the weaponry, it makes a lot more sense. Why should I not have a right to protect myself in the event the government goes tyrannical and starts rolling tanks down suburban America? I've already pointed out in other posts that the number of more conventional crimes (i.e. your average POS criminal) does not use overwhelming firepower as you suggested, and as statistics have demonstrated. So that said - how would me owning anti-aircraft cannons, or an F-16 be of any threat to you or fellow Americans? The answer is simple - it's not.

So then why should I, or other people who want our 2nd amendment preserved, have to deal with gun-grabbers taking away more of our rights, simply because of their unjustifiable fear of firearms? It didn't make any sense when gun control started, it doesn't make sense now, and it won't make sense in the future, either.

At least one person already did this for you and you conveniently ignored it. Beyond that you are too far gone to have a logical debate I can't have proper discourse with someone who thinks that the 2nd amendment should allow them to have a nuclear weapons or tanks or anti-aircraft guns or mortars or etc. People are IDIOTS. I don't want people having weapons like that because instead of accidentally shooting themselves or a family member they will accidentally blow up a school or an office building.

What if everyone was legally allowed to have biological weapons. What happens if someone accidentally drops a vial while in transport and starts a weaponized small pox epidemic in the U.S. Do you see how ridiculous you sound yet?

Fhqwghads in your previous post when you dismissed my argument and admitted that you didn't even bother to read the whole post because I was spouting "typical gun grabber mentality" that was stooping to insult me so don't go getting all high and mighty on the mod.

[notorious bum]

This reminds me of the type of dudes who think if somehow our govt enacted martial law or simply busted their door down for some bullshit reason(circumventing habeus corpus), they think they have a chance with all their guns to resist the boot or be able to put up a fight lol

Gun nuts always trying to put up a front like they could ever be like Latin America or any of the other impoverished countries that have a waged war against their oppressors in the streets.

You'll never come close to defending yourself from this nation by force, you don't stand a chance in that nightmare scenario.


Sorry, had to break up the monotony in this dumb shit I started.

[Kohan]

I'm disappointed that a moderator would stoop to silly insults.

You shouldn't be. It was greatly entertaining to me, so you've had the pleasure of brightening my day.

I haven't insulted anyone on this thread, is it difficult for you to return the favor?

Oh, you've insulted plenty of people. Those with intelligence, that is. You see, you don't have to use profane words to be insulting. You can be stupid, and therefore offend anyone who has wasted their time by trying to enter an intellectual discussion with you, since you're incapable. Regurgitating things you've heard elsewhere and denying logical arguments doesn't make you smarter, nor a winner—it makes you a buffoon, an embarrassment to everyone involved.

Nah you know what, never mind. If moderators don't reprimand others on here for insults, and themselves can't refrain from petty name calling, I am done. Apparently it's too difficult to act like adults when discussing this subject. I'll stick to lurking. You can go back to feeling good imagining what a glorious utopia you'd live in if you could wave a magic wand. I'll stick to my guns (literally) that you'll never take no matter how much you wish you could.

For sure, sweet cheeks. If this gets you to stop spamming this thread, I'd say I've done my job just fine.

[Xantavia]

Because different tools for different jobs. You wouldn't use a shotgun for long range purposes, and you wouldn't use a long rifle for short range purposes. Similarly you wouldn't use either in CQC as a handgun is a lot more effective. This also ignores the fact that at various times, especially lately, some types of ammo are not available. If all you have is your eggs in one basket, you're asking for trouble. It has nothing to do with the coolness factor.

So guns are being used for more than defensive purposes. I'm hearing that people need guns to protect themselves where a rifle wouldn't make sense. Its always for self defense or hunting, never seems to be both. And if you are hunting with something that holds 30 bullets you are either a terrible shot or have most likely destroyed the skin/meat of what you were hunting. Why not just admit you like guns and want to own a bunch of them. I have a bunch of movies, a bunch of comic books, a bunch of books, and don't feel the need to justify why I own them. I have yet to here a gun owner say the same.

[BaneTheBrawler]

my onus has been slandered before. i fear nothing. mods are totes in on it tho

[Ghost_Wheel22]

So guns are being used for more than defensive purposes. I'm hearing that people need guns to protect themselves where a rifle wouldn't make sense. Its always for self defense or hunting, never seems to be both. And if you are hunting with something that holds 30 bullets you are either a terrible shot or have most likely destroyed the skin/meat of what you were hunting. Why not just admit you like guns and want to own a bunch of them. I have a bunch of movies, a bunch of comic books, a bunch of books, and don't feel the need to justify why I own them. I have yet to here a gun owner say the same.

Because if I have a 30 round magazine I am required to use every round for every situation? Shooting my AR-15 to kill someone with my my life or the life of a loved one at stake is different from using that exact same rifle that now has a 3-9x scope to shoot and kill an animal 100+ feet away with no imminent danger to my life.

The shotgun I keep in the safe for self-defense purposes is also used to hunt waterfowl (albeit subpar). I have a bedside pistol so I can safely reach my safe and get my shotgun or rifle. I have a CC pistol I wear on pavement and I have an OC revolver I wear innawoods.

Why do I have all this paranoia about redguards breaking in? Because the fastest police response to my home is 25 minutes, I have no less than three meth labs within a few blocks, and addicts constantly roam looking to steal anything not nailed and bolted down and I've already lost a sizable amount of valuables because of them.

The other firearms I own are whatever. I enjoy guns but they are a serious tool as much as an entertaining hobby.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm still laughing at this guy thinking that the founding fathers wanted black people to have the right to bear arms.

It's just so wonderful.

[thetruepandagod]

This reminds me of the type of dudes who think if somehow our govt enacted martial law or simply busted their door down for some bullshit reason(circumventing habeus corpus), they think they have a chance with all their guns to resist the boot or be able to put up a fight lol

You'll never come close to defending yourself from this nation by force, you don't stand a chance in that nightmare scenario.

You are a fool if you think an entire armed population of the US would not be an absolute nightmare to deal with militarily.

For how much everyone on this site really complains about police/gov't abuses it's really odd for me to see people advocating them being the only ones with guns.

[archibaldcrane]

You are a fool if you think an entire armed population of the US would not be an absolute nightmare to deal with militarily.

Depends on the goals of the military action. In a win at all costs deal, bombers don't give a fuck about small arms fire.

[thetruepandagod]

Depends on the goals of the military action. In a win at all costs deal, bombers don't give a fuck about small arms fire.

I would assume if we are full on ghadaffi carpet bombing our own cities there be may some unrest within the military.

[BaneTheBrawler]

idk, sometimes i feel like nuking a few cities.

[thetruepandagod]

Who knows, the radiation poisoning may even help with your leaky anus somehow.

[notorious bum]

You're a fool if you think any sort of fight against the military/govt, by force, would develop via obvious "pew-pew" confrontations. This isn't Bolivia where you would stand a fighting chance with thousands of your gun brothers being able to organize on the streets, brandishing guns lol Activists get killed/put away/vanished for even resembling a voice of dissent.

[thetruepandagod]

You're a fool if you think any sort of fight against the military/govt, by force, would develop via obvious "pew-pew" confrontations. This isn't Bolivia where you would stand a fighting chance with thousands of your gun brothers being able to organize on the streets, brandishing guns lol Activists get killed/put away/vanished for even resembling a voice of dissent.

I was commenting on

if somehow our govt enacted martial law or simply busted their door down for some bullshit reason(circumventing habeus corpus), they think they have a chance with all their guns to resist the boot or be able to put up a fight lol

which is what i would consider a pew-pew scenario.

[Kuya]

A scenario where the US goes balls to the walls on its own cities is so remote that seeing the possibility discussed is a bit strange. Besides if the usg ever did do that, most of the gun rights activitists would probably support it since the gov would just say they're going after muslim terrorists or something.

As long as the target isn't white, the gun loving right will support it.