OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer

[R3Z3N]

When was the last time someone had an A/R and stopped someone else with an A/R?

I think the biggest problem with this is that there is a HUGE area in between some type of regulation and complete confiscation, but most people like to jump the the extreme. I think there should be some more scrutiny before anyone and everyone can get an A/R. I dont want to take YOUR gun away, I want it to be a little more difficult for ANYONE to get one...

Seriously? Oh wait, the media does not want to report the positive use of a gun. EVER.

Sutherland Springs in Texas Nov 5th 2017. Good guy with gun stops further rampage. He heard the shots, and drove to the Church to protect his fellow Americans. Cops were way behind.

Also bears repeating, the government is not supposed to be in the business of regulating needs, ESPECIALLY when it comes to rights.

And again, living in a free society is dangerous. The 3 ships that orig came to America did not do so overly for religious reasons, but because they as merchants were unable to defend themselves without special permission. They wanted freedom from an oppressive government.

[2mAn]

Seriously? Oh wait, the media does not want to report the positive use of a gun. EVER.

Sutherland Springs in Texas Nov 5th 2017. Good guy with gun stops further rampage. He heard the shots, and drove to the Church to protect his fellow Americans. Cops were way behind.

I think you need to calm down a little. My point was when has the bad guy been stopped by the neighbor who grabbed his AR15 and went in to save lives. Im willing to bet its quite low, we have over 200 shootings this year to take data from.

The second half of my comment went completely ignored, as Im not an advocate for taking them away, I just dont think every gun-toting civilian needs an assault rifle. Im 100% in support of good guy with gun.

[CarpHunter]

New Zealand shooter claimed to be far right, and also wanting to use the weapon to get it further removed from the country. How asinine but it worked on a political level. However, while claiming to be far right, he didn't even know what he was, as he couldn't have been further from his own beliefs. There was nothing right leaning about him. That was full on progressive asinine.

Parkland, another fool who was in no way right leaning. None of those view points are conservative nor right leaning (however anti immigration is another topic, but neither right nor wrong, just a political stance on how to run a country)

The baseball shooter, yes another Democrat trying to commit a mass murder. I am glad he did not succeed.

Couldn't just answer that you're ignorant huh? Instead had to double down on stupidity.

So now your claiming to know the motives for the new Zealand shooting, better than the shooter himself. Seriously?

You don't even know the basic difference between left and right wing ideology.

Here's a basic lesson, nazis, neonazis, kkk, hitler, Mussolini, stalin, the ussr, north Korea, pol pot, mao, slavery, genocide, bigotry, xenophobia, racism, ethnic cleansing, the crusades, the witch hunts, Dictators, authoritarians, autocrats, despotes, ect ect, all right wing ideology.

To the extreme yes, but all right wing ideological beliefs.

These are examples given next to the very definition for right wing extremism.

Conservitism by definition is conserving the status que, by removing, attacking, or delegitimizing anything that questions that status que. In american history conservatives have been on the side of pro slavery, pro native american genocide, anti women's rights, and anti civil rights. One of their favorite tactics is to bastardize religion to justify their actions. Current example would be anti gay efforts by them.

Given how ignorant you are, I don't see a point in continuing a conversation with you. The basic differences in ideologies is not up for debate, it's been a settled matter for hundreds of years. If all your gonna do is ignore fact and reality for your opinion, than you can fuck right the fuck off.

Would someone kindly pm me with how to put someone on my ignore list please. I am unsure how. Thanks.

[Motheye99]

left good right bad

[CarpHunter]

Thank you for continuing to contribute.




What is funny is how people keep asking for a "legitimate" reason when you've already decided there isn't one.

Even funnier that we even bother to entertain the idea that anyone could be convinced over the internet.

I do contribute, with actual ideas and thoughts. If you were paying any attention you would realize my post was a reference to a video, in this very thread, that explains my answer to your question easier than me typing them out here. So my comment was spot on, your not paying attention. I even dropped multiple references in multiple posts.

There are several good legitimate reasons for owning a military style weapon. The simplest being your in the military. You have given no reasons at all. So you have no room to complain. We're all waiting for you and others to give actual answers instead of what the nra wrote in your pamphlet.

You did say you need it for home defense, so I'll give a little. But when I said you would be better off getting a security door you went off the rails. Didn't argue against my point, just went on a personal attack.

So here's a question, if you need the gun to protect your home, how is it protecting it when your not home to stand guard? After all, a gun is an inanimate object, with out you there to handle it, it's not protecting your home.

You know what would protect your home whether your there or not? A security door, a fence, bars over the windows. All things I mentioned before. All points you ignored. You ask what's a better home defense choice than your ar. Well there's my answer again. See, if a intruder has already made it into your home, then you failed at securing your home. You wanna feel safer, then make it harder to get in in the first place. Cause unless your going to stand guard 24/7 with your gun, then it's not protecting your home.

And your right, guns aren't the issue. People such as yourself who require a gun to feel secure are the problem. Instead of dealing with the actual fear, you take a placebo to make you "feel" secure and unafraid. It's no different than people just talking a bunch of antidepressants instead of dealing with the issue.

I'm not against gun ownership in the least. Own some myself. I'm against idiot's who shouldn't have guns getting guns. America can't complain about the wrong people getting guns when you continually lower the bar for gun ownership. Each time making it easier for idiot's to get guns. Yet after each mass shooting it always comes up they got the guns legally, and you wonder why.

It's a neverending cluster fuck. You need guns because your afraid of bad guys, that have guns that you made it easy for them to get. Thus creating more bad guys with guns to be afraid of, making you want more guns, so you again make it easier to get guns. Wash rinse repeat. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

[CarpHunter]

left good right bad

When it comes to basic ideological difference, yes. Try and find a left wing dictator, or left wing authoritarian, or left wing genocide. You won't. There's been a few that certain points or actions could be debated, but only the right has clear cut examples.

Notice I'm not saying republican or Democrat. Those are political ideologies, which can be influenced by either left or right wing ideology.

I use this example often, but it narrates the point perfectly. Your republican party went from pro civil rights and anti slavery, to the very party of the kkk and white supremacists. That's a shift from center left to far right ideology.

[Motheye99]

I do contribute, with actual ideas and thoughts. If you were paying any attention you would realize my post was a reference to a video, in this very thread, that explains my answer to your question easier than me typing them out here. So my comment was spot on, your not paying attention. I even dropped multiple references in multiple posts.

There are several good legitimate reasons for owning a military style weapon. The simplest being your in the military. You have given no reasons at all. So you have no room to complain. We're all waiting for you and others to give actual answers instead of what the nra wrote in your pamphlet.

You did say you need it for home defense, so I'll give a little. But when I said you would be better off getting a security door you went off the rails. Didn't argue against my point, just went on a personal attack.

So here's a question, if you need the gun to protect your home, how is it protecting it when your not home to stand guard? After all, a gun is an inanimate object, with out you there to handle it, it's not protecting your home.

You know what would protect your home whether your there or not? A security door, a fence, bars over the windows. All things I mentioned before. All points you ignored. You ask what's a better home defense choice than your ar. Well there's my answer again. See, if a intruder has already made it into your home, then you failed at securing your home. You wanna feel safer, then make it harder to get in in the first place. Cause unless your going to stand guard 24/7 with your gun, then it's not protecting your home.

And your right, guns aren't the issue. People such as yourself who require a gun to feel secure are the problem. Instead of dealing with the actual fear, you take a placebo to make you "feel" secure and unafraid. It's no different than people just talking a bunch of antidepressants instead of dealing with the issue.

I'm not against gun ownership in the least. Own some myself. I'm against idiot's who shouldn't have guns getting guns. America can't complain about the wrong people getting guns when you continually lower the bar for gun ownership. Each time making it easier for idiot's to get guns. Yet after each mass shooting it always comes up they got the guns legally, and you wonder why.

It's a neverending cluster fuck. You need guns because your afraid of bad guys, that have guns that you made it easy for them to get. Thus creating more bad guys with guns to be afraid of, making you want more guns, so you again make it easier to get guns. Wash rinse repeat. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Why did you buy a gun? Don't say hunting or range use.. that's totally bs.

[cale]

bigotry, xenophobia, racism all right wing ideology.

You continue to produce bottom of the barrel quality posts.

[mach schnell]

If I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me, why even bother to respond? And then respond multiple times to multiple people?

I like how you pretend that you will ever change your mind on this issue.

[digger]

Thank you for continuing to contribute.




What is funny is how people keep asking for a "legitimate" reason when you've already decided there isn't one.

Even funnier that we even bother to entertain the idea that anyone could be convinced over the internet.

Here are my opinions on legitimate reasons why someone might want to procure such weapons :
- worn torn location lots of civil unrest
- rural area with dangerous wildlife e.g bears
- live in bad area and have had had armed individuals threaten you in your home or people close to you before.

most people don't fall into those categories

not so legitimate reasons
- guns are fun
- the law says I can
- had an iPhone stolen once
- just incase the off chance someone breaks in one day to kill me
- zombies

[bmwman91]

I do not have a political dog in this fight and am not an avid gun owner. But I am a voter, and I see that the politics surrounding guns are completely divorced from reality and any statements of desired outcome. As far as I can tell, it is straight red-tribe vs. blue-tribe, and I am sure that simply posting basic facts and numbers is going to stir up the hornet's nest. Gun homicide is clearly "A" problem, but I fail to see a viable case to be made that it is anywhere near "THE" problem from which any sort of significant portion of society's ills today stem.

Someone explain to me what difference banning "assault rifles" will make.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

If the hill that anti-gun activists want to die on is the one where they put all of their effort into making sure that people can't buy the firearms which are responsible for <4.7% of gun-related deaths, then I don't know what to say. That is the number with the assumption that the "type not stated" category has buried in it a proportional number of rifle entries to the "type stated" categories, so it is included in that percentage. Note that the "rifles" category includes all rifles, not just "assault" rifles. A lot of gun-law proponents out there in fact DO mainly try to deal with the hand gun problem, but the media and the most vocal anti-gun types have all been harping specifically on "assault rifles" for more than a decade now. Frankly, I think that those people have done more to torpedo any chance at sane and practical gun legislation than anything else short of the NRA.

And before the "but Wikipedia" responses, you can also check some facts from what I assume is a source that nobody is going to try to question. See pages 42-43 for accidents & homicides, with gun deaths on 43.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf

Violent crime is a problem, and we should continue to fight to reduce it, but disingenuous claims that it is at some sort of record high or an "epidemic" are just wrong.


Source: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...torical-highs/

The gun homicide thing is clearly more of an emotional issue than a rational one since people are a lot less upset about all of the tragic deaths that result from lax driver licensing, the sugar industry lobbying to put its poison into literally everything, the pharmaceutical industry (and broader health care industry) placing profits far above anything resembling health "care", and dozens of other things that apparently lack the visceral punch of shootings. The corporate media has everyone worked up pretty hard about this, on all political sides, and it is frustrating to watch. Again, gun crime is A problem, and if anything is going to get done then people need to approach it with a degree of levity, because running around screaming that it is an epidemic when it clearly is not just gives groups like the NRA really easy ammo to use to discredit everyone who opposes them.

[turbski]

1 question.? Where the hell does the A-R fall in to play on this? Unless you have a class 3 licence or are smart enough.... Or stupid enough to build one yourself without proper paperwork then we all have strayed way off topic.

the A-R IMHO has very poor use in hunting or home defense, as has been beaten to death in this topic.

I own 3. And you will never hear me preach about it in effectiveness for either hunting or home defense.

HELL YES its fun to shoot, accurate, but is in no way a Friggin assault rifle! Not even in the same league. Dont demonize 1 particular piece of hardware over and over or they will ban it.

I can walk into any gun store and buy any number of firearms that would be easier to conceal, hold as many or more rounds for less money and yet here we go again.. . .
I agree with the few in this that have stated lets get better background checks better mental health care.

anyone talking about what happened in Missouri... Or does that no get attention because no one died or the headlines don't say AR?

[R3Z3N]

I just dont think every gun-toting civilian needs an assault rifle. Im 100% in support of good guy with gun.

Again, there shall be no requirement to demonstrate need for a right.

[digger]

Again, there shall be no requirement to demonstrate need for a right.

Just because you have a right to or are allowed to by law or legislation does not mean you should. Nor does it mean the law or legislation is sensible or reasonable.

[R3Z3N]

^However, at this time, we can, without question, despite how a judge or jury may rule in this frail wind of a political climate. A reason many are willing to carry without a license, because it is a right that shall not be taxed, or infringed, and has no basis on need or perception of need.

Again, 2A was deemed to be a natural right, before it was written IE "a God given right". I would argue that it is completely reasonable to have no restrictions, because as again, we need the ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, from the gangs, to the abusive ex boyfriend, to the random mugging on the street.

This right is something that one can not predict, therefore if one desires to even attempt to reduce the likelyhood of becoming a victim, to give themselves teeth when they have none as the worst of them will.