|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2016 : 19:30:12 [Permalink]
|
| So your odds of being attacked with a deadly weapon and failing to defend yourself properly are 99.95%, or about 1,999 chances out of 2,000 |
Think about how long it takes someone to pull out a handgun and fire it. Almost no time. By the time your brain registers that they've pulled the trigger, the bullet has probably gone through you.
See, a lot of these ammosexuals were raised in the days of movie and TV westerns, and saw a lot of 'shootouts at noon', on a dusty street in a small town. (Which almost never happened; many jurisdictions had strict gun laws, and in some towns open carry was not only outlawed, but visitors had to turn their guns in to the authorities for the duration of their stay.) But they think it's a 50-50 opportunity, with both of you prepared.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2016 : 20:33:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
Think about how long it takes someone to pull out a handgun and fire it. Almost no time. By the time your brain registers that they've pulled the trigger, the bullet has probably gone through you. |
Not just gun-vs-gun. If a guy who is threatening you with a baseball bat (for example) see you reaching for your piece, he's probably going to decide to stop threatening and instead swing for the fence. His weapon is already out, and even if his swing isn't optimal, any connection he makes is probably going to throw your aim off just from pain, if not momentum.
In another scenario, I suspect a lot of gun owners think they'd wake up at the least little bit of sound, become 100% awake and aware in a fraction of a second, grab their handgun and with perfect judgement identify their foe and hit center mass at least once. Odds are, they will instead require much disturbance to wake up, then stumble around with a gun and veins pumping with rationality- and aim-destroying adrenaline, and at least point the weapon at - if not fire it at - a friend or relative who's doing something perfectly innocent.
A friend of mine once (when awake late at night) heard noises downstairs, grabbed his weapon and ran to the top of the stairs. When his mother-in-law (who'd had trouble with her front-door key) turned on the lights, what she saw was my friend at the top of the stairs, naked and pointing a shotgun at her. He'd forgotten she was supposed to come to his home, but luckily, he didn't pull the trigger. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
cloakshands
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2016 : 09:42:54 [Permalink]
|
There should be strict ownership regulations and gun control measures.
|
|
|
|
quickthinker
Spammer
Philippines
17 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2016 : 18:51:02 [Permalink]
|
| A gun ban must be implemented. It is indeed important especially that so many innocent people became a victim of some abusive men. In addition to it, there must be restrictions and gun controls to prevent tragedy, violent acts, and killings all over. |
quickthinker |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2016 : 07:29:16 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe in a ban.
But I do believe in regulation.
All weapons should be registered, and a licence required for each registration.
The license should require proof of theoretical and practical knowledge of gun safety and proficiency in handling the gun.
Guns, just like car, can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Requiring licence to own and use them, and demanding responsibility of gun owners not to let their weapons end up in the wrong hands should be a priority.
Your toddler's hands, for example, are definitely the wrong hands. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/09/2016 06:48:09 |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2017 : 14:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I don't believe in a ban.
But I do believe in regulation.
All weapons should be registered, and a licence required for each registration.
The license should require proof of theoretical and practical knowledge of gun safety and proficiency in handling the gun.
Guns, just like car, can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Requiring licence to own and use them, and demanding responsibility of gun owners not to let their weapons end up in the wrong hands should be a priority.
Your toddler's hands, for example, are definitely the wrong hands.
|
I have heard the argument that requiring a simple license to vote is too burdensome for someone to exercise their right. How is this different for a gun? Or do you approve of ID's for voting. Do you think some of these laws could become too burdensome for some to exercise their right to own a gun? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 05:20:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
I have heard the argument that requiring a simple license to vote is too burdensome for someone to exercise their right. How is this different for a gun? |
If you vote in anger, nobody dies a fraction of a second later.
The whole "too burdensome" question goes away if we first repeal the Second Amendment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 10:11:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
I have heard the argument that requiring a simple license to vote is too burdensome for someone to exercise their right. How is this different for a gun? |
If you vote in anger, nobody dies a fraction of a second later.
The whole "too burdensome" question goes away if we first repeal the Second Amendment.
|
If we repeal the 2nd amendment wouldn't then gun ownership be left to the states to make laws about? Some states would allow gun ownership and others would not. Or would you want an amendment forbidding citizens to own guns at all? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 10:40:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
If we repeal the 2nd amendment wouldn't then gun ownership be left to the states to make laws about? Some states would allow gun ownership and others would not. Or would you want an amendment forbidding citizens to own guns at all? |
I laid out my preferred system on page one.
Gun violence is a problem that affects our society as a whole, and so should be dealt with at as high a level as possible. But one need not amend the Constitution to implement my plan (after a hypothetical repeal of the Second), no more than an amendment was required to institute the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or even the national 55-MPH speed limit.
Of course, I also think that the patchwork of state laws has become ridiculous, especially in this day of fast travel and free two-day shipping. When people need only drive a few miles to get around "blue laws" or go online to shop for items that are illegal to sell (but not possess) in their home state, then such laws are invalidated in practice. If state borders had import/export and immigration controls, or if horses were still the fastest mode of transportation, then those laws would make some sense. All such "experiments" in democracy should probably get rolled into Federal regulations, now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 13:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, I also oppose a total ban on firearms. I know too many people who need to deal with wildlife quickly but from a distance.
I favor a 100% registration system wherein a prospective owner must justify their need for a firearm in order to obtain a license for that specific firearm (one license per gun, necessarily obtained prior to purchase). Predators destroying your livestock? Here's a license. Live too far from town to buy meat on a regular basis? Here's your license. Live in a "bad" neighborhood? Sorry, no license, since it'd likely just add another stolen gun to an already ugly situation. |
Wow, you would deny a person the ability to defend themselves because criminals might steal the gun?
| I do favor a total ban on handguns, since they're designed solely to kill other humans. |
Why is this your basis for banning guns? I doubt that a gun ban will keep the guns from the criminals.
Eugene Stoner (inventor of the AR-15) might agree:The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
|
The AR-15 semi automatic weapon that shoots 0.223 caliber ammunition. The assault weapon M-16 the military uses is a variant of the AR-15 except it has a fully auto and 3 round burst modes. These are huge differences.
What is a good plan to get rid of the existing guns in the US? Normal attrition or some kind of confiscation? |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 13:40:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
If we repeal the 2nd amendment wouldn't then gun ownership be left to the states to make laws about? Some states would allow gun ownership and others would not. Or would you want an amendment forbidding citizens to own guns at all? |
I laid out my preferred system on page one.
Gun violence is a problem that affects our society as a whole, and so should be dealt with at as high a level as possible. But one need not amend the Constitution to implement my plan (after a hypothetical repeal of the Second), no more than an amendment was required to institute the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or even the national 55-MPH speed limit. |
Don't you need to amend the constitution to nullify a previous amendment? How would your side be able to get enough support from the states to repeal the 2A?
Of course, I also think that the patchwork of state laws has become ridiculous, especially in this day of fast travel and free two-day shipping. When people need only drive a few miles to get around "blue laws" or go online to shop for items that are illegal to sell (but not possess) in their home state, then such laws are invalidated in practice. If state borders had import/export and immigration controls, or if horses were still the fastest mode of transportation, then those laws would make some sense. All such "experiments" in democracy should probably get rolled into Federal regulations, now.
|
I could be for scrapping the state laws and making common sense federal laws if the right was still given to us. This would make it easier then to carry your weapons form state to state without having to investigate all the individual laws of that state. National reciprocity of CHL carriers would be a good start. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 13:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Wow, you would deny a person the ability to defend themselves because criminals might steal the gun? |
While the U.S. may have more personally owned firearms than any other country, they're only owned by 40% of the citizens. The other 60% aren't being attacked on a daily, monthly or even yearly basis, so what makes the 40% so special that they are? The dangers of firearm crime combined with firearm accidents far outweigh the societal benefit of "successful self-defense via firearm."
The very idea that firearms are needed for self-defense is dangerous and (given the evidence from other countries) patently untrue. If we spent half as much on actual crime reduction as we do on ammunition, we'd probably all be much safer.| Why is this your basis for banning guns? |
That's my basis for banning handguns. Why should we, as a society, accept tools that are built solely to kill other humans?| I doubt that a gun ban will keep the guns from the criminals. |
The idea is risk reduction, not elimination. Nothing will ever eliminate 100% of the risk. There will always be criminals. There will always be homicides. There will always be suicides. But there will be fewer of all of those categories if firearms were strictly controlled.| What is a good plan to get rid of the existing guns in the US? Normal attrition or some kind of confiscation? |
Can't say. Right now, the political environment prohibits elimination of the Second Amendment, so neither method is imaginable.
A society in which Congress and 3/4ths of the states say "bye-bye" to the Second Amendment would be vastly different than how we live today. People then might simply walk their old, unused and dusty firearms out to a community smelter, voluntarily. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 15:25:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Don't you need to amend the constitution to nullify a previous amendment? |
Yes, of course. Sorry. I was under the impression we were talking about after the repeal.| How would your side be able to get enough support from the states to repeal the 2A? |
Large changes to the current societal outlook on guns. A sea change not unlike Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement.| ...if the right was still given to us. |
Just an aside here: rights are never given. The Constitution guarantees certain rights, but even those require a constant fight by the people against the government. (For example, the Obama administration has probably done more to nullify Fourth Amendment rights than any other administration, simply by continuing to prosecute cases with warrantless searches from the Bush administration and starting its own. And Trump looks extraordinarily dangerous with regard to First Amendment rights, especially of the press.) If nobody defends a right, it'll likely be void eventually. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2017 : 16:04:18 [Permalink]
|
| If you own guns for safety, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 00:39:53 [Permalink]
|
The problem with society isn't guns, guns are the effect not the cause. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Then the symptoms will go away by themselves. Jesus is the vaccine, cure and antidote. Believe.
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Slow Gun Ban
