Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Optimus_Prime_]

Actually, when it says rifles, it includes all types of rifles, of which "assault" rifles make only a small part. It was only brought up due to a ban on a specific weapon that does very little in terms of death statistics. In that sense, it is stupid.

Rifles is a far more specific category than "blunt objects". Blunt objects is basically anything that is not a knife or a gun, so the fact that guns outweigh blunt objects by a magnitude of nearly 20:1 is a fairly significant knock against guns. Even when you limit it to rifles you still have a large number of deaths, far larger than any one specific blunt object, which is the straw man you and others keep throwing out there.

 

[wiegeabo]

and a shotgun with poor aim will have a lot less collateral human damage than another type of gun with poor aim.

 

[Marvolo]

I would much rather have a shotgun, I can shoot and I will probably hit whatever I need to hit much easier than if I had an AR-15...so, give me the shotgun...

This is me as well. My trusty Remington 870 is my go to defense, target, throwdown gun. It can shoot bird shot, buck shot, steel, lead, brass, copper, incendiary, slugs etc. You name it a shotgun can shoot it. I've even seen arrows shot out of shotguns. The smooth bore isn't picky. And, tho they won't pepper a whole wall and hit everything in an 8 foot radius they are much better for people with little experience and limited practice time. They get on target easy.


That being said, I would like to have an AR-15 stored for a rainy day.

 

[dnno1]

Rifles is a far more specific category than "blunt objects". Blunt objects is basically anything that is not a knife or a gun, so the fact that guns outweigh blunt objects by a magnitude of nearly 20:1 is a fairly significant knock against guns. Even when you limit it to rifles you still have a large number of deaths, far larger than any one specific blunt object, which is the straw man you and others keep throwing out there.

Actually if you pistol whip somebody to death that would count as a blunt object murder, so even guns and rifles spill into that category it's so general.

 

[Bill]

Rifles is a far more specific category than "blunt objects". Blunt objects is basically anything that is not a knife or a gun, so the fact that guns outweigh blunt objects by a magnitude of nearly 20:1 is a fairly significant knock against guns. Even when you limit it to rifles you still have a large number of deaths, far larger than any one specific blunt object, which is the straw man you and others keep throwing out there.

First of all, there is no straw man. Straw man arguments erroneously restate arguments and then attack the restated argument. At best, you've got misunderstanding the nature of statistics or observational selection.

Second of all, I didn't make the argument. There was a graphic posted not too long ago, and by someone else, that had an AR15 and a hammer with numbers for each. Now, neither number more than likely represented the actual numbers of death by each instrument, but the intent of the graphic was that if you're going to ban a specific firearm, which has numbers of deaths so low, then why not another tool that has low fatalities. The numbers on the graphic had rifles, all rifles, being lower than blunt instruments.

We're not discussing "guns," we're discussing a specific firearm that is attempting to be banned, even though it accounts for a very small percentage of deaths by firearms overall. There is no reason to read anything more into it than that, but I see that you've managed to do that anyway, and made a nice little straw man of your own since no one is making the specific argument you stated.

Finally, the overall intent of the graphic was to show the illogic of banning a specific firearm that accounts for so little deaths when there are comparable numbers for other objects, especially given the reasoning of wanting to "save lives." You want to "save lives?" There are a host of things you can ban that have numbers that make firearm deaths look like nothing.

Now, I understand that the argument comparing guns to hammers has been made by politicians and the like, and I can certainly agree that it was erroneously made. But that's neither the argument being made here, nor does it have anything to do with the overall intent.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, i's a false equivalency period. Not all blunt objects are designed to kill. Some are. But baseball bats and hammers have primary uses that aren't lethal.

Weapons like the AR-15 have no non-lethal practical application.

The real question is, if we can agree to a right to bear arms, then what are the limitations of said weapons?

On one side you have the people who think tanks should be legal, and on the other side, you have the people who think that anything sharper than a butter knife should be illegal.

 

[Victarion]

Well, I would say RPG's should be outlawed! AR-15...not very practical for self-defense. The only legitimate person who should own one is a collector. Perhaps a more stringent process for getting AR-15's relative to the background checks etc. for handguns?

 

[Mad Love]

on the other side, you have the people who think that anything sharper than a butter knife should be illegal.

This side does not exist.

 

[Kelly]

This is me as well. My trusty Remington 870 is my go to defense, target, throwdown gun. It can shoot bird shot, buck shot, steel, lead, brass, copper, incendiary, slugs etc. You name it a shotgun can shoot it. I've even seen arrows shot out of shotguns. The smooth bore isn't picky. And, tho they won't pepper a whole wall and hit everything in an 8 foot radius they are much better for people with little experience and limited practice time. They get on target easy.


That being said, I would like to have an AR-15 stored for a rainy day.

"pump action" will scare the hell out of them before they come in the door.... You may never actually have to shoot the thing. The universal..."get the **** off my property"...

 

[Marvolo]

"pump action" will scare the hell out of them before they come in the door.... You may never actually have to shoot the thing. The universal..."get the **** off my property"...

Heck yeah. Everyone knows that sound, and what follows it.t:

 

[Thundercrack85]

This side does not exist.

Oh it does.

 

[Mad Love]

Oh it does.

Are they the people who voted for invisible Obama?

 

[Kelly]

and a shotgun with poor aim will have a lot less collateral human damage than another type of gun with poor aim.

I would much rather be able to simply point the thing at the person coming at me and pull the trigger, knowing that I'm probably going to at the least, slow them down because I will hit them somewhere. But as I mentioned earlier, the pump action will probably do the trick, and I wouldn't have to pull the trigger, which would be my choice. I think I told this story earlier on here. A "peeping Tom" was peeking through my nieces window, my sister went and got their shot gun. Pumped it once, and the guy almost killed himself trying to get out of the bushes and run as fast as he could. He heard it from outside the house and high tailed it outta there lol, that works for me.

 

[dnno1]

First of all, there is no straw man. Straw man arguments erroneously restate arguments and then attack the restated argument. At best, you've got misunderstanding the nature of statistics or observational selection.

Second of all, I didn't make the argument. There was a graphic posted not too long ago, and by someone else, that had an AR15 and a hammer with numbers for each. Now, neither number more than likely represented the actual numbers of death by each instrument, but the intent of the graphic was that if you're going to ban a specific firearm, which has numbers of deaths so low, then why not another tool that has low fatalities. The numbers on the graphic had rifles, all rifles, being lower than blunt instruments.

We're not discussing "guns," we're discussing a specific firearm that is attempting to be banned, even though it accounts for a very small percentage of deaths by firearms overall. There is no reason to read anything more into it than that, but I see that you've managed to do that anyway, and made a nice little straw man of your own since no one is making the specific argument you stated.

Finally, the overall intent of the graphic was to show the illogic of banning a specific firearm that accounts for so little deaths when there are comparable numbers for other objects, especially given the reasoning of wanting to "save lives." You want to "save lives?" There are a host of things you can ban that have numbers that make firearm deaths look like nothing.

Now, I understand that the argument comparing guns to hammers has been made by politicians and the like, and I can certainly agree that it was erroneously made. But that's neither the argument being made here, nor does it have anything to do with the overall intent.

"Hammers and Bats kill more people than Assault Weapons, so we should be banning Hammers and Bats". That sounds like a straw man to me. You guys want us to beat up on hammers and bats when it is not really clear if they do kill more people.

 

[dnno1]

Well, I would say RPG's should be outlawed! AR-15...not very practical for self-defense. The only legitimate person who should own one is a collector. Perhaps a more stringent process for getting AR-15's relative to the background checks etc. for handguns?

Well I think the fans of RPG's like "Elder Scrolls" or "Mass Effect" wouldn't be too happy about that.

 

[Jedi-Spirit]

Forget interpretations and opinions on the second amendment...Those who are against guns, only get what they want if all guns are gone...For this to happen, you have to take guns away...Does anyone want to see that kind of thing happen?...The blood shed will make everyone forget about all the random killings of the past...

 

[dnno1]

Forget interpretations and opinions on the second amendment...Those who are against guns, only get what they want if all guns are gone...For this to happen, you have to take guns away...Does anyone want to see that kind of thing happen?...The blood shed will make everyone forget about all the random killings of the past...

That's not happening in Australia or Japan...

 

[Mad Love]

Those who are against guns, only get what they want if all guns are gone...

Why do people think this? That's an extreme interpretation. It's not a black and white issue.

It's gun control not gun abolishment.

 

[wiegeabo]

Why do people think this? That's an extreme interpretation. It's not a black and white issue.

It's gun control not gun abolishment.

Which people?

The people who think there are people like that, or the people who actually think that way?

 

[Mad Love]

The people who think there are people like that.

Getting rid of all guns isn't even an option.

 

[wiegeabo]

People think that because there are people who want that.

I've seen them on this board.

 

[Marvolo]

That's not happening in Australia or Japan...

Japan and Australia are not America. Our heritage, culture, and ideas are different from them. Very very very different in regards to Japan. We are a country who in less than 300 years was founded on violent revolution then torn apart by civil war. Our people have been spoon fed a steady diet that it is freedom or death. BS romanticized history is thrown at us. The media stirs up crap for ratings and viewers. People are uninformed. Millions think this country is under constant threat of a violent overthrow by imaginary Hitler. Communism and socialism will sneak up and rape us from behind. Hell on earth will rise. We are the last bastion of God's holy plan for earth. etc etc etc We are a very paranoid people. So what works in another country won't work in another country, because no two countries are alike.

 

[Mad Love]

If they are people who want to get rid of all guns, they are a very tiny group with an extreme opinion. So tiny, they aren't worth arguing against especially when it's not a valid option. That's a strawman.

Police with no guns? Hunting with no guns? No more black market? It's literally impossible and impractical to get rid of all guns. There will always be circumstances when the lethal force of a gun is necessary.

"No guns at all" is not part of the debate.

 

[Marvolo]

I was surprised to find out that Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world. They require mandatory military service for all males, and when they leave the service they take their guns home. All males who have been conscripted in that population have a firearm during and after they leave the service.

 

[Kelly]

That's not happening in Australia or Japan...

Australia doesn't have near the population, distribution of population, population density, etc. They speak English, that is pretty much what we have in common.

Japan, has all of those things similar to us in their urban areas....but their history, their culture, their entire way of life is unbelievably different from us and to compare us is like apples and oranges.

I'm sorry that is such a ridiculous comparison. You cannot just compare countries, hell you can't even compare us with this issue with Canada. There are soooo many other imporant, imperative, crucial issues that come into play besides some statistics and laws.