New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

I was under the impression that they issue permits for people who want to carry out of the state, but I stand corrected. And, seriously? You'd be comfortable with teenagers wandering around armed?
*shaking head*
I wouldn't want ANY of the kids I went to high school with to have been armed at that age, if they wanted to be.

So you think they would be happier being shot stabbed strangled and raped rather than being able to defend themselves as best as possible?

If you're old enough to drive a car and understand the implications of that, you're old enough to carry a gun and understand the reasoning and responsibility around that.

Not that I think it would be particularly common, but still.

Where I grew up we were all armed all the time when we were not in school and we were violent hot heads ready to fight for no reason at all but no one ever pulled a gun on anyone ever. Cars and trucks caused more problems growing up than guns we had more than a few incidents growing up were people made bad decisions in motor vehicles. Your problem with guns comes from a total lack of understanding of the culture that surrounds it and how people act and are expected to act.

They would be happier having a few seconds to escape or call for help. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: a lot of women don't like guns, on a very fundamental level. If a woman doesn't want to carry a gun, there's nothing wrong with it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23759665

found this too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23897090

Yes you have proven that the majority of women in liberal states and cities think guns are bad and need to go away. All that proves is that getting ride of guns makes people feel better without actually doing anything to deal with the problem typical liberal problem solving. California has strong opposition to guns so people polled would more than likely say that they feel safe with the guns being removed. go to places where people are used to dealing with these kinds of situation themselves and they would feel like helpless victims under the same circumstances. Here is a good idea how about you let people decide for themselves the course of action they should take. Instead of ignorantly thinking you and your agenda is the only logical reaction to a problem that is no where near as simple as guns cause a problem. When the real reason for the problems you want to solve are economic and social in nature. Gun control will do nothing to stop the problems only make people more creative in how they commit crimes. While at the same time making it easier for dangerous people to hurt innocent people because of a lack of useful defense. So If you like to put band aid on snake bites be my guest but don't try to make it so that every one else has to abide by your laws.

Red-
I congratulate you on having read the first link, even if you didnt' read the second. That's more than most of the people in this argument have done.

I posted that link not to support the idea that guns should be banned - I don't think that they should be - but to counter the claim that everything would be better if more women would just carry guns. Women don't want to carry guns, and forcing them to do so won't make them feel safe.

As for 'gun control making people feel better while making people more creative in how they commit crimes,' read the second link.

I think it's true that a lot of women don't like guns - that's certainly been my experience. However, many of the women that I know that don't like guns haven't ever really been around a gun before. Furthermore, nearly all of the women in that category that I've actually gotten to come with me to the range have changed their opinions as a result. Not saying all of them loved it and decided right then and there that they wanted one (although more than a few did) - more saying that coming to an opinion about something before trying it leads to a ton of misconceptions.



Of course, and I would extend the sentiment to people in general. If someone doesn't *want* to carry, then they aren't going to take training, or practice, seriously. Carrying a gun is not something that is particularly comfortable - especially with women's clothing - and it takes a level of commitment to stick with it. And having to deal with memorizing a bajillion different gun laws for different locations, keeping track of the minor changes of what you can and can't do based on what state/county you're in, and dealing with other people who know you carry and think it's stupid (and have no problem telling you in the most awkward settings imaginable) - it definitely takes dedication.

Look up the crime stats for those states, and show me the crime waves being committed by CCW holders. I'll wait.



You did read that wiki excerpt I posted, right? The one that describes how "may issue" has turned California into a state where some counties are essentially shall issue and others are essentially no issue, except for the connected? It would be awful hypocritical of you to keep harping on people not reading your links and then ignoring those posted by other people. That would be nearly as bad as disingenuously focusing on one area of your state that does things one way while deliberately ignoring the next town over that does things completely differently, as if the one negates the other.



I must have missed the part where it said that CCW holders were committing all this violent crime; why don't you break that section out for me? Again, I'll wait.



Show me the stats demonstrating that concealed carriers from those states are causing problems. You worry about this stuff, but you're not showing any hard data to justify that worry, just "I think it's too easy to get permits in these places" without showing that the permitting requirements in those states are actually causing problems. It amounts to "well that works in practice, but will it work in theory?".



That's not how Vermont carry works, as federal law bars possession of handguns by underage persons, and besides, Vermont is one of the safest states in the country:

http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics ... state.html

California is 2.5 times more violent than Vermont, so if anything, it's the Vermonters who should be afraid of vacationing Californians; of the states you worry about, Alaska is the only one more violent than California. In fact, quite a few states with easy gun ownership and carry laws are safer than Cali, suggesting that it's something other than guns that drives crime, as I've been saying all along. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on those other factors rather than tilting at this particular windmill, as in addition to not achieving what you think it will, this windmill hits back.

I had to come back to this because it kept bugging me, on several levels.

First of all, you seem to have missed that I wasn't simply saying "your sources are liberal, therefore they are wrong", I was attacking you for ideological single sourcing, especially after you'd made a big show of saying that gun people should take things that groups like the NRA says with a grain of salt; it seems pretty hypocritical on your part. (see below)

Secondly, you seem to think that you just get to yell "ad hominem!" and drop the mike, when that's not the case at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Emphasis mine.

You didn't just quote liberal groups, you quoted anti gun groups, specifically the VPC, which has a long history of lies and deception. Calling attention to that fact is extremely relevant to this conversation.

Third, the condescension comes up again. You know exactly what you're doing when you use "honey" like that, exactly like when you use phrases like "gubamint" and "take yer guns" and every other bit of "hillbilly" you pepper these posts with, and frankly, you haven't earned the right to condescend to me, quite the opposite in fact. You know who phrase their posts like that? as*holes and trolls. Is that the company you want to be in?

You're assuming that I was referring to minor technical inadequacies, and you know what happens when people assume...

I'm talking flat out lies, like claiming a flash suppressor is a silencer (if anything, they make the gun louder), or that "assault rifles" are more powerful than other guns (one of the qualifying characteristics for a true assault rifle is that it's chambered in an intermediate , read: lower powered, caliber), among other things. There's a lot more too, I used to keep links to this stuff, but I had a hard drive failure about 6 months ago that took literally years of political links down the tube with it; it's certainly crippled my stat based gun arguing.

So, let me get this straight... Women don't like guns (generally), many of them are so averse to violence that they won't fight back even if attacked, but then you want to turn around and use the stats showing women being attacked by criminals with guns more often than they defend themselves with them as a bludgeon on my right to own and carry firearms? Isn't that a bit like refusing to work and then blaming other people for you not having any money? Hopefully these violence averse women aren't so naive as to think that violence doesn't exist, so who do they rely upon to protect them from it? Men and women with guns you say? So they're naive freeloaders who want to screw with my rights because it might make them "feel" safer?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mister Colion Noir:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phBEhZK5pvY&feature=c4-overview&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ[/youtube]

.22 cal, seriously go shoot a goat with a varmint round, I have. Weapons are weapons a gun is a weapon, thats pretty much the size of it. A sword 'could' theoretically be a letter opener, you 'could' theoretically design one to open letters but its still a sword, a weapon. Further, .22 caliber is often the preferred caliber for close range assassination... just saying.

I've never said that a gun isn't a weapon, what I take issue with is this "guns are only designed to kill" crap, when that's not the case, and I'm uniquely qualified to explain why.



But not that .22, assassins don't drop thousands of dollars on humongous target pistols, they use small and cheap ones, and they don't do that because of any particular advantage of the .22 round ballistically, they do it because the gun is small and relatively quiet. They also use them up close because the round is so low powered that the only reliable way to kill someone with it is to shoot them repeatedly in the head, it's not exactly a man stopper.

I don't think there is anything particularly unique in your qualifications. If the gun isn't weapon designed to kill, then why are those items still covered by the Second Amendment? There is no right to engage in target shooting outlined in the constitution. Rather, the Second Amendment discusses a right to bear arms for the purposes of a militia.



Ha. Nonsense, a head shot from a .22 is quite lethal. Under/overestimating the killing power of firearms is usually a sign of an amateur. 43% of Gun Homicides in Australia are committed with .22 caliber weapons.

You got it perfect with that post band aid on a snake bite thinking that's about all people like them are good for.