Assault Weapon features and what they do.

Justan -
Do accidents happen? Yup, but there have been plenty of children who have died because the parents had a bottle of drugs that was prescribed to them and a child found them and took them.

I am thankful that you knew enough to make sure that the gun was unloaded before you played with it. As of right now, there are no children that are able to even crawl in my house, when my daughter is old enough to crawl, all of the guns (except the one that I carry) will be left unloaded and locked and the ammunition will be in a locked box that requires a different key. The gun that I carry will be kept in a safe next to the bed when it isn't on my hip that has a finger combination lock that can be easily manipulated in the middle of the night.

As for what to do against armed assailants, well, for one thing, one should always know their surroundings. Another thing is if you are in a bad part of town, get out of it. I have to drive through a couple of bad parts of town everyday to get to work, as I am driving through those sections, I am ever alert to what is going on around me and my pistol is always very close by. Before you could get to the door of my car, I would have a hand on it. As for using a knife, sure a gun vs a knife each can kill a person, so why don't we ban knives also?

0 Replies

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

0 Replies

to the stun gun/knife comment: stun guns are illegal in my state for one, and for two I would never even think of using anything but deadly force on an armed intruder in my home. You get yourself killed like that. I am not going to comment on how I have my private property arranged here, but let's just say if an intruder doesnt shoot me outright, they are done for, as well as any other punks with them. It is my god given right to do so, I might comment as well.

I like the stolen car/liability analogy. I was thinking the same thing...

Then there is the issue of weapons in the house and other members/intruders getting to them. Let me just say that cant happen here.

0 Replies

saintsfanbrian wrote:

Lets see, if some one wants to debate, why not provide all of the relevant links?

Debate is not a matter of posting links, if it were so Dmoz.org editors would be world class debators.

Links are useful to quantify objective data, not to serve as a means of debate. That's usually just "debate by way of copy and paste" or "I have my ideologue's rants saved on my computer".

Quote:

There is another thing about debating, you don't talk over the head of the person you are talking to. I work in computer support, there are many things that I cannot say to my users because they wouldn't understand them. Do I tell them to look it up? No!!!

Talking over the heads of people is inevitable because we can't precisely gauge their heads, but if they ask for clarification and I have the time I will almost always give it.

Quote:

Is it so hard to understand that some of us don't think that the cops will be there in time to protect us?

Not at all. I can understand and respect that.

Is it hard to understand that some people think that collective survival through prohibition can increase our security? That the sacrifice of individuals can sometimes afford them increased security through collective effort?

You might not think it'd work, and that's cool, in America I don't think it'd work right now either. But it's not a matter of one side arguing for security and the other arguing against it.

Both sides are merely offering ideas on different means to achieve security and there can be a reasonable difference of opinion without the rhetoric.

Quote:

That criminals are going to do what ever they want and that we should be able to protect ourselves is a basic right.

"Criminals" by their nature are defined as peple who do not follow certain laws. But the nature of this definition is no argument against a law. HEck, you can apply that to any law.

"If you make murder illegal only criminals will murder"

No kidding. Rolling Eyes

That's the nature of the definition.

No law is made with the expectation that criminals will voluntarilly comply, each law must as part of it's nature incorporate mechanisms to compell compliance.

The ole mantra here is a good example of one of the sillier arguments used in these gun debates. And this is what I'm talking about. This isn't needed to argue soundly for guns.

To make this a sound argument you just need to loose the little rhetorical bludgeon ("only criminals...") as it is meaningless and focus on the actual good point this argument is based on.

Can the law be enforced to the degree to which it outweights the cost?

I don't think it can. This is why I don'support gun control in America.

But the rhetorical bludgeon of "only criminals.." is a meaningless statement, and the very notion of gun-control doesn't have to be flawed for it to be rejected in particular circumstances.

I think that some countries are very well suited for gun-control and profit (socially) from it nicely. An example is Japan.

Other countries have a current culture that I do not think lends itself well unto gun-control, for example I don't think American culture is such that gun-control's benefits can be realized (for gun-control to provide safety it has to starve the illicit market, to do so it needs to starve the legitimate market. America's markets are so large and the individuals involved so passionate that I do not think we can realistically starve these markets with our current governmental systems).

Quote:

I have seen it many times, people on this board using their SAT words to make themselves feel and look important.

I in turn have seen many simply dismiss them because they lack the intellectual curiosity to understand their meaning.

saintsfanbrian, it would be a damn shame for you to write off things simply because they are couched in big words. Hell, inordinate use of big words is off putting but don't let it be a pretext for your dismissal of arguments whose validity might be profitable for your own positions.

0 Replies

Bvamp wrote:

It is my god given right to do so, I might comment as well.

Bvamp, am I allowed to make up "god-given rights" too? I mean, I can appreciate the strength of your convictions on this, but I am not sure I can accept this as anything but rhetoric.

I honestly dispute whether or not a god granted you said right. Secondly, I have no respect for gods so if he did, I don't care. I respect the fact that in this society our society has given you this right.

I think you have this right because society has encoded it in law. But if we get to make up "god-given" rights here I will have to make a religious claim to other people's lands and such. It's just way too tempting.

0 Replies

Oh lord, lets not get started on the "knives v. guns" thing. Both of you understand exactly what I'm talking about and know that taking a conversation in that direction is a waste.

I myself live in Washington Heights, NY. Its not nearly the safest place to live. I carry and am very adept with a balisong (butterfly) knife and keep it with me when I have to go places. If I felt my life was in danger, I'll pull it out.
If they respond by pulling a gun, I'd very clearly get rid of the knife and let them know that they can have whatever it is thats on my person that they may need. Than again, sometimes seeing that you're willing to protect yourself is enough to the situation. Also, when a person is desperate enough to actually pull a gun on someone, why take that chance?

My point is that not everyone carries a gun. I don't know what experiences you've had, but for the most part, you (and the majority of people) would be just fine without one.

0 Replies

And even if the legitimate market were starved, the illicit market would still be there.

I don't dismiss any arguement based on some one using large words. I know what a dictionary is and how to use one.

Society in the form of the creators of this country has gauranteed me the right to keep and bear arms. It is only the society as a whole that can take them away from us, I think that before those of us that want to keep them let you have them, we would "let you have them" so to speak.

You are correct that it will not work in America. There are too many of us. Unfortunately, the media likes to pretend that we are all crazy people that live on large tracks of land in the fly over states with our compatriots stockpiling weapons. This is not the case. We are your neighbors, your friends and probably even your relatives.

0 Replies

Justan - I may be wrong, but I beleive that style of knife is illegal in New York to carry. You might want to check it out or else you are just as bad as those of us carrying guns.

You are right, I probably would be "just fine" with out one, but I don't want to take that chance. I feel better knowing that I can protect myself if and when the time comes and I don't have to wait on the police to do it.

To be 100% honest, I don't carry a gun because of the thug that might walk up and try to take my car or my wallet, they can have those, I carry a gun to protect my family that would have a hard time getting on with out me. We go for walks in our neighborhood, there are a lot of dogs that are not on leashes (though the city has a leash law.) If one of these dogs runs to attack us, I want to be able to stop him in only 2 seconds with out him (or her) getting close enough to hurt us.

0 Replies

saintsfanbrian wrote:

And even if the legitimate market were starved, the illicit market would still be there.

This is a logically false statement. Allow me to correct it.

If the legitimate market were starved the illicit market could still exist.

The difference is between would and could. Your statement is a logical falsehood because it the illicit market might continue to exist or it might not, and your statement allows for only the result that supposrts your position.

Incidentally, in America, I think the legitimate market can't be starved (without drastic measures), not to mention to illicit one.

Quote:

I don't dismiss any arguement based on some one using large words. I know what a dictionary is and how to use one.

In that case, your complaint about big words was simply a meaningless ad hominem. <shrugs>

Quote:

Society in the form of the creators of this country has gauranteed me the right to keep and bear arms. It is only the society as a whole that can take them away from us, I think that before those of us that want to keep them let you have them, we would "let you have them" so to speak.

Sigh, back to the falsehood and even delving to the insipid insinuation fo violence.

1) it is false that the whole of our society would need to revoke the right. What is true is that it would likely require a majority.

2) Re: "letting them have it" please avoid idiotic insinuations of violence. To suggest that you'd kill people who differ with you on the issue of gun control is a level of debate that is not acceptable here.

On the other hand to suggest that the gun crowd would deter a change in these rights by force is just silly.

In our society for that right to be changed there would need to be a plurality in favor and the ones left would either accept it (hey, it happens, sometimes society makes rules individuals don't like) or they could resit.

I posit that if this issue ever gets to the point where the plurality of America changes the rights there will only pockets of gun nuts resisting and the results would be similar to the attempts we have already witnessed (Ruby Ridge, Waco).

Quote:

You are correct that it will not work in America.

I think I am correct. You think I am correct.

Quote:

There are too many of us.

I agree without reservation. ;-)

Quote:

Unfortunately, the media likes to pretend that we are all crazy people that live on large tracks of land in the fly over states with our compatriots stockpiling weapons. This is not the case. We are your neighbors, your friends and probably even your relatives.

Your last sentence is the best argument for "crazy" that I have seen. ;-)

you must not know my family.

0 Replies

Hey man, the crooks in New York are going to carry butterfly knives whether they are legal or not, so Justan should as well by your logic.

Quote:

We go for walks in our neighborhood, there are a lot of dogs that are not on leashes (though the city has a leash law.) If one of these dogs runs to attack us, I want to be able to stop him in only 2 seconds with out him (or her) getting close enough to hurt us.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written in support of handguns. If you are that afraid of a dog, you need to seek some help, man.... You also might want to consider that new defense technology, the Stick. Very useful when fighting animals. If you are really worried you may want to upgrade to the Baseball Bat, it's the preferred model for stopping malicious, ravenous dogs from killing your family.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And Waco and Ruby Ridge were both cases where the government was doing the wrong thing.

And your theory of an "idiotic insinuation of violence" is just that a theory. If you really think that there would not be a large group of people that took up arms against the goverment, well I can tell you that I wouldn't want to be at your house when it happens.

People with out arms cannot defend themselves from Tyranny. England has almost always been "ruled" by a monarchy. It is no suprise that they let the goverment take away their guns. America has almost always been ruled by the people and if the governments britches get to big for them, the people will be forced to take them in a bit. It is just unfortunate that so many people are willing to sit by and let the government have a pass on all that they do.

Oh well, signing off.

0 Replies

Have you seen a pitbull that has locked on to some one? I have and it isn't pretty.

0 Replies

saintsfanbrian wrote:

And Waco and Ruby Ridge were both cases where the government was doing the wrong thing.

Perhaps, I'd certainly agree that it was mismanaged but I think their grander decisions were correct.

Quote:

And your theory of an "idiotic insinuation of violence" is just that a theory. If you really think that there would not be a large group of people that took up arms against the goverment, well I can tell you that I wouldn't want to be at your house when it happens.

Why? What do you envision happening at my house?

Psst you are not making a good case for that crazy issue right now.

Quote:

People with out arms cannot defend themselves from Tyranny.

Neither can people with small arms these days. The tyranny argument is one of the most flat ones, as weaponry has evolved and governments have already managed to forge a great chasm between the weaponry they have and the weaponry the cisitzens have.

Quote:

England has almost always been "ruled" by a monarchy. It is no suprise that they let the goverment take away their guns.

This is ludicrous. The people wanted guns to be taken away from the minority who wanted them. They did not "let" a "monarchy" "take" their guns. It was a decision their majority wanted.

Quote:

America has almost always been ruled by the people and if the governments britches get to big for them, the people will be forced to take them in a bit.

And if enough of a majority of our people want to change gun laws we will, leaving only some radicals to try to use violence to resist the will of the people.

Quote:

It is just unfortunate that so many people are willing to sit by and let the government have a pass on all that they do.

I agree. So do you think they should get out and try harder to have our government take your guns away?

This is more silliness. Guns will be taken when there is a plurality that want it.

Gun fans alternate between reverence of a government that gave them a right to be armed and dismissing a government that might one day take them away.

They like to portray it as "government vs. people" in any imagined scenario in which they are taken away.

That's silly. This is a democracy, the government is the people. If the people want to get rid of guns we will ahve our government act towards this goal.

0 Replies

Oh man, you guys are great. Unfortunately, this thread is starting to get silly.

First, its not allowed to SHIP butterfly knives into NY. Its legal to own them (I looked it up before I bought one on vacation... I like to cover my bases Very Happy

)

Saints, I can understand the "protect myself so I can provide for my family" thing, but I gotta admit, picturing you standing firm in the streets, family behind you, bravely wielding your gun to defend yourself from wave after wave of frothing, killer Pit Bull terriers decending upon you made me laugh out loud.

Ok, I dramatized it a bit, but you just set it up so nicely. Seriously though, they sell pepper spray so you can protect yourself from such things (mean dogs AND mean people).

0 Replies

What about the Stick(tm)?

It's proven, and cheap. Anyone can use it with a minimum of training. It also serves many other uses as well - assists with walking, provides a handy lever for lifting things. It comes in a variety of lengths, widths, and weights, and can be quite stylish on the go if you have enough money to spend.

Or wait... you could get a stick WITH A GUN IN IT! Sort of a Bond type device. The best of both worlds.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

I was at a gun show, looking at a short stock shotgun. The dealer told me "You like that? Check THIS out!" whereupon he pulls out a short barrel shotty with a pistol grip, light clip, extra rounds holder, etc.

He says to me "This little number fires as fast as you can pull the trigger! You can fire off all the shells before the first empty one hits the ground!"

I remember thinking, "Who in their right mind needs a shotgun that can shoot that fast? And what the hell purpose would that be?"

Hmm, maybe the single woman who wakes up at 2am to discover a couple of Angel-Dusted burglars in her bedroom? There's a reason my home-defence weapon is a high-powered shotgun (12-bore, 00 buckshot loads).

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Bo, interesting concept.

However, the NRA would use their influence to make sure nothing like that ever happens. In fact, I remember there was some movement to get a program going that "fingerprinted" each gun according to the mark the gun left on spent shells (or something to that effect), and the NRA did everything they could to stop it.

It was totally useless. As a barrel is used, the rifling wears down, & the pattern changes. Heck, simply running a file down the barrel will change the rifling marks.

Quote:

Sometimes I'm amazed at how much the NRA owns in the government (cogressmen, etc).

If that were true, there would be far fewer gun laws on the books, & the ones in force would be ENFORCED.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hey man, the crooks in New York are going to carry butterfly knives whether they are legal or not, so Justan should as well by your logic.

Quote:
We go for walks in our neighborhood, there are a lot of dogs that are not on leashes (though the city has a leash law.) If one of these dogs runs to attack us, I want to be able to stop him in only 2 seconds with out him (or her) getting close enough to hurt us.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written in support of handguns. If you are that afraid of a dog, you need to seek some help, man.... You also might want to consider that new defense technology, the Stick. Very useful when fighting animals. If you are really worried you may want to upgrade to the Baseball Bat, it's the preferred model for stopping malicious, ravenous dogs from killing your family.

Cycloptichorn

OK, I'll put you in a sealed area with 2 children & a couple slavering rotties. Do you want:

A) A branch?
B) A Louisville Slugger?
or
C) A .45 pistol?

Pretty easy one here.

0 Replies

Also, in some states (Massachusetts comes to mind), pepper spray is illegal without a permit (anywhere from 1-3 months & a bunch of money & BS to get one)--you might as well cary a gun.

0 Replies

Jarlaxle - I will take the gun every time. But you didn't mention if it was loaded or not.

When ever a pro-gun person tries to make a stance on this forum, they are lectured and talked down to like they know absolutely nothing about the world and how much better it would be if citizens didn't own guns.

Guess what, you are never going to change my mind about guns. They are a useful tool and will continue to be that until we come up with something better. I am never going to convince you that guns are a good thing in the hand of private citizens. So I am going to stop arguing yet again.

edit - corrected Jarlaxle name.

0 Replies

Assault Weapon features and what they do.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know