A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

[vegas giants]

For every video of a swat team conducting a raid with just pistols I can provide many more of them doing so with rifles.

But please tell us if a pistol is the best weapon to use in the house why do swat teams as well as all the military units that focus on CQB all use rifles as their primary weapon.

We both know if you give am honest answer to that question out well destroy your argument. Let's see if you can be honest for even one post.

Are my questions invisible? Lol.

I can carry around my handgun all day. You are in the garage and you have a breakin....where is your ar 15? Lol

 

[VanceMack]

I pretty much agree with all those points.

I also own a gun, deer hunting rifle. 30-06 semi auto.

Unless the 2A is completely ignored or ammended, guns will always be a part of American culture.
And we will always have society imposing limits on 2A. Citizens are not a well regulated militia and can NOT own the same weapons as a well regulated militia.

If you agree with his comments why do you own an "assault rifle"?

 

[Lursa]

Funny I don't Remember any one asking what you did. And beside I don't believe a word you say.

Exactly. "Facts not in evidence your Honor!"

 

[Lursa]

You got something? Bring it.

You got nothing. Lol

Hypocrisy at it's best. Let's review your "debates."

Bubber flubber

Flippitty bippitty

Zippity do dah!

How diddly do you?

Scooby do!

Okey dokey pokey.

blappity zappity

Everybody was king fu fighting....

Blah blah blah....you hate kids*

Film at 11.

I dont feel.like it.

Because we said so

Huh?.....

Nothing to add again I see. LOL

Again.....nothing to add from you

 

[vegas giants]

Hypocrisy at it's best. Let's review your "debates."

Add this.


How diddly do yah!

 

[pinqy]

You say accuracy is not a problem and yet the ratio of rounds fired to rounds that hit targets in the vast majority of police shootings tells a different story.

I did not say “accuracy is not a problem,” and police shootings are not all self-defense shooting in the house.
In my house, the longest shot possible would be 7yards. For most of the house, 1-2 yards. The difference between handgun and rifle at those ranges are negligible...that’s point and shoot range for both.

And you may think stopping power, which really isn't a real thing, may not seem important to you but I guarantee it will if the intruder in your house decides to return fire rather then run away. Lots of police have been killed by a criminal they have already shot.

Military shoot to kill. Police need to at least incapacitate. Civilian self-defense only needs to deter. Therefore, in choosing a self-defense weapon, other factors, such as ease of use, are more important than power.

And depending on the bullet you choose to use many ar rounds will penetrate fewer walls them many pistol rounds. Lightweight 556 rounds tend to break apart upon impact.

And you’re proving my point about stopping power: .308 is more powerful than .223, but in a house, .223 is less damaging after going through a wall. On the other hand, 9mm laughs at walls, but is more maneuverable than a rifle.

Look in the end I am not saying that a pistol is a horrible choice for HD just that people need to be aware of the downsides and know there may be better options out there.

And I am saying that which is better is entirely dependent on the house, and the owner’s familiarity and experience, and many other individual factors. No one can honestly say that any one type of weapon is better overall than any other for home defense.

 

[AGENT J]

The entire gun debate is nothing but emotion and feelings.
And where each person draws their line in the sand.

Factually not true since in this country theres rights and freedoms, theres stats and facts to back up claims and words having meanings and definitions.

Yes many things will just be feelings but people spout off many things that are factually wrong or many feelings that they think hold real merrit when they simply dont.

The point was theres nothign in the OP to "argue" against it was all meaningless, random strawmen and some of it factually wrong.
the thread title and OP basically equated to, blue is my favorite color because its the color of the sky . . . Id like to hear your rebuttal"

If one wants to have a discussion on others RIGHTS . .we ALL need to present things better than feelings. If we are looking for solutions to gun violence then it should be sound, have something to back it up etc etc
If one wants to be taken seriously there needs to be a LEVEL of honesty and integrity when discussing rights . . . just like equal marriage rights, and civil rights, and illegal discrimination and abortion etc etc. . . . those arent things to "argue" against with trivial feelings and emotions alone.

 

[BahamaBob]

Interesting thread. From what I read, everyone sees a firearm as a tool. Depending on the situation, a different tool is the best option and different artisans disagree on which tool is the best. What I did not see was anyone saying that if attacked in their home they wanted to be armed with a knife, a bat or a pillow. Everyone knows your best chance is a firearm.

Firearms are also the best deterrent. You point a gun at someone and they know they could soon be in serious trouble. I have witnessed this. A friend of mine owns a construction company and had his office in an annex at his home. He had just fired a man for being drunk on the job. This man got drunker and decided to come back and beat the crap out of my friend. I was sitting in my friends office talking with him when this ape kicked the door off it's hinges and came in with a hammer in his hand. My friend pulled his handgun from a drawer and pointed it at the man. He was a big scraggly looking man, highly agitated with a crazy look in his eyes. The man was very vocal and threatening. My friend said, my secretary has called the police and I want you to leave my property, if you take one more step I am going to shoot you. The man started to advance and friend clicked the safety off his weapon. The man then turned and ran. I am sure that my friend and I would have been physically fighting this crazy guy with a hammer if not for the handgun.

Yes guns are an American Heritage and are a major component in keeping this country free. Because of them this country could never be occupied and no misguided politician could enslave us. That is the reason for the Second Amendment.

 

[Lursa]

Anything response on this?

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

Previously posted:

Every time I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and infiltration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*

Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.

Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.

The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.​

 

[Glitch]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire.

Who are you to tell anyone what they need or don't need? Only leftist fascists decide what is best for everyone else. Not those who seek to preserve liberty.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check.

Actually, the tyrannical government of which we speak is a federal government who thinks they can infringe on our individual right to keep and bear arms. You certainly aren't going to get the military supporting your leftist fascism, since the military swears its oath to the very document you seek to deliberately violate.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

In 1934 NAZI Germany imposed firearm registration. In 1938 NAZI German began confiscating those firearms that were registered.

In 1992 Australia imposed firearm registration. In 1996 Australia because confiscating those firearms that were registered. England has had firearm registration for more than a century, and frequently bans those registered firearms.

So for someone to claim that registration does not lead to confiscation is either completely ignorant of history, is a dishonest leftist, or both.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

Obviously an ignorant poster, since all those weapons mentioned, and many more, can be legally owned by US citizens.

There has also been no one who has every proposed altering or repealing the Second Amendment since its ratification in 228 years ago. Not even Sen. Feinstein, who is on public record as wanting to ban all privately owned firearms, has never once proposed an amendment to the US Constitution that would alter the Second Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

My rebuttal

I enjoy the shooting sports. I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. I see no reason why i should be restricted in what guns i want to purchase or where i can take them.

As for fighting the military that is a ludicrous argument. But our society is pretty fragile. In the case of natural disaster or power grid failure or any number of scenarios you might be required to protect you and your loved ones from those who might do you harm. No way i will stand by helplessly while my loved ones are harmed.

But that is really not why i own guns. I love shooting small holes in paper. I love reloading ammo that can shoot even smaller holes in paper. I am no threat to anyone and see no reason to have the enjoyment of my hobby restricted.

I think many people feel the same

There are risk we take every day that are.greater than the risk of being caught up in a mass shooting. No one would get in a car or ride a bike or go swiming if they weighed the risk against that of being the victim of a mass shooting.

Many things we.could do to reduce the incidents without restricting or eliminating guns. How we treat the mentalmy ill would be a.great start. Most of.the time there are plenty of obvious signs before they go off the deep end. Maybe someone should have said something.

Personally i don't understand the irrational fear some have of guns

I'm not much into shooting paper targets, although I do punch holes a couple of times of year. Mainly to zero my rifles and to practice a bit before caribou and moose season begins. I also spend a little time on the skeet range before grouse and ptarmigan season begins. Most of the time I'm carrying firearms I'm not hunting or at the range. I'm either fishing, hiking, camping, or walking my dogs, and I'm always armed.

The firearms I use are not intended to be used against other humans, although they would work in a pinch if necessary. My AR12 is my primary "camp gun" and my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 mag. is my backup. I try my best to stay alert to my surroundings, and as a result I have not had the need to defend myself against bear, moose, or wolves since I moved to Alaska 28 years ago. I truly hope that stays the case, but I will continue to be armed just in case one day it doesn't.

I think people develop irrational fears when they are ignorant of a subject, like firearms. They are deliberately misinformed by the anti-American left and don't know any better. These are typically natural born cowards, or leftists, who have never bothered to serve in the military or be anywhere near a firearm. They are the idiot hoplophobes likely to call 911 when they spot someone carrying or wearing a firearm. They should be fined for wasting law enforcement's time.

 

[dairyair]

Factually not true since in this country theres rights and freedoms, theres stats and facts to back up claims and words having meanings and definitions.

Yes many things will just be feelings but people spout off many things that are factually wrong or many feelings that they think hold real merrit when they simply dont.

The point was theres nothign in the OP to "argue" against it was all meaningless, random strawmen and some of it factually wrong.
the thread title and OP basically equated to, blue is my favorite color because its the color of the sky . . . Id like to hear your rebuttal"

If one wants to have a discussion on others RIGHTS . .we ALL need to present things better than feelings. If we are looking for solutions to gun violence then it should be sound, have something to back it up etc etc
If one wants to be taken seriously there needs to be a LEVEL of honesty and integrity when discussing rights . . . just like equal marriage rights, and civil rights, and illegal discrimination and abortion etc etc. . . . those arent things to "argue" against with trivial feelings and emotions alone.

Yep. Opinions and line in the sand, as I said.

2A places no limits, AFAIK, on arms one can own/carry.
But there are many weapons our military has that civilians can't legally own. So there's already limits on 2A.

Do you think civilians should be able to own all weapons our military has? Or should there be restrictions on some of those weapons?

 

[braindrain]

Are my questions invisible? Lol.

I can carry around my handgun all day. You are in the garage and you have a breakin....where is your ar 15? Lol

Is amazing seeing you squirm and wiggle every time you BS is called out.

 

[Hondo]

Yep. Opinions and line in the sand, as I said.

2A places no limits, AFAIK, on arms one can own/carry.
But there are many weapons our military has that civilians can't legally own. So there's already limits on 2A.

Do you think civilians should be able to own all weapons our military has? Or should there be restrictions on some of those weapons?

The month before 2A was ratified the Miami Confederacy killed nearly 1000 American soldiers at the Battle of the Wabash. Coming out of that defeat was the finding that lack of equipment was a factor. The Militia Acts of 1791 just months after 2A specified every able-bodied male 18 to 45 was to provide for himself an infantry combat load which is what the founders meant by arms. Artillery, no. Grenades, no. M4 yes. The AR15 is already infringement. We are using 70 year-old 20th century rifles in the 21st century. Gun control wants to take us back to the 19th century and my 1899 .300 Savage. Want to see Old West guns match the AR15?

 

[Wayne Jr]

This was on a friend's Facebook page.

I'm sorry to hear of his systemic PSA and Crohn’s. I hope he's doing well.

I don't agree with any of his points. The Army had me carry an assault rifle on-base specifically for personal defense, so it stands to reason that the same rifle can do the same job when held by the same person as a civilian. Also, the modern battlefield is in close quarters, that's why the Army started using shorter rifles, so yes, battlefield tactics will work extremely well in your house. They're literally the same tactics.

 

[vegas giants]

Is amazing seeing you squirm and wiggle every time you BS is called out.

No answer? Ok



This is the part where I throw my head back and laugh



Hahahahaha

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Yep. Opinions and line in the sand, as I said.

2A places no limits, AFAIK, on arms one can own/carry.
But there are many weapons our military has that civilians can't legally own. So there's already limits on 2A.

Do you think civilians should be able to own all weapons our military has? Or should there be restrictions on some of those weapons?

nope what you all opinions and emotions, thats factually wrong.

 

[dairyair]

nope what you all opinions and emotions, thats factually wrong.

yep.


nope, no opinions or emotions.
Or whatever your reply was suppose to actually mean.

 

[AGENT J]

yep.


nope, no opinions or emotions.
Or whatever your reply was suppose to actually mean.

LMAO no matter what you post your statement saying it was all opinions and emotions remains factually wrong :shrug:

 

[dairyair]

LMAO no matter what you post your statement saying it was all opinions and emotions remains factually wrong :shrug:

The only reason there are limits on arms ownership is because society doesn't want civilians owning what the military has.
And then there are thousands of lines in the sand on what limits each wants.

So, yes, opinions are determining the arms restrictions. Not the 2A.

 

[AGENT J]

The only reason there are limits on arms ownership is because society doesn't want civilians owning what the military has.
And then there are thousands of lines in the sand on what limits each wants.

So, yes, opinions are determining the arms restrictions. Not the 2A.

no matter how many of your opinions and feelings you post, how many re-frames and deflections you post YOUR statement thats its all opinion and emotions remains factually wrong.
Now you can show honesty and integrity and simply admit that mistake or continue to deny it further entertaining me but the best part is regardless of what you chose. Your statement remains factually wrong. :shrug:

 

[dairyair]

no matter how many of your opinions and feelings you post, how many re-frames and deflections you post YOUR statement thats its all opinion and emotions remains factually wrong.
Now you can show honesty and integrity and simply admit that mistake or continue to deny it further entertaining me but the best part is regardless of what you chose. Your statement remains factually wrong. :shrug:

Sure, as soon as you point out what is wrong. According to your opinion. So far all you've done is throw ad homs.

Is that the style of your posts?
Are you always so emotional?

 

[Integrityrespec]

We have some issues that could be dealt with if we had reasonable debate on fact and not fiction. If politician were not using the gun issue always as political talking points. Our current laws being properly and swiftly enforced would be a good start and adding stiffer penalties for committing crimes using a firearm would help. Ex. In Chicago an illegal gun possession by a felon is $100 fine and you are back on the street regardless of how many times you have been arrested on that charge.

 

[vegas giants]

We have some issues that could be dealt with if we had reasonable debate on fact and not fiction. If politician were not using the gun issue always as political talking points. Our current laws being properly and swiftly enforced would be a good start and adding stiffer penalties for committing crimes using a firearm would help. Ex. In Chicago an illegal gun possession by a felon is $100 fine and you are back on the street regardless of how many times you have been arrested on that charge.

That plan does not work anywhere on earth

 

[AGENT J]

We have some issues that could be dealt with if we had reasonable debate on fact and not fiction. If politician were not using the gun issue always as political talking points. Our current laws being properly and swiftly enforced would be a good start and adding stiffer penalties for committing crimes using a firearm would help. Ex. In Chicago an illegal gun possession by a felon is $100 fine and you are back on the street regardless of how many times you have been arrested on that charge.

Agreed, some laws are very lax, some are ignored and that needs to stop.
One of a few things that needs done that may have a some impact and doesn't punish law abiding citizens, endanger them, violate their rights and or empower criminals.