loving guns more than children

[Rich2018]

Some Democrats certainly do....

So that they can create a Marxist-Leninist regime ?

SMH

...thank you for being honest about most liberals.

And they want to make your daughters become lesbians.

And your sons to marry other men.

And burn the Bible.

And foster in the Anti-Christ.


....though apart from your imaginary liberal, the rest of the liberal population wants prosperity, safety and growth.

 

[Rich2018]

your words not mine. but I really have no use for foreigners who are hateful of our rights

One right.

The rest of the rights afforded by the Constitution are pretty sound.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So that they can create a Marxist-Leninist regime ?

SMH





And they want to make your daughters become lesbians.

And your sons to marry other men.

And burn the Bible.

And foster in the Anti-Christ.


....though apart from your imaginary liberal, the rest of the liberal population wants prosperity, safety and growth.

Those things aren't necessarily true about liberals but the part of them wanting to take people's guns is, at least its true about most liberals.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

In contrast to the wording of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the USA which states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that a "well regulated militia" can be maintained.

The Second Amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not exclude the civilian aspect of this right.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Since there is no militia anymore (and yes I know there's a bunch of guys in Texas who parade around a bit)....it's a bit of a moot point.

There is no longer an active militia

QED: There is no longer a need for the 2nd amendment.

There are plenty of civilians who actively use the private self defense aspects of the right to keep and bear arms.

And the fact that the militia portion of the amendment is being violated does not mean that we don't need the amendment. It means the government needs to stop violating the amendment.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I’m writing a scene where a jogger blows away the scumbag who tried to rape her. I’m looking at some easily concealed small weapons that carry a lot of punch. The gun has to be lightweight and secure so as not to interfere with a 100 pound woman running. And it needs to be concealable so scumbag couldn’t see it, even at near proximity.

I have another scene where I used the same weapon: a similarly, slight of build female cop working undercover takes out a child serial killer with it, pulling the piece out from under a summer dress. But, in that scene there was less need to overly define the gun. I focused mostly on the action and where she had it hidden.

In my new scene, the jogger learned of said gun from the cop who teaches her how to secure it on her person. So, much more detail is needed. I’m thinking a small holster tucked in the small of her back, at the moment. But I’m not sure.

Any ideas on what weapon fits that bill?

A Glock 26 9mm is small. And it can take magazines from larger 9mm handguns, which makes it a good backup gun for someone who also uses the larger 9mm guns.

A Glock 36 .45 would pack a bigger punch, but would not be able to take magazines from larger Glocks.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

the little Glock 43 or 42 for example

Smith and Wesson Bodyguard in 380 is even smaller.

.380 isn't exactly compatible with the phrase "carry a lot of punch" though.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

False. In total deaths, guns win.

Cars: 32,999

Guns: 33,636

And almost all of those gun deaths are intentional, while almost all car fatalities are accidental.

That means that the gun deaths are the fault of the killer. The deaths would have happened anyway even without the guns.

Car fatalities would actually be prevented by outlawing cars.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The Supreme Court cannot read. The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that citizens should bear arms in order to maintain a "well regulated militia".

It protects the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms includes civilians keeping private weapons for self defense.

Not so people could buy a gun as a penis substitute.

This name-calling shows that you know that your position is indefensible.

Since we no longer have an ACTIVE militia, there is no need for a militia, there is no need for the 2a.

Civilians widely use the right to have private weapons for self defense.

And not everyone agrees that there is no need for a militia.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You know what the 2nd amendment says
So does the USSC...it thinks Americans should have guns so it interprets (and yes there is a guy on here who swears the USSC doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution) the Constitution as meaning that everyone can have a gun period.

People have rights here in America. We're the last free country in the world.

The 2a gives the justification for bearing arms quite simply. That the USSC decides to make up it's own interpretation is a failing of the whole concept of a constitution.

The Supreme Court did not make up anything. The right to keep and bear arms has always included private ownership of guns for self defense.

Call it "compensation" if you like
You have no other need to own a gun.

Americans are free, not serfs like the rest of the planet.

We don't have to wait for our lords to decide that we "need" a gun before we are allowed to have it.

When we choose to exercise our rights, we get to exercise our rights.

Yep
As I said a flaw in the concept of a constitution.
Men will read into it what they want to read into it.

Civil liberties are hardly a flaw.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The fact of hte matter is, there are less than 50 cases a year of people defending themselves with guns.

The lowest estimate is 108,000 a year, and that is widely acknowledged to be an undercount.

THe DGU statistics are inherently flawed because most of them are dependent upon claims.

The only flaw in the estimate of 108,000 per year is the fact that it is an undercount.

THe fact of the matter is this, the grand fear (and hope) of gun nuts is the myth that somebody will break into their home and they will imitate Die Hard by blowing away the criminal! The fact is, this happens less than a dozen times a year.

Statistics show that this is not true.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

So how few in number would mass shootings have to be in order for you to agree to gun control ?

The term "gun control" is so vague that your question is meaningless.

If guns in the USA were as available as the UK, gun crime would plummet.

So what? People are just as dead if they are killed with a knife.

The only arguments against gun control in the USA are practical ones....there are a lot of guns and gun owners. Not moral ones.

The importance of freedom and civil liberties is a moral argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

.380 isn't exactly compatible with the phrase "carry a lot of punch" though.

modern 380 ammo is a pretty effective round-as good or better than the old standard-the 158 grain FBI load in the 38 special

 

[ttwtt78640]

.380 isn't exactly compatible with the phrase "carry a lot of punch" though.

A .380 is definitely capable making a bad guy hurt and leak a lot while offering much lower recoil - allowing you to put more holes in the bad guy within the same amount of "combat" time.

For her, being able to deliver all 13 rounds on target in a very short time frame (which she could do) was a significant advantage over delivering only a few 9mm rounds. My mistake was not recognizing that. Thankfully, I failed to get her to change. She knew her needs better than I did, and if we were to have that discussion today, I would simply help her become as competent with her gun as I possibly could. I understand the issues better and have reined in my macho opinions.

If I had to choose between a micro 9mm and a .380 in the same size and weight class, I might choose the smaller round if the difference in controllability were significant. In the case of the test gun I mentioned earlier, I’d frankly rather have a .380! Yes, it was that bad. Yet the gun sells well and the manufacturer reports they can’t keep up with demand. I’m positive that many of those buyers are making a bad decision, and probably for the wrong reasons.

Before you sneer at that lowly mousegun, stop and really think about the job it is intended to do. Understand the real task: to get combat-accurate hits, with an effective bullet, on target as fast as you can get them. In some cases, that “little” .380 might be better at the task than anything else.

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/when-does-a-380-beat-a-9mm/

 

[Toggle Almendro]

modern 380 ammo is a pretty effective round-as good or better than the old standard-the 158 grain FBI load in the 38 special

A .380 is definitely capable making a bad guy hurt and leak a lot while offering much lower recoil - allowing you to put more holes in the bad guy within the same amount of "combat" time.
https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/when-does-a-380-beat-a-9mm/

Perhaps, but that sounds more along the lines of "just barely acceptable" not "carry a lot of punch".

 

[pinqy]

A .380 is definitely capable making a bad guy hurt and leak a lot while offering much lower recoil - allowing you to put more holes in the bad guy within the same amount of "combat" time.



https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/when-does-a-380-beat-a-9mm/

The point of the article was the because the .380 doesn’t pack as much of a punch it is easier to control.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The point of the article was the because the .380 doesn’t pack as much of a punch it is easier to control.

Yep, but less controlled shots are not as effective as more controlled shots. Making a bigger hole in a non-vital body part (if the target is hit at all) is not more effective than making a smaller hole (or more than one hole) in a vital body part. I can agree that if you only get one shot on target then the bigger the better but if you can get off more than one shot on target then the odds of a stop go up considerably.