| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133317
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:00pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
...when we cut through all the BS, why guns?••• In civilian hands, a gun is a coward's weapon. It allows the shooter to strike from a safe distance, indiscriminately, and even anonymously. Only a bomb is more cowardly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rich Marzullo
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 January 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2731
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:00pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"What part of "I believe that we should have tougher laws on who can and who can't have access to firearms,...""
Well, just that other thing you said that I quoted and extrapolated on.
To be honest, I probably exaggerated on the speed limit thing. But I feel my point still stands: the best way to end gun violence is to just get rid of guns. Sure, people will whine and protest and it will take a long, long time to change the cultural thinking regarding guns, but the effort is well worth the result of saving lives.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:22pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
"I proved quite clearly that a Taser has an accurate reach of up to 35 feet, not "close contact".
The word "taser" refers to both the at range and the contact only devices. You did know that right?
You did know that a lot of these devices cost more than handguns, right?
Most western countries that ban private ownership of handguns *also* ban Taser-type devices (both the projectile and stun gun varieties). You did know that, right?
"And within the space of two sentences above you contradict yourself regarding the power of a taser."
And you do realize that the comment about the power level was in regards to your claim that it was "non-lethal" and doesn't cause "ghastly injuries".
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/ taser-study-deaths/54688110/1
Do you think little Timmy is any less in danger if plays with Daddy's taser gun? Or do you think most 5 year olds can take 50,000 volts?
Now do you want to defend your claim:
"Frankly, just like the religious, gun lovers have fallen into a deep, deep well of self-comforting self-serving ignorance, and I can't see any ladder to get them out...."
Granted I have no love for the Religious Right in this country, but I don't think all religious folk dwell in a deep well of self-comforting, self-serving ignorance that I think is impossible for them to climb out of.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:38pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Oh wait, I forgot this one.
"It's hard to come to any other conclusion. When presented with several choices for self-defense, why do these people always gravitate solely towards guns, and particularly higher caliber, automatic weapons? Indeed just examining the case of automatic weapons such as assault rifles, what possible logical justification could any average person have for owning a 600-700 round per minute weapon"
Probably because they don't. The kind of weapon you are talking about has been illegal for civilians to own since about 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The AR-15 and similar weapons covered by the "Assault Weapons Ban" are semi-automatic weapons which fires a single round per each pull of the trigger. At best (ie - in the hands of well trained and experienced user) it fires 45-50 rounds per minute - FAR SHORT of the 600-700 round per minute weapon that you are grousing about as evidence of the "gun love" that is so wrong with our society.
Now do you want to apply the same standards for accuracy to your posts that you do to mine?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 8:43pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
"To be honest, I probably exaggerated on the speed limit thing. But I feel my point still stands: the best way to end gun violence is to just get rid of guns. Sure, people will whine and protest and it will take a long, long time to change the cultural thinking regarding guns, but the effort is well worth the result of saving lives."
1. Only the people who are legally registered owners will likely surrender their weapons. A criminal is NOT going to surrender their weapon.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 9:06pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Tony Smith wrote:
| The word "taser" refers to both the at range and the contact only devices. You did know that right? |
|
|
And yet, given your own wealth of knowledge on this topic, you chose only the contact version to make your exaggerated argument that "A taser or stun gun requires close contact in order to use". Perhaps you're the one who needs to consider the facts more before posting Tony.
Tony Smith wrote:
| Most western countries that ban private ownership of handguns *also* ban Taser-type devices (both the projectile and stun gun varieties). You did know that, right? |
|
|
Absolutely. My point, which you're deliberately squirming out of, is that in countries that do allow the widespread ownership of guns, like the US, when faced with the alternative of owning a gun or a taser, the taser is far less dangerous than a gun, but effectively achieves the same result, which is to neutralize a threat.
In virtually any genuine threat scenario that an average person would face, martial arts, a bat, a can of mace or a taser would be more than sufficient, and would pose far less risk to society in general. Yet the argument still revolves around the "inalienable right" to own a gun. I ask again: why guns?
Tony Smith wrote:
| The kind of weapon you are talking about has been illegal for civilians to own since about 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The AR-15 and similar weapons covered by the "Assault Weapons Ban" are semi-automatic weapons which fires a single round per each pull of the trigger. At best (ie - in the hands of well trained and experienced user) it fires 45-50 rounds per minute - FAR SHORT of the 600-700 round per minute weapon that you are grousing about as evidence of the "gun love" that is so wrong with our society. |
|
|
My actual statement, Tony, was "examining the case of automatic weapons such as assault rifles, what possible logical justification could any average person have for owning a 600-700 round per minute weapon?"
The key point is that there should not be any desire to own these weapons, not their current legality. And on that topic, we turn to the almighty NRA, which has made statements in the past such as:
QUOTE:
The National Rifle Association supports the right of law-abiding individuals to choose to own any firearm, including automatic firearms.
The Second Amendment is not limited by its language to the type of of firearms which the people have a right to own... The NRA will actively work for the repeal of the prohibition against law-abiding citizens obtaining newly made automatic firearms. |
|
|
If that's not evidence of "gun love" against all logic, I'm not sure what is.
Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 27 April 2014 at 9:08pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Josh Goldberg
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2080
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 9:16pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"In civilian hands, a gun is a coward's weapon. It allows the shooter to strike from a safe distance, indiscriminately, and even anonymously."****
That must be why so many gun-lovers are attracted to the anonymity of internet discussions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 9:32pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Doug Centers wrote:
"I would think hunters are one group that would think a gun is indispensable. I do not hunt myself but I know a couple guy's that do and come hunting season that's the only thing that matters."
John Byrne wrote: "Cuz, you know, it's impossible to get food any other way."
And then later John Byrne wrote:
"In civilian hands, a gun is a coward's weapon. It allows the shooter to strike from a safe distance, indiscriminately, and even anonymously. Only a bomb is more cowardly."
Says the guy who likely buys his steak and other meat from a grocery store which gets it from a slaughterhouse. Yeah, you're a much better person than the hunter who at least has the decency to look the animal in the eye (figuratively or literally) before he shoots it. He's a coward.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
I'm not even going to address the insult implied to gun owners with prior military service.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tony Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 June 2012
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 10:02pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
And yet, given your own wealth of knowledge on this topic, you chose only the contact version to make your exaggerated argument that "A taser or stun gun requires close contact in order to use". Perhaps you're the one who needs to consider the facts more before posting Tony.
Uh, because a lot of the ranged models are much more expensive than handguns.
"Absolutely. My point, which you're deliberately squirming out of, is that in countries that do allow the widespread ownership of guns, like the US, when faced with the alternative of owning a gun or a taser, the taser is far less dangerous than a gun, but effectively achieves the same result, which is to neutralize a threat."
Because taser laws are not uniform, some states allow private citizens to own tasers, others do not. The laws are not even uniform within a state - with some cities banning them and others not. I can't speak to the deliberate choices of a person who is not me, but certainly some mention of that might enter into their calculus.
"The National Rifle Association supports the right of law-abiding individuals to choose to own any firearm, including automatic firearms.
The Second Amendment is not limited by its language to the type of of firearms which the people have a right to own... The NRA will actively work for the repeal of the prohibition against law-abiding citizens obtaining newly made automatic firearms."
I like how you mention "the past" because it's a nice caveat, because the quote you refer to is ....(wait for it) 1986. Whereas the first quote in the linked article is:
"According to National Rifle Association President David Keene, fully automatic weapons should be illegal."
And here ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-we-will-oppose-semi-automati c-weapons-ban/
Specifically:
"These aren't military weapons," Keene continued. "If we equipped our army with the AR-15, we'd be beaten by every Third World - you know, every Third World dictatorship in the country. Military weapons are fully automatic weapons, and that's illegal. You don't get those. That's not what we're talking about."
So your evidence is a nearly 30 year old position which had you actually read the article you cited you would have known and is directly refuted by the current President of the NRA is evidence that the NRA hasn't really moved from their position (even though they have). I still think they have a long way to go, but they have moved on from their earlier position.
But please tell me how I'm not being accurate. It's amusing.
Now do you want to defend that "the religious ..." comment?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1681
|
| Posted: 27 April 2014 at 10:42pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
You mean the religious comment which I fully backed with an explanation two posts prior, and said I still stand by, but which you somehow seem incapable of comprehending - that religious comment?
Or the way you seem to think that the NRA flip-flopping on automatic rifle laws is not alarming at all, and doesn't say anything about the organization's (and by implication, their members') love for guns?
If an organization has stated in the past that they fully and fervently support automatic weapons, then recant it down the track, you'd trust them, right? I mean they took it back and all (and not at all because it was politically expedient to do so), so that totally makes it OK. It's not at all evidence of illogical "gun love", which is what I was originally trying to demonstrate...
But even on the topic of semi-automatic assault weapons, take a look at the NRA publication on the AR-15 assault rifle. It's clear they thoroughly love this gun, and are proud that nearly half a million of them had been produced for eager buyers, with Walmart stocking them being a "pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products". Yet data shows that the NRA constantly downplays their deadliness - in incidents where assault rifles, and extended magazines, were used, there were 151% more people shot, and 63% more deaths than in incidents not involving these weapons. What would common sense tell you about the need for assault rifles (semi-automatic or otherwise) in the hands of civilians?
Look, Tony, I know you want to come off as a level-headed middle-of-the-road kind of guy, with the "Hey I'm perfectly OK with law abiding citizens owning guns" line, which is a line that is frequently thrown around by a lot of people. But you're clearly all over the shop with your debating points, exaggerating, picking and choosing, dodging and weaving, all to avoid answering the simple question of why people must own guns when there are far less devastating but equally effective alternatives. If they're not legal now, make them legal in place of handguns and assault rifles, as a step towards reducing injuries and fatalities. The only thing stopping progress on this issue is an irrational love of guns.
Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 27 April 2014 at 10:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 28 April 2014 at 12:45am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I own a few guns and compete in competitions. I enjoy shooting them and enjoy the peace I find in shooing them. I personally find it to be very stress relieving. Not for everyone, but a lot of things people enjoy I don't so it's fair to me that we can disagree and still be friends.
I don't think they should be freely available to anyone that wants one. I believe in requiring licenses and being tested in order to own one. Much like a car, were you have to renew your license. I get why a lot of people are against them, though I also believe a lot of it is just because they don't understand them. The image guns have between the media (not that they twist stuff, they just only report on problems. According to them prescription pain killers are a epidemic that's only used by druggies and not people in pain that require more help to function, not the truth but again negative things sell, positive doesn't.) and Hollywood would skew anyone.
I appreciate the NRA a lot of their work in helping create the proper training, guidelines and safety of proper gun ownership. I am not a member nor do I support them in all matters as they do go too far at times. I don't appreciate their leaps in logic anymore than I do the anti-gun crowds. The truth is no one knows how a gun law would effect things until it happens. I should also point out that I don't agree with allowing guns in bars (booze and bullets don't mix), nor do I think they really have a place in churches or Government buildings.
On the topics of hunting and coward weapons.. hunting is a huge part of our civilization. It stems in more than just the act. If something were to happen that skill would be important. Before it's said I'm a doomsdayer, no I don't think anything will, but some skills should never be lost. I may never go hunting (too much an animal lover) but I won't deny someone who does, provided it follows the guidelines and laws set forth upon it. As far as the coward weapon thing, OK.. There's some truth to it, but if somehow I had to fight to survive I'd rather be a coward than risk being dead. Surviving would be the ONLY reason I'd fight. I'm not posturing to make myself feel manly, I'd attempting to stay alive.
The only thing I haven't really seen too much on this thread is the responsibility of the shooter himself. There has to be a level of ownership on the guy/girl behind that trigger. The gun isn't going to leap up and shoot itself, it really does need someone behind it. To me a gun is a tool, and while it was designed to kill (a lot of things were designed for war to have new life decades later) it still needs an operator. You can't say for sure that some of these people wouldn't have made pipe bombs or the like if they didn't have guns.
Again, just my opinion. You can agree or disagree and it probably won't really change me anymore than this post changed you. I only ask that you be civil, and attack my view, not me.
Edited by Brian Skelley on 28 April 2014 at 12:48am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12708
|
| Posted: 28 April 2014 at 2:57am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I ask again: why guns?
***
Koroush, I've asked that twice of Tony Smith and now you have too, a short and direct question that amid all the thousands of words he's posted he refuses to directly answer. He has claimed there's a middle ground in this "debate" but he refuses to provide the substance.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
