Redneck shoots up Pensacola with AK-47

[Gallstones]

My argument is that people who whine about gun ownership are pathetic wankers.

Ban all pathetic wankers from owning guns then. To get a gun licence, you should have to prove that you don't want one.

You have it as you want it in the UK. What does it matter that we have it different in the US? I mean really, do you seriously think that it is the place of Brits to intrude their their anti-gun ideologies and fear based dogmas on us?

We won't let you. That is a given. You have no choice but to accept that.

[mistermack]

You have it as you want it in the UK. What does it matter that we have it different in the US? I mean really, do you seriously think that it is the place of Brits to intrude their their anti-gun ideologies and fear based dogmas on us?

We won't let you. That is a given. You have no choice but to accept that.

Fear based? I thought fear of violent crime was the main justification for gun ownership?
You use some pretty strange logic.
And this is a forum for opinions among other things. That's why I'm writing my opinions.
I give you special permission to ignore them, if they are upsetting you.

I think you all know that there is some truth in what I said. That's why you all protest too much. Guns do fascinate the sad and loony.
You all kid yourself that it's a normal and grown-up pastime, rather than admit there is a tiny bit of the sad and loony in all of us.

[Svartalf]

Possibility of morally acceptable use or need of a weapon is the reason for gun ownership.
Defence against violent crime is not even necessarily the most important reason. Some people have guns for hunting, other find a good exutory for tensions shooting on the range, some want to be ready in case the country gets invaded or a revolution rises...why restrict it to just fear of crime?

Honestly, I'm more afraid of cops than of crime... because the cops are better equipped and less likely to get hell if they misuse their hardware, and I, the citizen, am left defenceless if those who are supposed to protect me misuse their powers or use them on behalf of the wrong master.

[JimC]

This debate appears to have boiled down to:

Side A: I believe guns are too dangerous to be legal.

Side B: I don't think so.

Well, that is a complete nonsense from my point of view. I have tried to present a nuanced argument for certain restrictions, particularly to the widespread ownership of semi-automatic rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines, while still being perfectly happy with the concept of gun ownership in general.
Not all of us are locked into completely polarised positions...

[FBM]

Jörmungandr, the slippery-slope argument is very tempting. But here, it ignores the influence of voters who are commmitted to resisting that progression of the restrictions on our constitutional rights. If the stats say that hi-cap mags make no difference, that will be presented and the anti-gun lobby will have to find another avenue of attack. In order to argue for hi-cap mags and/or fully-auto weapons, we'd have to come up with some stats in which they aided in the defense of law-abiding citizens. I don't think the "legitimate hobby" defense is going to carry much weight in that debate (not saying that was your argument, btw).

I still agree with the idea that the citizenry should be armed in order to prevent the gummit from d/evolving into a tyranny. Anybody who thinks that that is no longer a possibility just hasn't been paying attention.

Okay, this is just ignorant of political reality. Clinton didn't come up with any "stats" when enacting the "assault weapons ban," he manufactured false data claiming that "assault weapons are the criminal's weapon of choice," knowing full well this was an outright lie.

The "anti-gun lobby" need only convince a majority of legislators in Congress that hi-cap magazines pose a danger, and they do that by lying and magnifying the actual danger posed by such magazines by using the fallacy of "spotlighting," wherein they take a very small number of notorious events, like the shooting of Giffords, and imply that if the devices aren't banned, such events will become routine.

It's not about reason, it's about emotion. You're right that the "legitimate hobby" argument is not going to get far though because this is being cast as a case of "why do you NEED such a device" not "do you have a RIGHT to such a device."

The whole reason the assault weapons ban put in place by Clinton was not renewed was because pro-gun forces successfully debunked the wild cries that its expiration would result in bloodbaths in the street by pointing out that statistically, the ban did not reduce crime AT ALL.

That's a good point. Politics (and life) in general isn't about reason, but emotion. More precisely, manipulating it. I did overlook that.

[Seth]

You have it as you want it in the UK. What does it matter that we have it different in the US? I mean really, do you seriously think that it is the place of Brits to intrude their their anti-gun ideologies and fear based dogmas on us?

We won't let you. That is a given. You have no choice but to accept that.

Fear based? I thought fear of violent crime was the main justification for gun ownership?

You'd be wrong. The main justification for gun ownership is that an armed citizenry provides substantial protections against government tyranny. Violent crime is another justification, but hardly the primary or only one.

You use some pretty strange logic.

Actually, that would be you using strange logic.

I think you all know that there is some truth in what I said. That's why you all protest too much. Guns do fascinate the sad and loony.

Actually, I've seen absolutely no credible evidence that guns "fascinate the sad and loony" whatsoever. Moreover, this is a false dilemma fallacy argument because if it is true that the "sad and loony" are fascinated by guns, by which you seemingly imply that the "sad and loony" will misuse guns, that is all the more reason for law-abiding citizens who are not "sad and loony" to be in possession of firearms so that they can defend themselves, their families, their neighbors and society against the malefactions of the "sad and loony." And interestingly, that's precisely what happens, as many as 2 million times per year in the US. Law-abiding citizens use their firearms to lawfully defend against "sad and loony" people and violent criminals as well.

You all kid yourself that it's a normal and grown-up pastime, rather than admit there is a tiny bit of the sad and loony in all of us.

Only a sad and loony person would make such a claim. And I generally discount the opinions of sad and loony people.

[Gallstones]

You have it as you want it in the UK. What does it matter that we have it different in the US? I mean really, do you seriously think that it is the place of Brits to intrude their their anti-gun ideologies and fear based dogmas on us?

We won't let you. That is a given. You have no choice but to accept that.

Fear based? I thought fear of violent crime was the main justification for gun ownership?
You use some pretty strange logic.
And this is a forum for opinions among other things. That's why I'm writing my opinions.
I give you special permission to ignore them, if they are upsetting you.

I think you all know that there is some truth in what I said. That's why you all protest too much. Guns do fascinate the sad and loony.
You all kid yourself that it's a normal and grown-up pastime, rather than admit there is a tiny bit of the sad and loony in all of us.

I never said that I fear violent crimes and that is the reason I--meaning me--want and have guns.

We answer your objections we give you facts and you just go right on spewing your ignorant BS.
You use some of the weakest tactics known to debate, like name calling. I can't respect that. As far as I'm concerned your argument is dead in the water and going nowhere. It isn't even amusing anymore, just tedious.

I do get to own guns. That isn't going to change.

You didn't even answer my question.
How is it your place to tell us what we should and shouldn't be allowed to have?

[mistermack]

The main justification for gun ownership is that an armed citizenry provides substantial protections against government tyranny.

See "sad and loony".

Actually, I've seen absolutely no credible evidence that guns "fascinate the sad and loony" whatsoever.

Why does that not surprise me?

that is all the more reason for law-abiding citizens who are not "sad and loony" to be in possession of firearms so that they can defend themselves, their families, their neighbors and society against the malefactions of the "sad and loony.

Well done. You've disproved your first claim within a few sentences.

And interestingly, that's precisely what happens, as many as 2 million times per year in the US. Law-abiding citizens use their firearms to lawfully defend against "sad and loony" people and violent criminals as well.

Well, interestingly, no it isn't.
That's what as many as 2 million sad and looney people CLAIM happened in reply to some surveys. ( extrapolated from smaller samples).
No facts were harmed in the creating of those figures.
Just some gunnies' fantasies.

[FBM]

Yep. Emotions, not statistics, fuel the debate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow ... erica.aspx


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[mistermack]

Yep. Emotions, not statistics, fuel the debate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow ... erica.aspx


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The main statistical trend is that the most vulnerable people are the least likely to buy a gun.
And vice versa. It's there in black and white. (literally)
.

[FBM]

Yep. Emotions, not statistics, fuel the debate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow ... erica.aspx


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The main statistical trend is that the most vulnerable people are the least likely to buy a gun.
And vice versa. It's there in black and white. (literally)
.

Would you link us to that data, please? It sounds interesting.

[mistermack]

You've already linked it.

[FBM]

You've already linked it.

I'm guessing you substituted a few terms in order to get "the most vulnerable people are the least likely to buy a gun.
And vice versa." I don't see those stats. I'll look again, though. Maybe I missed something.

[Gallstones]

Women, black people.............

[FBM]

So...making it illegal for women and blacks to own a firearm would help how?