Example of why one should be allowed to possess/carry a firearm

a reply to: Lipton
Yet your post is a fine example of "Reductio ad absurdum".

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

Clearly the person is expressing that instruments created for the sole purpose of taking lives should not be sold to the public. In case you decide to pick apart the vernacular I shall elaborate.

Assault rifles, for example have no place in suburban homes. It is even arguable that they do not belong in civilian hands whatsoever. I can see a few exceptions, however conversations such as this deal with the rule, not the exception.

Don't bring idiocy to ATS, you will be shot down.

Yeah guns are awesome, so what if the majority of times it used to kill rather than save anyone.

a reply to: lucifershiningone

Interesting question but we'll never be able to tell.

The definition of Kllled and Saved would take sometime to come to a acceptable one(s).

Because the Anti-gun crowd has an extremely thick skull and can't accept facts or reality so......

a reply to: anon72

The pro gun crowd is just as bad. As soon as biases get involved people start screaming and ranting like lunatics.

Effective dialogue needs to begin. Everybody here could start it.

Firearms are a tool. Then again, so are shoulder mounted rocket launchers and miniguns. Certain tools have certain jobs. Assault rifles and such don't have a place in suburbia. Firearms suited to self defense, arguable both ways.

People need to start thinking before they open their mouths. Firearms will not remain largely unregulated, I can promise you that. If you really want to make progress, be it to retain or control firearms, you need to be open minded enough to say, "We need to talk about this".

No more "bawww my gunz!" or "bawwww take away all the gunz!".

a reply to: LilFox

What you think of as an assault rifle (for most people they immediately envision an AR-15), are exactly the same as most hunting rifles, with some cosmetic differences that make it look "scary and military". Fully automatic weapons are not available to civilians.


Don't bring idiocy to ATS, you will be shot down.

Israelis move into already occupied territory, torment the inhabitants, kicking them out of their homes, stealing their land. Then have the audacity to call Palestinians terrorists for resisting illegal occupation and crimes against humanity.

2.bp.blogspot.com...

This picture pretty much sums up the situation.

originally posted by: TheMadTitan

Yes of course, they are designed to launch a high speed projectile reliably and accurately..... at people or animals primarily, to maim and kill.

I have a lot of guns and I have not short at anyone, am I doing something wrong?

Would any of you three use a firearm if you were in a deadly situation involving a loved one,or would you prefer death yourself ?
Lilfox?
MadTitan?
Logman?
Aside from the fantasy of their POOF gone no longer in our reality of course, which we as realists naturally avoid any speculation of ,at this point in history...
Would that intelligent conversation could do the the trick ,I PERSONALLY have NO DOUBT it would be superior,but GOSH DARN it we have malcontents who want your stuff including your lives.
NOW we can go back and REHASH who did what and whom deserves such act act as well as blame it ALL on bush or the GOP, but I'M not going to DIE because of passed US policies or surrender my position intellectually that I will live.
So I await with marked antcipation your 3 answers to my simple question above.

originally posted by: optimus primal
a reply to: LilFox

What you think of as an assault rifle (for most people they immediately envision an AR-15), are exactly the same as most hunting rifles, with some cosmetic differences that make it look "scary and military". Fully automatic weapons are not available to civilians.

... Really? Do you really think I am talking about cosmetics? What's your point? Using semantics to what end? Sounds like you are trying to refute something, and doing a bad job of it.

I am clearly talking about weapons that are designed as an anti personnel weapon. Yes, you can use it to swat flies, scratch your back and kill vermin.. but there are other tools that are better for the job.

The REASON, as it seem to be lost on you, is that these weapons are very effective at killing people, en masse, in a short period of time. Yes, you can use a flintlock for that too.. or even a shovel.

Don't bring up semantics in such a way, you know exactly what I am talking about and it is idiocy that you just expressed that will end up having all firearms banned or strictly controlled.

Think, before you open your mouth.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Once again... *sigh* unless you want all firearms banned as a kneejerk reaction to the inevitable future mass killings, encourage dialogue.

Either you are going to give a little and save a lot of lives.. or the choice will be removed from your hands completely. If you want input, bawwwwing and giving facile reasoning will not do it. It won't save lives either.

In the civilian world, that is, not in warzones and not in law enforcement, it is beyond doubt that more firearms are used to kill people than to save people.

Ye' olde argument that you save lives.... is being dwarfed by people taking lives. There is more danger to your life due to the lax gun controls than there would be with gun controls. Don't give me facile reasoning and ask the obvious. The fact of the matter is that I'd prefer the criminal came at me with a knife than an assault rife.

If your favourite malcontent wanted to kill you, they could easily access a firearm. If they wanted to kill your kids at school, firearm.

Seriously, wake the F up. Let me simplify this for you.
Either you are going to make a concession and give a little, or you will lose the lot.

Don't bring bias to me and call it reason. Think about the politics of the matter. You are either going to smarten up, or lose it all. Your choice.

a reply to: LilFox

As your position is undefensable logically and only emotionally driven I would mirror such a response to you.
I KNOW what the world looks like beyond a cellphone.
I am eyes and ears that are trained to observe not fire,I just know HOW to use a firearm,probablty better than most since I statrted at 5 years old.
Don't wander in here with an empty idea of how things should be, when I have quite clearly seen how they ARE.
I would take your harshest judgement as success based on YOUR bias.
Knowledge trumps feelings.
Grow up.

That looked super fake to me, and I'm usually the first to tell people they're being ridiculous when they say that.

Dude runs up, then stays a good distance and does a little happy dance. He stopped running before the gun came out. Of course the most likely explanation is that he froze up when the turned around, but it looks like a comedy skit.

If I'm stabbing someone I'm not going to stop 5 feet away while they pull out a gun.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I had to star you, even though I (emotionally) don't agree with you.

Funny old world, huh?

originally posted by: anon72
Check this video out. I bet you the people of Europe had the 2nd amendment.

I bet we didn't that's a 'merican thang....

a reply to: aorAki

Nobody is perfect and I will freely admit I 'm a crusty Bastard.
But opinions on guns without knowledge is irritating.
Also if soemone wants to live a life where a clown with a gun can do what ever they want to you until the police shows up sounds like a very bad idea.
From MY personal experience anyway.

a reply to: optimus primal

Fully automatic weapons are not available to civilians.

False, you are incorrect..

a reply to: LilFox

Assault rifles, for example have no place in suburban homes. It is even arguable that they do not belong in civilian hands whatsoever

Who says you? they are Americas number one sporting rifle at this time, they are fun to shoot and they are no different than most other semi auto rifles ..

a reply to: LilFox

In the civilian world, that is, not in warzones and not in law enforcement, it is beyond doubt that more firearms are used to kill people than to save people. Ye' olde argument that you save lives.... is being dwarfed by people taking lives. There is more danger to your life due to the lax gun controls than there would be with gun controls. Don't give me facile reasoning and ask the obvious. The fact of the matter is that I'd prefer the criminal came at me with a knife than an assault rife.

You are wrong on all accounts, furthermore you are way more likely to die from a knife than a bullet.

a reply to: LilFox

Seriously, wake the F up. Let me simplify this for you. Either you are going to make a concession and give a little, or you will lose the lot.

And what concessions would that be?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Wow.. some people.

Here's the situation. People get killed. Politicians have to be seen to be doing something. They are going to alter the situation. You may as well be part of the solution instead of BAWWWWWING, right? Logic, right?

How is that refutable? It's the "gun nuts" that are refusing to play ball. "BAWWWW MY RIGHTS" about sums it up. Where's your common sense? Everyone else is talking about it, you lot are just complaining.

How is that indefensible? You're part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. Refusing dialogue is being part of the problem. What reason do you have for that? "BAWWW MY GUNS" doesn't work.

That's not feelings, that's logic. Your feelings on the matter is resulting in you being unable to see logic, even when it benefits you. I am saying that either you could lose a little, or a lot. You are saying you are refusing dialogue because you don't believe you should lose anything. Look at the politics, dead kids never look good for politicians. The gun lobby needs to learn how to talk without "bawww our guns/rights" cos that is getting really old and isn't stopping deaths. All your crap about saving lives because you have guns, isn't stopping school shootings is it?

a reply to: wildb

Really?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention).

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.

The point of the matter, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, is that there will be dialogue regarding firearms and the crossed arms foolish biases of idiots screaming about their rights and how much fun it is to shoot things, will not do you any good.

Do you want to lose all of your guns, or just a few? That's what it comes down to. You make a concession, or you could lose the lot. Maybe the politicians won't restrict what firearms you can own. You don't know unless you participate in the discussion, intelligently.

Look at nations where there's effective gun control. Look at the murder rates and weapons used, look at the accidental deaths with firearms... Knives and most other things that can be used as weapons are a lot harder to commit mass murder with. You are NOT more likely to die from a knife injury.

You are proven wrong on so many fronts. Stop making things up to support cognitive biases.

As for the concessions, AS I HAVE SAID MORE THAN ONCE (Don't you know how to read?) dialogue has to be opened. The "BAWW MY GUNS" crap that biased fools spit is not opening dialogue.

Perhaps in dialogue licencing restrictions can be implemented. Maybe no firearms will be banned at all. Maybe people with certain mental illnesses will not be able to own semi or fully automatic firearms. Perhaps there will be a caliber restriction to those living in suburbia. Maybe all they will do is state that you need to keep the firearms in a locked safe or with trigger locks. You don't know unless dialogue is opened. If you refuse, you lose. You don't want the PTA, lobby groups and politicians making the entire choice for you, do you? That will not work out well for anyone.

The fact is, the discussion needs to be had and while there's fools around yelling and screaming about their perceived right, nothing will happen.
Dispense of the ego and open dialogue, or you won't have a say and I can promise that you won't like the outcome.

Every time there's a mass murder, publicized murder or school shooting you lose a little more ground and even credibility.
Jumping up and down denying facts and refusing dialogue DOES NOT HELP ANYONE. You are losing the battle.

There is a place in suburbia for certain firearms. Yes, you should be entitled to self defense. No, your firearms should not be stored in a cookie jar where they are more likely to be stolen or accessed by a child.

TL;DR for those that cannot comprehend basic English. Open dialogue, learn to communicate or you lose. They will make the decision for you if all you can manage is "BAWWW MY GUNS/RIGHTS".