Yet another shooting thread

[Tigers!]

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?

We ask them politely to leave.
Otherwise we release the drop bears, kangaroos, poisonous spiders, sharks, snakes etc. upon them.
And Bluey.
And the Wiggles

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m just arguing against what I consider to be faulty logic that just because something state makes it less worthy of consideration.

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

And I also find it hypocritical that some of the people with this idea don’t hold this opinion in other considerations.

I won’t bother arguing with Derec again on this as we are just always talking past each other and it’s obviously wasted ‘breath’.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

It is a pointless statistic: hands are not optional. The frequency with which a weapon is used to kill people is interesting but a compelling reason to allow legal ownership. Using your rationale, private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

It is a pointless statistic: hands are not optional. The frequency with which a weapon is used to kill people is interesting but a compelling reason to allow legal ownership. Using your rationale, private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

The logic appears to be that “Dems” are only “obsessed” with the wrong thing. If they cared about gun deaths they would “obsess” with the banning of handguns. Derec doesn’t see that, therefore they don’t actually care about gun deaths.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What point is that? You were the one babbling about "catching" not me. You are the one who ignores almost the entire content of a post (see the bold-faced italicized portion above that your response shows absolutely no recognition of). Prohibiting a hidden gun sends the NEW message that hiding them will increase the penalty WHEN ONE IS CAUGHT.

Yes, it has the same function effect of increasing penalties of existing laws for armed robbery etc... Which raises the interesting question of why you feel the need to argue over its efficacy.

It's already illegal (at least in sane states--I do not agree with constitutional carry!) without a permit. What are you proposing?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

This only makes sense if the only way someone can be killed is with a gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

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.

How many of those were committed with legally owned firearms, though?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Disagree--I think it's about the camel's nose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

The point is you put your effort where the problem is. A total success could at most reduce the murder rate by 5% and probably wouldn't change it.

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue you'll almost never be wrong in thinking there are ulterior motives.

 

[Toni]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

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.

How many of those were committed with legally owned firearms, though?

The stats I saw did not break it down that way.

What difference does it make? I grew up in a family that hunted. A lot. My grandfather, uncle abd father were extremely good marksmen, especially my grandfather. One of my kids was in the army. All of my uncles and some of my cousins were in various branches of the military. One of my kids hunts and owns firearms that belonged to his grandfather and great grandfather. The game my father, uncle and grandfather shot helped stretch our grocery budget. My grandfather, uncles father shot foxes on their farms and groundhogs made cow pastures unsafe for cows.

I very well understand the necessity and efficacy of gun ownership especially in rural areas where predators can cause problems with livestock.

I personally made the decision decades ago not to own firearms or to have them in my house.

I do not oppose responsible gun ownership but I do very strongly oppose gun possession by felons, addicts, and people with histories of gun violence, domestic violence and some kinds of mental illness. I strongly believe in mandatory gun safety classes and registration for ALL gun owners.

No rational person looks at the US and does not recognize that we have a very serious problem with gun violence.

 

[Toni]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

The point is you put your effort where the problem is. A total success could at most reduce the murder rate by 5% and probably wouldn't change it.

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue you'll almost never be wrong in thinking there are ulterior motives.

I have no idea how you reached your at most 5% figure but yeah, that’s enough for me.

 

[laughing dog]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

The point is you put your effort where the problem is. A total success could at most reduce the murder rate by 5% and probably wouldn't change it.

Sone oeople think you put your effort on the low hanging fruit first and work your way up.

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue you'll almost never be wrong in thinking there are ulterior motives.

I don’t think I’ve seen a more ironic comment.

 

[Elixir]

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue…

“The issue” isn’t guns, it’s the harm they cause. Not just the physical maiming and death, either. There’s the psychological damage of always living less than a heartbeat from death, the ability for underage punks to intimidate the very people who should be schooling them, the general degradation of trust, safety and at the end of the day, happiness.
Anything that mitigates all those effects, is worth the effort
Happiness is a warm gun to only a tiny fraction of the population. We are awash in guns because the mfrs own so many politicians.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

The point is you put your effort where the problem is. A total success could at most reduce the murder rate by 5% and probably wouldn't change it.

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue you'll almost never be wrong in thinking there are ulterior motives.

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.

For example, you seem to be implying that someone who is against some guns must be against all guns.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

The point is you put your effort where the problem is. A total success could at most reduce the murder rate by 5% and probably wouldn't change it.

When you see effort very disproportionate to the issue you'll almost never be wrong in thinking there are ulterior motives.

I have no idea how you reached your at most 5% figure but yeah, that’s enough for me.

Yes. Even were that dubious claim true he acts as if lowering murder rates by 5% is a bad thing.

 

[bilby]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

This only makes sense if the only way someone can be killed is with a gun.

Or just if the only EASY way to kill someone is with a gun.

Which it is.

It's really difficult for most people to kill someone else, without using a gun. While killing someone else with a gun is so easy, that it often happens by mistake.

 

[Derec]

And Bluey.
And the Wiggles

Shooting them may actual be less cruel.

 

[Derec]

It just doesn’t make logical sense to me that the rarity of deaths by so-called “assault riffles” means that we should not consider stricter regulations on them.

First of all, these are so-called "assault weapons", a somewhat vague category invented solely for the purpose of the 2000s era ban.
Assault rifles are military rifles that are already very strictly regulated.

Second, the finite political capital for gun law reforms should be used in a way where it would do most good, not where it would do little to no good. I think regulating people who want to buy and use firearms is the best way to reduce gun crime. Not going after a weapon category that is not responsible for much crime at all.

And I also find it hypocritical that some of the people with this idea don’t hold this opinion in other considerations.
I won’t bother arguing with Derec again on this as we are just always talking past each other and it’s obviously wasted ‘breath’.

We are talking past each other because you won't answer straight what "stricter regulation" you advocate and why you think certain rifles should be subject to it, when they are a very small problem compared to handguns.

 

[Derec]

It is a pointless statistic: hands are not optional. The frequency with which a weapon is used to kill people is interesting but a compelling reason to allow legal ownership. Using your rationale, private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

The disingenuous arguments are getting ever more ridiculous. Personal nuclear weapons? WTF?
Note that legal ownership of rifles is already allowed, they are not hard to obtain and rifles are pretty popular firearms. And yet, rifles are rarely used in crime. So there is no warrant for stricter scrutiny than for handguns, which are frequently used in crime.

And as far as your "hands are not optional" quip. Nobody claimed they are. The point is that homicides using "hands, fists and feet" are rare, but that homicides using rifles are rarer still. Which makes Dems obsession with banning certain rifles quite irrational.

 

[Derec]

Or just if the only EASY way to kill someone is with a gun.

Which it is.

It's really difficult for most people to kill someone else, without using a gun. While killing someone else with a gun is so easy, that it often happens by mistake.

Tell that to that 17 year old Rwandan who stabbed those kids in England.
I do not think he had much difficulty.