Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

Lethality is obviously subjective.

Standards for use of deadly force are objective, though, at least as the term is used legally -- the force being responded to and the force used in response pretty much always must be appropriate in the eyes of a reasonable person, a reasonably cautious and prudent person, the specific terms of art vary, but the idea is to create an objective standard.

[lockedout]

It hurts the old "if you own a firearm, you're less safe" argument.

INB4 "hashtag anecdote hashtag"

I think you got it wrong. The presence of a firearm makes you unsafe. You don't have to own one.

Just like it made it unsafe for this dirtbag.

Girl, 11, shoots man attacking mother in southeast Oklahoma City.
An 11-year-old girl was called a hero by neighbors Wednesday after she used a handgun to shoot a man who was attacking her mother.

About 4 a.m. Tuesday, Oklahoma City police were called to a home at 3308 SE 89 and found Brandy Moreno, who said she was stabbed by her ex-boyfriend, Leo Henry. http://newsok.com/woman-stabbed-man-...rticle/5345087

[Eroginous]

Yeah. This was a case of a well trained individual using a firearm defensively. If only more firearm owners were as well trained and background checked as he, maybe this would occur more often.

The frequency of successful firearm defensive uses are affected by two factors:

1. Whether or not a person is in possession of a firearm.

2. Whether or not a person is present during a self defense opportunity.

The low numbers of successful self defense uses pretty clearly indicates that most situations of gun violence are not happening to people who are either a) armed or b) in a situation where they can defend themselves.

Using these numbers to argue against the efficacy of firearm self defense is kind of like using the number of deaths in automobile accidents to argue against the efficacy of seat belts.

Also, I wish you'd stop referring to 'training' as the be-all, end-all of 'acceptable firearm use.' Training is literally one of two things:

1. Situational training - Military/police forces train to respond to specific scenarios (ground assaults, sting operations, active shooter events, hostage negotiations, ect), none of which are situations the average person will find themselves in when using their firearm in self defense.

2. Weapons training - Military/police forces train to use a variety of firearms and equipment relating to the above situations, of which the average person will usually not find themselves in possession of when using their firearm in self defense.

Basic firearms safety/use are things that can be taught in 10 minutes to anyone, by anyone, regardless of teaching qualifications or training. Outside of basic safety/use, the only thing an armed civilian needs to do is practice with their firearm at a range. You're putting entirely too much emphasis on something that simply isn't a factor for the average gun owner.

[lockedout]

You're putting entirely too much emphasis on something that simply isn't a factor for the average gun owner.

Well at least he went through more background checks!

[TheUnum]

Weapons are only leading to people being killed. Guns are the worst offendors for their high kill potential.

[arandomuser]

How to get conservatives in favor of an assault weapons ban




It worked in 1968

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli...flip_flop.html

"Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."

The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."

blame conservatism for gun control, not liberals.

[Dethh]

Two men were fatally shot by a customer after they attempted to rob a north Harris County bar early Saturday — the latest in a fury of shootings in Houston this week.

Jenny O'Donnell, owner of EJ's Place, said four armed men came to her bar in the 16400 block of Kuykendall at Colwell, around 2:30 a.m. I remember a few people in here up in arms about guns being allowed in bars etc. At least the only people hurt were the assailants. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ob-5800877.php

[Hammerfest]

There needs to be a universally recognized definition for the term "assault weapon" before I'll participate in this thread's poll.

[Samesnotatroll]

The reasons for gun ownership should never be for home security. We are in an ever encroaching police state, government has spent billions on ammunition. Does it not bother anybody that our nation has enough bullets to fight a 100 year war? Why anticipate that much combat? As a species we are more than intelligent enough to move away from conventional war, how about war of the minds? It'd disgusting what military worldwide in all nations makes human beings come across as.

[lockedout]

There needs to be a universally recognized definition for the term "assault weapon" before I'll participate in this thread's poll.

Any semi automatic rifle with accessories. It's either a musket or an assault weapon nowadays.

[Rukentuts]

The reasons for gun ownership should never be for home security. We are in an ever encroaching police state, government has spent billions on ammunition. Does it not bother anybody that our nation has enough bullets to fight a 100 year war? Why anticipate that much combat? As a species we are more than intelligent enough to move away from conventional war, how about war of the minds? It'd disgusting what military worldwide in all nations makes human beings come across as.

Intelligent enough? This thread is full of science denial. So no, obviously as a species we're far from it.

[lockedout]

Intelligent enough? This thread is full of science denial. So no, obviously as a species we're far from it.

Science denial is like your only argument? WHat science is being denied?

[Rukentuts]

Maybe you should link us more from THE BLAZE, infowars, or other conspiracy sites and demonstrate yet again.

[lockedout]

Maybe you should link us more from THE BLAZE and demonstrate yet again.

So you have no answer?

[Rukentuts]

It would be a shorter list to say what science isn't being denied. Because that's funny coming from a global warming denialist.

[lockedout]

It would be a shorter list to say what science isn't being denied. Because that's funny coming from a global warming denialist.

I don't deny climate change. You have no way of proving it wouldn't have happened anyway is my stance.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah because you'd simply handwave more science away that you can't even understand.

[lockedout]

Yeah because you'd simply handwave more science away that you can't even understand.

I guess you can tell the future.

[Rukentuts]

And you prove my point. You don't even understand that climate is in the past. This is the fundamental level of scientific incomprehension we're dealing with. Where television shows like "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" are nailbiting.

[lockedout]

And you prove my point. You don't even understand that climate is in the past.

Were in a thread about gun control and you're attacking my character with my view on climate change?