What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Armoured]

Nobody here in Texas is walking around with a flamethrower.

It has always been legal to walk around town with a rifle, and it doesn't even require spending hundreds of dollars for the license to carry a handgun--but nobody carries a rifle.

We have a legal environment in which people can legally walk around with heavy weapons even without spending the several hundred dollars it costs to be licensed...yet nobody does that.

The most prevalent discussion among people who are licensed to carry a weapon is how best to keep it concealed.

So you have tot prove that everyone would want to carry a flamethrower or else admit you're being absurd.

I'm not being absurd. Yes, it's an exercise in extrapolation, but it goes to my basic point about the absurdity of the "I need a gun for defence" argument. "Bad guy has knife? I need gun! Oh no! Bad guy now h a gun! I need a bigger gun! Oh no, bad guy now has a bigger gun! I need a really really big gun!..." and so on, until we get to rotary flamethrowers, or whatever terminal example you like. The absurdity lies in the fundamental premise, not at any particular point along the way.

You didn't even attempt to demonstrate improved safety, either.

Come on RD, you're one of the smartest, most even handed debaters I know on here. It's really hard to see your position on this as anything other than emotion driven. I don't believe you can defend your claims, and on some level, I think you don't believe it either.

And please remember, I say this as a respectful fellow gun user and owner. This isn't coming from a place of "all guns and gun owners are bad".

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I don't know what to say when the obvious advantages of a handheld, powerful projectile weapon that can be used by nearly everybody in the world regardless of physical strength are being dismissed and it is being claimed a melee weapon that requires close proximity and enough physical strength to overwhelm the victim and stab them is just as dangerous. I'm not claiming they aren't dangerous, my claim is that a gun is more dangerous. Thus why guns have pretty much universally replaced melee weapons in any form of combat or self-defense. Don't see many people clamoring to protect the right to carry swords.

Since knifes are just as dangerous, to you, and they are much cheaper, why aren't combat units around the world giving their people knives and saving money on the more expensive firearms?

Okay, that rant was simply rationally incoherent with regard to the preceding discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

Alrighty. If every form of weapon is just as dangerous as a gun, .

Nobody said that.

 

[Armoured]

Alrighty. If every form of weapon is just as dangerous as a gun, why advocate for guns? If they were banned, you could just pick up a knife, ball bat, rock, brick, hand tool, bicycle lock, or even just use your fists and be just as effective.

Another logical flaw in the argument. Yet despite all the times you see people claim "well if we regulate guns, people will just kill people with baseball bats", I have to say, I've never seen a mass casualty event caused by lone whacko with a baseball bat.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Alrighty. If every form of weapon is just as dangerous as a gun, why advocate for guns? If they were banned, you could just pick up a knife, ball bat, rock, brick, hand tool, bicycle lock, or even just use your fists and be just as effective.

Who says I'm advocating for guns? Just showing the gun control crowd how silly their argument is cause if someone wants to hurt/kill someone else they will find a way, no matter what laws are in place or are enacted in the near future. Seems to me the guy driving the truck was more efficient, death toll over 80 and accomplished in less time and he spent way less money...

 

[LoAmmi]

Okay, that rant was simply rationally incoherent with regard to the preceding discussion.

I disagree. I have no idea how someone can honestly tell me that a knife is just as dangerous as a gun. Both are dangerous. But there's a reason that firearms were enshrined in the Constitution and not knives.

If I were in a situation where I needed to fend off attackers, I want a gun in my hand. I don't even have to place the shot all that well to take people out of the fight.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not being absurd. Yes, it's an exercise in extrapolation, but it goes to my basic point about the absurdity of the "I need a gun for defence" argument. "Bad guy has knife? I need gun! Oh no! Bad guy now h a gun! I need a bigger gun! Oh no, bad guy now has a bigger gun! I need a really really big gun!..." and so on, until we get to rotary flamethrowers, or whatever terminal example you like. The absurdity lies in the fundamental premise, not at any particular point along the way.

No, you're not presenting an argument based on demonstrated reality. The demonstrated reality is that there is no race to bigger and bigger weapons going on. Oh, there are people who like to have and play with them, just as there are people who buy high-powered sports cars and huge pick-up trucks, but your rhetoric is spinning far above reality.

You didn't even attempt to demonstrate improved safety, either.

I'll give you my address in a private message, if you want it, and you can come for a visit to see.

Come on RD, you're one of the smartest, most even handed debaters I know on here. It's really hard to see your position on this as anything other than emotion driven. I don't believe you can defend your claims, and on some level, I think you don't believe it either.

And please remember, I say this as a respectful fellow gun user and owner. This isn't coming from a place of "all guns and gun owners are bad".

I want a option besides, "Please don't kill me and my wife." You only get to use that once, and I've already used it.

 

[Armoured]

What I don't understand is in some states (like Texas) we're allowed to own automatic weapons. What the heck do we need to own an automatic weapon for unless it's shooting up a school or something? Shouldn't a 9MM be good enough for most people instead of having to own a gun that's made and designed for warfare?

I can think of no sane reason for a private citizen to need an automatic weapon anywhere. I think there are places and times they're recreationally appropriate, but no one needs one. I can certainly think of no reason they shouldn't be highly regulated.

 

[LoAmmi]

Nobody said that.

Point of clarification: I asked you directly if a person with a gun was more dangerous than another person with a gun. I meant to ask if a person with a gun was more dangerous than another person with a knife. Would that have changed your answer?

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree. I have no idea how someone can honestly tell me that a knife is just as dangerous as a gun. Both are dangerous. But there's a reason that firearms were enshrined in the Constitution and not knives.

Nobody said a knife was "just as dangerous" as a gun.

If I were in a situation where I needed to fend off attackers, I want a gun in my hand. I don't even have to place the shot all that well to take people out of the fight.

Right. So you and I have no disagreement.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I can think of no sane reason for a private citizen to need an automatic weapon anywhere. I think there are places and times they're recreationally appropriate, but no one needs one. I can certainly think of no reason they shouldn't be highly regulated.

Yeah. I mean, I get it people want power and everything without having to risk their lives in the military. Some people just plain like killing. But it's still no reason to give a citizen a gun designed for warfare.

 

[LoAmmi]

I can think of no sane reason for a private citizen to need an automatic weapon anywhere. I think there are places and times they're recreationally appropriate, but no one needs one. I can certainly think of no reason they shouldn't be highly regulated.

Well, I'm sure someone is going to bring up that technically a rifle with a bump stock is not an automatic weapon.

 

[RDKirk]

Point of clarification: I asked you directly if a person with a gun was more dangerous than another person with a gun. I meant to ask if a person with a gun was more dangerous than another person with a knife. Would that have changed your answer?

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. A determined attacker with a knife will likely be able to kill or severely injure a man with a gun, if the attack begins within twenty feet or so and the gun is holstered when the attack begins.

A gun is not a magic wand--which is something both gun owners and gun-fearers need to understand. Situation counts, tactics count, tactics in the situation count.

The need to manage the environment to assure tactical advantage always matters. Being armed does not mean one can be oblivious to the environment with the idea that a gun is the solution to all problems. That's certainly not the case. It can only help in some circumstances, and managing the environment is still necessary to increase the range of circumstances.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I'm sure someone is going to bring up that technically a rifle with a bump stock is not an automatic weapon.

This is the wall of contention:

"I hate guns! Nobody should have guns! If I ever get the power, I will take all guns! How can you argue for bump-stocks?"

Okay, now, I've never forgotten that the true intention of that person is to gain power to take away all guns...and that he's raised the bump-stock issue as only the nose of the camel in the tent.

 

[Armoured]

No, you're not presenting an argument based on demonstrated reality. The demonstrated reality is that there is no race to bigger and bigger weapons going on. Oh, there are people who like to have and play with them, just as there are people who buy high-powered sports cars and huge pick-up trucks, but your rhetoric is spinning far above reality.

You started it with the "bad guys with knives" comment, I just took the argument to it's logical conclusion.

I'll give you my address in a private message, if you want it, and you can come for a visit to see.

Mate, if I am ever again in the US, you are one of the people I would dearly love to meet up and have beer with. That said, anecdotal claims are not persuasive, and "I live somewhere with scary kids" is not, in itself, an argument against gun control. If you're scared of your neighbours, move. Or lobby for better police coverage. Or lobby for a law that would disarm the kids you're scared of. Or get a decent security system

I want a option besides, "Please don't kill me and my wife." You only get to use that once, and I've already used it.

Appeals to emotion are beneath you. Strangers break into people's homes with the intent to do harm to other people vanishingly rarely. You're far more likely to harm yourself or a loved one by accident than protect them or you against a stranger. Most murders and assaults occur between people who know each other, and tend to occur in situations a bit more complex than "defending yourself with gun" It really comes down to simple maths. More people are hurt by people with guns "for self defence" either accidentally or intentionally, than are harmed by the types of people they imagine they need defending against.

 

[LoAmmi]

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. A determined attacker with a knife will likely be able to kill or severely injure a man with a gun, if the attack begins within twenty feet or so and the gun is holstered when the attack begins.

A gun is not a magic wand--which is something both gun owners and gun-fearers need to understand. Situation counts, tactics count, tactics in the situation count.

The need to manage the environment to assure tactical advantage always matters. Being armed does not mean one can be oblivious to the environment with the idea that a gun is the solution to all problems. That's certainly not the case. It can only help in some circumstances, and managing the environment is still necessary to increase the range of circumstances.

I'm 6'3", over 300 lbs, and can lift a pretty substantial amount of weight. If I got the jump on somebody regardless of their weapon I could probably kill them with no weapon. That said, all things being equal, I will contend that a person with a gun is at a major advantage over a person with a melee weapon. That's my point. Circumstances can mean a pillow is dangerous, such as when a person is sleeping, but it certainly would take a lot less effort to murder someone in their sleep with a gun than a pillow.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is the wall of contention:

"I hate guns! Nobody should have guns! If I ever get the power, I will take all guns! How can you argue for bump-stocks?"

Okay, now, I've never forgotten that the true intention of that person is to gain power to take away all guns...and that he's raised the bump-stock issue as only the nose of the camel in the tent.

Well, I have no intention of taking away all guns. I'm more on the side of regulating the amount of bullets available without reloading and making it more difficult for someone on some kind of watch list to get a gun. I'm not even saying impossible, but if you are on one of those lists then perhaps you should be evaluated to determine if you should be able to get one.

 

[Armoured]

A gun is not a magic wand--which is something both gun owners and gun-fearers need to understand. Situation counts, tactics count, tactics in the situation count.

Which is large part of why "I need a gun for self defence" is a flawed argument. Having a gun might be a reassuring security blanket for some, but I just have great difficulty imagining them being more likely to help than harm most situations.

 

[Armoured]

This is the wall of contention:

"I hate guns! Nobody should have guns! If I ever get the power, I will take all guns! How can you argue for bump-stocks?"

Okay, now, I've never forgotten that the true intention of that person is to gain power to take away all guns...and that he's raised the bump-stock issue as only the nose of the camel in the tent.

Now who's making absurd extrapolations?

 

[Armoured]

Nobody said that.

Well actually... https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/nr...-by-claiming-feet-are-just-as-deadly-as-guns/