Yet another shooting thread

[Derec]

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

in the US, 85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

You are being a bit disingenuous.

Since my point was to illustrate how rare homicides using rifles are, no, it is not disingenuous at all.
Again, handguns are vast majority of those 85.7%. Rifles are a small fraction of it.

 

[Derec]

Bbbbut you said AR15!
The holy relic of Rittenhause!
Dey dindunuffin!

It is funny how anti-gun folks treat somebody like Rittenhouse, who defended himself from attack from some felons at 17, compared to somebody like Myon Burrell, who at 16 shot at somebody for "mean mugging" him, but missed and instead murdered an 11 year old girl.
The former is seen as public enemy #1 by the left, while the latter's actions are excused ("he was only 16 - he couldn't know it was wrong to shoot at people for looking at him a certain way" and "something something prefrontal cortex").

 

[Derec]

But not by an AR-15. See, if we break it all down to models of guns, the number killed by any type of design is negligible. Never happened.

Way to miss a point. My point was not about a particular model but that all rifles (of which so-called "assault weapons" are but a subset) are used in so few homicides, even "hands, fists and feet" are used more frequently.

And the number killed by any individual gun is vanishingly small. It’s a wonder we even worry about these things at all.

And you are missing the point even harder. Jimmy and you are the gang who could not shoot straight.

 

[Derec]

Guns are not defensive devices,

Not this old chestnut again! Whether they are classified as "offensive" or "defensive" devices, they can, and are frequently used for self-defense.

and that popular myth, that lethal force is an ethical response to a minor threat,

Define "minor threat"? Do you consider a mugging or carjacking a "minor threat"? How about a home invasion?

Because you genuinely believe that a person being killed, because they attempted to steal property of trivial value, is not immoral; But as most people don't share that frankly evil stance, you are poorly advised to behave as though it were a universally accepted position

Value of property is not important. Theft by taking is one thing, robbery is another. If somebody robs you at gun or knifepoint and only gets away with a couple of bucks, that is still armed robbery and not petty theft. And yes, you can legally and ethically defend yourself using lethal force.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And the number killed by any individual gun is vanishingly small. It’s a wonder we even worry about these things at all.

And you are missing the point even harder. Jimmy and you are the gang who could not shoot straight.

I’m not missing the point. I’m mocking the point because I think it’s a ridiculous argument that we shouldn’t seek to regulate these kinds of firearms because the number of deaths caused by them is small. Tell that to the family members of the victims of these weapons.

And I’m not talking about all firearms despite what Loren may think of my posts.

 

[Derec]

*An idea that appears to originate in the fevered imaginations of people who read to many Fleming or Clancy novels, without grasping that they are entertainment, and not news

I was thinking more of "In the Line of Fire" with John Malkovich as the would-be assassin.

 

[Derec]

I’m not missing the point. I’m mocking the point

You are mocking because you are missing.

because I think it’s a ridiculous argument that we shouldn’t seek to regulate these kinds of firearms because the number of deaths caused by them is small.

First off, it's not about regulating, it's about banning.
And second, Dems want to ban so-called "assault weapons" even though rifles are rarely used to kill people. A lot more people are killed with handguns. So why focus on certain rifles? Because they look scary? Or because they are popular with the "wrong" kind of people, people who do not tend to vote Democratic.

Tell that to the family members of the victims of these weapons.

That is disingenuous argumentation. It can be used to argue to ban anything that has ever killed anybody.

And I’m not talking about all firearms despite what Loren may think of my posts.

No, just certain rifles based on how they look.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m not missing the point. I’m mocking the point

You are mocking because you are missing.

Nope.

because I think it’s a ridiculous argument that we shouldn’t seek to regulate these kinds of firearms because the number of deaths caused by them is small.

First off, it's not about regulating, it's about banning.

Not for me.

And second, Dems want to ban so-called "assault weapons" even though rifles are rarely used to kill people. A lot more people are killed with handguns.

This is the argument I do not find compelling at all. The one I am mocking.

So why focus on certain rifles?

Because these rifles have no real use except for murder. I agree that handguns are useful for defense and you won’t see me arguing for banning handguns or regulating them as critically as these military rifles.

Because they look scary? Or because they are popular with the "wrong" kind of people, people who do not tend to vote Democratic.

I’m speaking for myself not “Dems”.

Tell that to the family members of the victims of these weapons.

That is disingenuous argumentation. It can be used to argue to ban anything that has ever killed anybody.

Disingenuous argumentation is arguing against positions I am not promoting.

And I’m not talking about all firearms despite what Loren may think of my posts.

No, just certain rifles based on how they look.

You aren’t arguing with me you are arguing against a different position than mine.

 

[JohnG]

Tell that to the family members of the victims of these weapons.

That is disingenuous argumentation. It can be used to argue to ban anything that has ever killed anybody.

No we don't ban cars because they kill people. Cars are a big part of society, economy, lifestyle, and they save many lives by getting people to safety, to get help, to evacuate disasters...

Guns kill stuff. That's about it.

Regulating guns in a way that deters human target practice would save lives

 

[Derec]

Nope.

Yes.

Not for me.

Then what are you arguing with me for? I am not against reasonable regulation. I am against this monomaniacal focus on so-called "assault weapons" and the efforts to ban them.

This is the argument I do not find compelling at all. The one I am mocking.

Why do you not find it compelling? Rifles are rarely used in crime. Handguns are frequently used. "So let's focus on rifles" is not a sound strategy to fix the problem.

Because these rifles have no real use except for murder.

They have other uses. Most are, no doubt, just used for target practice. Some are used for home defense or for hunting small animals.
And they are very rarely used to murder people. Unlike handguns, which are frequently used for that purpose.

I agree that handguns are useful for defense and you won’t see me arguing for banning handguns or regulating them as critically as these military rifles n

First of all, these are not military rifles. They are made to resemble military rifles, but they shoot the same projectile as others non-assaulty rifles. Other rifles use even more powerful cartridges' (say, .308).
Second, rifles can also be used for defense.
And as I said before, handguns are frequently used for crime, rifles (of all types) much less frequently.

I’m speaking for myself not “Dems”.

So what is your reasoning to ban weapons that are rarely used to actually kill people?

And I’m not talking about all firearms despite what Loren may think of my posts.

No, you are talking about firearms responsible for the least number of deaths.

You aren’t arguing with me you are arguing against a different position than mine.

Then explain yourself instead of mocking. These weapons kill few people. They are (contrary to your claim) not military weapons. So why hyperfocus on them?

 

[Derec]

Guns kill stuff. That's about it.

Including food.

Regulating guns in a way that deters human target practice would save lives

Indeed. I am not against reasonable regulation (which should focus on people btw, just like we focus on drivers instead of banning certain cars just because certain politicians dislike them).

 

[Shadowy Man]

Nope.

Yes.

Not for me.

Then what are you arguing with me for? I am not against reasonable regulation. I am against this monomaniacal focus on so-called "assault weapons" and the efforts to ban them.

That is not my position.

This is the argument I do not find compelling at all. The one I am mocking.

Why do you not find it compelling? Rifles are rarely used in crime.

So what? That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be regulated.

Handguns are frequently used. "So let's focus on rifles" is not a sound strategy to fix the problem.

I’m not promoting that strategy. I think all firearms should be regulated appropriately.

Because these rifles have no real use except for murder.

They have other uses. Most are, no doubt, just used for target practice. Some are used for home defense or for hunting small animals.

other types of weapons could be used for these.

And they are very rarely used to murder people.

So what?

Unlike handguns, which are frequently used for that purpose.

And other purposes as I’m sure you’ll point out.

I agree that handguns are useful for defense and you won’t see me arguing for banning handguns or regulating them as critically as these military rifles n

First of all, these are not military rifles. They are made to resemble military rifles, but they shoot the same projectile as others non-assaulty rifles. Other rifles use even more powerful cartridges' (say, .308).

I believe regulations should be based on relevant parameters like ammunition size, velocity, rate of fire, magazine size. Regardless of how they “look”.

I’m speaking for myself not “Dems”.

So what is your reasoning to ban weapons that are rarely used to actually kill people?

I didn’t say “ban”.

And I’m not talking about all firearms despite what Loren may think of my posts.

No, you are talking about firearms responsible for the least number of deaths.

So what? The number of deaths has no bearing to me on whether they should be regulated appropriately or not.

You aren’t arguing with me you are arguing against a different position than mine.

Then explain yourself instead of mocking. These weapons kill few people. They are (contrary to your claim) not military weapons. So why hyperfocus on them?

I have explained my position many times on This board. I no do not have a hyperfocus” on them.

 

[Derec]

AR-15s and similar guns make very poor self defense weapons.
Their bullets can penetrate numerous walls and cause innocent deaths far away from the crime scene.

No, they can't "penetrate numerous walls" and they certainly can't cause innocent deaths "far away from the crime scene" after passing through even one wall and getting deformed in the process and losing gyroscopic stabilization.

And even handgun rounds can pass through a wall and cause innocent deaths nearby. Often in drive-by shooting the shooter misses the intended target and hits somebody inside a nearby house.

Blasting away with such a weapon might get one in trouble if an innocent person gets hit by a stray bullet.

If you want to avoid any danger of overpenetration

 

[Derec]

That is not my position.

And I ask again:
What are you arguing with me for?

So what? That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be regulated.

Who said anything about that? All firearms should be reasonably regulated. But rifles should not be singled out.

I’m not promoting that strategy. I think all firearms should be regulated appropriately.

And I ask again:
What are you arguing with me for?

I believe regulations should be based on relevant parameters like ammunition size, velocity, rate of fire, magazine size. Regardless of how they “look”.

All of commonly used firearms are lethal weapons. I think regulation should focus on the people. Like how we regulate driving. A regular driving license will let you operate vehicles as dissimilar in capabilities as Ford Festiva on one side or a Porsche 911 GT3 or Ford F350 on the other. If your license gets yanked for unsafe driving (say DUI or reckless driving) a 911, you may not drive a Festiva either, because the Festiva is still plenty dangerous to kill somebody with.

I didn’t say “ban”.

Dems want to ban them though.

So what? The number of deaths has no bearing to me on whether they should be regulated appropriately or not.

Define "appropriately"? I do not think AR15s should be under extra scrutiny/tighter regulations compared to Glock 17s. If anything, firearms used to kill people more frequently should be under extra scrutiny, not the other way around. That's how they regulate in the Bizarro World.

I have explained my position many times on This board. I no do not have a hyperfocus” on them.

And I ask again:
What are you arguing with me for?

If you really do not have a hyperfocus on so-called "assault weapons", then we do not disagree here and you could have spared yourself that useless mocking.

 

[Derec]

That scene always cracks me up, not because of the knife part, but because nobody in the hood would be wearing a Michael Jackson jacket while trying to rob someone. Even back during the height of his career.

So, seeing how wise you are in the ways of sartorial preferences of robbers, what is the preferred mugging outfit these days?

 

[Derec]

And yet HFF are very small numbers compared to all firearms.

HFF?

Hands feet fists.

I see. That's my point. Hands, fists and feet are responsible for a very small fraction of homicides. And yet, rifles are responsible for even less. And so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of all rifles.

And yet there is this obsession on the left with banning so-called "assault weapons". It just wastes political capital without having any positive effect.

 

[Derec]

The obvious point is that fact is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that it is s fact. It gas as much relevance to any discussion about gun control as the fact that shooters with functional eyesight are more numerous than blind shooters.

Bullshit. It has very much a relevance to discussion about gun control given that Dems are obsessing with banning certain rifles even though they are rarely used to kill people.

 

[Derec]

Defensive uses of firearms are generally immoral,

BS.

as the use of lethal force is typically unnecessary for defence,

Sometimes, but not "typically". Take home invasions for example.

and represents a massive (indeed, outside the US, criminal) over-reaction.

So in Australia, when somebody breaks into your house, you just have to, what, let them do whatever they want?

 

[Toni]

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

in the US, 85.7% of all homicides were committed using firearms.

You are being a bit disingenuous.

Since my point was to illustrate how rare homicides using rifles are, no, it is not disingenuous at all.
Again, handguns are vast majority of those 85.7%. Rifles are a small fraction of it.

It it’s not rare: it’s far too common.

 

[robnisch]