Multiple marines, police officers wounded and killed in attack in Chattanooga, TN
219 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224782]A guy breaks into your house and takes your gun and kills people.[/QUOTE]
I've owned guns since 2012 and so far it hasn't happened. Nor to any of the several gun owners I know.
Plus he'd have to
1) know I have firearms and exactly where I live and where I store them
2) bash down a [b]very[/b] sturdy steel door
3) run up six flights of stairs while carrying a blowtorch
4) dodge various 7,62x39 rounds and/or 12gauge like he's the fucking matrix or some shit
5) murder me and my entire family
6) melt down a steel safe
7) get away without anyone the neighborhood hearing the commotion and calling the cops
I think I'm safe.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;48224855]I've owned guns since 2012 and so far it hasn't happened. Nor to any of the several gun owners I know.
Plus he'd have to
1) know I have firearms and exactly where I live and where I store them
2) bash down a [b]very[/b] sturdy steel door
3) run up six flights of stairs while carrying a blowtorch
4) dodge various 7,62x39 rounds and/or 12gauge like he's the fucking matrix or some shit
5) murder me and my entire family
6) melt down a steel safe
7) get away without anyone the neighborhood hearing the commotion and calling the cops
I think I'm safe.[/QUOTE]
But what if [B]you[/B] decide to murder people???? Case closed bud you need to turn 'em in.
ISIS tweets some moments before, but all I'm hearing is shit about domestic terrorism. Let me guess, poor old boy got told by his gun to shoot innocent people. Glad the SOB is dead at least. The fact that place is a gun free zone pisses me off, at least allow conceal carry.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224782]A guy breaks into your house and takes your gun and kills people.[/QUOTE]
A guy breaks into my car, steals it and uses it to run people down. Better take my car away.
A guy breaks into my house, steals all my kitchen knives and uses them to murder people. Better take those away as well.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224869]But what if [B]you[/B] decide to murder people????[/QUOTE]
Fill my '86 beater with propane tanks, and be all like WITNESS ME, I AM THE ONE WHO GRABS THE SUN
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224830]Even in cases where confiscation has reduced gun crime (which can include improper storage or transport of a firearm) it does not have a meaningful effect on rates of violent crime. Firearms are not whispering in anyone's ears and convincing sane people to go on killing sprees, and the argument that "they make crime more accessible" is not a convincing one to me, either, because someone motivated to commit murder is going to do it with or without a firearm - this has been fairly effectively proven by violent crime statistics.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you are thinking of "crime more accessible" correctly. It is not so much that people are sitting around thinking "Man if I had a gun right now I would totally be down to shoot some people." It's that they introduce a lethal level of escalation into otherwise non-lethal situations. If someone has a concealed weapon with them and some sort of situation emerges, say there is someone talking shit to them and walking towards them. That person says something too the effect of "I'm going to beat your ass." This is a threatening situation, to be sure. Under most states' laws that gun owner is justified in shooting that threatening person. In order for it to be ruled a justified homicide he must only prove that in that situation he felt his life may be in danger.
Now take the gun out of the situation. The person is approaching the would be gun owner and being threatening. The would be gun owner has all the same options he previously had, call the police, run away, call for help, but he is lacking the one that ends with someone dead.
Sure you can argue maybe the gun owner is some super kung fu master and kills the dude anyways but that pretty much never happens.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224830]it does not have a meaningful effect on rates of violent crime.[/QUOTE]
yes it does. read my post.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224830]Firearms are not whispering in anyone's ears and convincing sane people to go on killing sprees,[/QUOTE]
most murders aren't killing sprees, aren't committed by the mentally ill, and aren't committed between strangers.
really, mass shootings shouldn't even be the basis for gun control reform.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224830]someone motivated to commit murder is going to do it with or without a firearm - this has been fairly effectively proven by violent crime statistics.[/QUOTE]
no they won't
human beings are impulsive and wishy-washy, and the possibility that a crime will fail deters people from committing it. if i someone fucks my wife and i want to kill them, i'm going to feel a lot more confident in shooting them in the face than i am stabbing them in the neck, because it's easier and more fool-proof.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224847]You can hunt with AR-15s in Texas, I don't know about other places. And there are no laws preventing you from target shooting with AR-15s, which is all mine has ever done. I can promise you mine has never killed a living thing. So yes, they can do other things than kill.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=me]I am not counting going to the shooting range and other fun activities as practical purposes because that argument allows a lot of really useless stuff to be considered useful. [/QUOTE]
Like I said I don't really think a long gun ban will do much, but that doesn't really count as a practical purpose.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224931]I don't think you are thinking of "crime more accessible" correctly. It is not so much that people are sitting around thinking "Man if I had a gun right now I would totally be down to shoot some people." It's that they introduce a lethal level of escalation into otherwise non-lethal situations. If someone has a concealed weapon with them and some sort of situation emerges, say there is someone talking shit to them and walking towards them. That person says something too the effect of "I'm going to beat your ass." This is a threatening situation, to be sure. Under most states' laws that gun owner is justified in shooting that threatening person. In order for it to be ruled a justified homicide he must only prove that in that situation he felt his life may be in danger.
Now take the gun out of the situation. The person is approaching the would be gun owner and being threatening. The would be gun owner has all the same options he previously had, call the police, run away, call for help, but he is lacking the one that ends with someone dead.
Sure you can argue maybe the gun owner is some super kung fu master and kills the dude anyways but that pretty much never happens.[/QUOTE]
You would prefer the innocent to come out badly injured or possibly dead just so the criminal doesn't die? Police response time is not fast enough to save someone from an individual with a bludgeon, a knife, or even just big muscles.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224945]Like I said I don't really think a long gun ban will do much, but that doesn't really count as a practical purpose.[/QUOTE]
Suddenly hunting (particularly hog control) isn't a valid purpose? Who defines valid purposes around here? Can I have a chat with him?
I was just in Chattanooga yesterday. Holy shit.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224947]You would prefer the innocent to come out badly injured or possibly dead just so the criminal doesn't die?[/QUOTE]
Statistically fewer people will die when situations are not allowed to escalate to lethal measures. There will always be THAT ONE TIME or THAT ONE SITUATION in which a gun will save lives and protect the innocent and save Virginia of her virtue, but that isn't the common case.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224963]Statistically fewer people will die when situations are not allowed to escalate to lethal measures. There will always be THAT ONE TIME or THAT ONE SITUATION in which a gun will save lives and protect the innocent and save Virginia of her virtue, but that isn't the common case.[/QUOTE]
You're talking to someone who's been in "that one time." I have no plans to get rid of the gun that saved me.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48224888]ISIS tweets some moments before, but all I'm hearing is shit about domestic terrorism. Let me guess, poor old boy got told by his gun to shoot innocent people. Glad the SOB is dead at least. The fact that place is a gun free zone pisses me off, at least allow conceal carry.[/QUOTE]
It was bull apparently because Fox News doesn't know what timezones are, the tweet came after the attack.
[QUOTE=OvB;48224768]Aren't most gun crimes committed with hand guns?[/QUOTE]
So much so that rifles are an extreme anomaly when it comes to them being used in Crime.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224974]You're talking to someone who's been in "that one time." I have no plans to get rid of the gun that saved me.[/QUOTE]
Good for you, but can you not see why your bias makes it difficult for you to have a reasoned opinion on the topic?
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48224945]Like I said I don't really think a long gun ban will do much, but that doesn't really count as a practical purpose.[/QUOTE]
We're a nation with set in stone rights, we don't need excuses to justify using our rights.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48225002]Good for you, but can you not see why your bias makes it difficult for you to have a reasoned opinion on the topic?[/QUOTE]
I have experience in the situation and I feel like if I had not been armed it would have ended very badly for myself and my family. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion. That's not a bias. You wouldn't call a police officer biased if he made statements based on his experience with criminality.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48224847]You can hunt with AR-15s in Texas, I don't know about other places. And there are no laws preventing you from target shooting with AR-15s, which is all mine has ever done. I can promise you mine has never killed a living thing. So yes, they can do other things than kill.[/QUOTE]
Be that as it may the AR is still a platform specifically designed for military use AKA killing soldiers, not hunting.
[QUOTE=nox;48225016]Be that as it may the AR is still a platform specifically designed for military use AKA killing soldiers, not hunting.[/QUOTE]
You could say the same about most hunting rifles which are typically derivatives of the Mauser action. Would you ban all military firearms, including antique pieces and sentimental bringbacks, or just the ones that look scary to you? You are aware of course that the AR-15 platform is over 50 years old...
My AR-15 is as civilian as my Remington 700, also a civilian version of a military rifle.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225011]You wouldn't call a police officer biased if he made statements based on his experience with criminality.[/QUOTE]
Dude what, personal experience is considered anecdotal evidence for a reason.
If a police officer experiences more crimes with black people than white people, would he be right in saying that black people are more crime prone? No, it would be a biased opinion.
[QUOTE=OvB;48224103]Fox News just showed live helicopter footage that showed two dead Marines on the ground at the base next to containers. Gj.[/QUOTE]
The news doesn't respect anyone or anything, the news only respects ratings and profit.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48225039]The news doesn't respect anyone or anything, the news only respects ratings and profit.[/QUOTE]
And this is Fox News we're talking about, they're not even actually considered a news network but an entertainment network.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;48225038]Dude what, personal experience is considered anecdotal evidence for a reason.
If a police officer experiences more crimes with black people than white people, would he be right in saying that black people are more crime prone? No, it would be a biased opinion.[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't discredit anything I have to say??? FP has this allergic reaction to anecdotes being used in arguments and it's hilarious. I'm not arbitrarily biased, I'm talking from experience. If you could just call anyone you disagreed with biased and completely destroy their argument that would be fucking retarded and absolutely no discourse would ever happen.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225032]You could say the same about most hunting rifles which are typically derivatives of the Mauser action. Would you ban all military firearms, including antique pieces and sentimental bringbacks, or just the ones that look scary to you?
My AR-15 is as civilian as my Remington 700, also a civilian version of a military rifle.[/QUOTE]
That's not really comparable. Hunting rifles designed around the mouser action are still designed for hunting rifles. You don't put a sports car transmission in a Ford Focus and call it a sports car. The AR-15 is an M-16 without the automatic fire option. A sports car that has been limited to 80 mph is still a sports car, just a less fun sports car.
Well I doubt out gun laws will change severely anytime soon. But in any case, I am sorry for the loss of four people.
[QUOTE=nox;48225016]Be that as it may the AR is still a platform specifically designed for military use AKA killing soldiers, not hunting.[/QUOTE]
So is just about every gun out there. The modern AR-15 is a civilian rifle based off the M-16. Wanna know a rifle that I got for 200 bucks that WAS designed for killing humans? A Mosin Nagant. Uses a much bigger bullet, has better range, can survive anything, but since it's a bolt gun it's not scary. Hell, I even got the bayonet for it. AR-15's are common hunting and sporting rifles, nothing wrong with them. There is something wrong with the people who want them banned though.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225061]But that doesn't discredit anything I have to say??? FP has this allergic reaction to anecdotes being used in arguments and it's hilarious.[/QUOTE]
That's because they lead to bad logic and ignore trends and statistics that can be repeatedly proven. I can repeatedly prove that drunk drivers get into more accidents. just because someone drove home drunk and things went fine one time does not disprove that and they would be wrong to use that to refute a study of hundreds of drunk drivers hitting more things.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48225066]That's not really comparable. Hunting rifles designed around the mouser action are still designed for hunting rifles. You don't put a sports car transmission in a Ford Focus and call it a sports car. The AR-15 is an M-16 without the automatic fire option. A sports car that has been limited to 80 mph is still a sports car, just a less fun sports car.[/QUOTE]
The Mauser 98 is a military rifle. Most commercially available hunting rifles are closely related to that action, many being just .308 copies.
My AR-15 was built for the civilian market with civilian parts and sold in a civilian store to a civilian (me). It is a civilian rifle.
My 1918 Lee Enfield, however, is through-and-through a military rifle. Built in a military factory in Australia, issued to multiple militaries, and used in multiple wars. Would you ban it?
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48225002]Good for you, but can you not see why your bias makes it difficult for you to have a reasoned opinion on the topic?[/QUOTE]
Both sides are biased and treat the world like it a single immutable surface that will react the same way everytime.
I'm not jumping in the argument because both sides are sitting on highhorses, the gun situation needs to be fixed. However, its not nearly as fucking deadly as they make it out to be.
@Grenadiac
Oh dear lord if miltary rifles like the 98 Mauser or Lee Enfield were ever banned there goes my dream of being a WWI Reenactors.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.