Assault weapons ban

[Underhill]

Then the pity is on them. Alot of other countries also do not use juries, or have protections against search and seizure. Also alot of them base thier freedom of speech on law, not on a consitutional right. Thus the government can vote your speech rights away.

I like our system better. If you don't, then try to revoke the amendments you dont like.

That is what the discussion is about.

And I find it funny that those against gun restrictions are using Norway as an example.

Funny mainly because I agree. Norway is actually the model for gun ownership. It is one of the safest places in the world. Everyone is free to own guns with proper regulations in place. I have no problem with that.

But what it is not is an example of how if only everyone carried a gun around we would all be safer. It isn't true and if anything makes clear the exact opposite is the case.

Norway is the example because we knows Norway eliminated mass shootings, right?
2011 Norway attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously not. Norway is the example because they allow their people to own guns in a reasonably cautious manner. And their crime rates reflect this...

 

[Circe]

Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

No response?

To what?

Two words?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

No response?

To what?

Two words?

No. My answer to your question (included in the quote).

 

[Circe]

You do realize there are already a number of hoops to jump through to get a Class III firearm, right? One can't waltz into a gunshop, put down some cash, and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.

No, you have to waltz in, pay something, waltz back in a few days later and pay the rest, waltz out with a semi-automatic rampage killer's friend the AR-15, load it, waltz home and kill your mother, waltz out to the mall and shoot it up, killing lots of shoppers who run screaming and waltzing in terror in all directions.

Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home?

Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.

Let's see, the most recent one before that was the guy at the mall in October in Oregon, stole his guns incl. the AR-15 and went to the mall, shot it up, killed people.

It's very common. The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home?

Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.

4 guns is "in bulk"? That's laughable.
And tell us:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?

The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.

That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.

 

[Circe]

No response?

To what?

Two words?

No. My answer to your question (included in the quote).

As Hamlet said, "Words, words, words."

If you can't talk, I can't answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To what?
Two words?

No. My answer to your question (included in the quote).

As Hamlet said, "Words, words, words."
If you can't talk, I can't answer.

YOU asked:

Quote: Originally Posted by Circe
Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?

I responded:

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you to respond.

 

[Circe]

Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home.

Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.

4 guns is "in bulk"? That's laughable.
And tell us:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?

Well, you asked what schools were shot up with firearms stolen in bulk, and that was all the bulk this skinny little crazy guy could carry! He was carrying four guns and several high-capacity magazines and ammo for the pistols, how much did you want him to carry in there? He carried as many as the Columbine kids carried at once, he was seriously loaded down. I think you are asking a lot of a little schizo if you want him to carry more than four guns at once and enough ammo to take on General Patton!

The ones who don't steal them do a lot of waltzing into gun shows and gun stores with a psychotic look on their faces but they are sold the guns anyway, no problemo.

That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.

No, nor any amount of psychotic behavior, including court actions, therapists, meds, previous attacks, school expulsions, everything. Gun shops could get a lot more business if they put up signs saying "PSYCHOS WELCOME -- Y'ALL COME ON IN!"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite. What schools were 'shot-up' with firearms stolen in bulk from a collector's home.

Adam Lanza was the latest, I think, unless the latest office shooter stole his, this week. Adam Lanza stole four guns as soon as he killed his mother, killed lots of little kids and teachers with them.

4 guns is "in bulk"? That's laughable.
And tell us:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?

Well, you asked what schools were shot up with firearms stolen in bulk

I did not. I laughed at your idea that 4 guns is "in bulk" and then asked you a question.

You did not asnwer the question, so I will ask again:
He killed his mother and stole her guns - what sort of gun control will stop something like that?

That's because what you think is a "psychotic look:" is not sufficient to deny someone their rights.

No, nor any amount of psychotic behavior, including court actions, therapists, meds, previous attacks...

This is either a lie or abject ignorance, as court actions and previous attacks, presuming that either/both resulted in the relevant judicial finding, is sufficient to deprive someone of their right to arms.

 

[Underhill]

Well, WHY is an assault rifle "always a good idea"?

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

No response?

I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.

The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low. It would be more logical to say you are going to put a full roll-cage in your car and drive around in a helmet and fire suit. Because the chances of a car accident are much much higher than the odds of needing that gun for the vast majority of Americans.

I'm not saying self defense is a bad thing, only that people seem to take it way beyond the logical allocation of energy. It would be like covering your house with lightning rods because in 1832 a barn burned down on the other end of the county...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you do not know what will happen tomorrow.

No response?

I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.

Non sequitur. These are passive defenses.

The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.

And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it. Can't have ot both ways.

Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.

 

[Underhill]

No response?

I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.

Non sequitur. These are passive defenses.

The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.

And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it. Can't have ot both ways.

Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.

I used to use that line when I sold insurance. Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.

It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense. But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would say by that logic everyone should live in a bunker and never leave their home.

Non sequitur. These are passive defenses.

The chances of armed robbery or armed assault is extraordinarily low.

And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it. Can't have ot both ways.

Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.

I used to use that line when I sold insurance. Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.

It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense. But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

 

[Underhill]

Non sequitur. These are passive defenses.


And yet, it happens enough that the rights of the law abiding must be restricted in an attempt to decrease it. Can't have ot both ways.

Fact of the matter is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow; it is always better to have and not need then need and not have.

I used to use that line when I sold insurance. Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.

It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense. But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

I already have. Tell me, if you please, what is the advantage of 50 guns vs. 10. You may be able to show a marginal advantage. You can specifically have a gun for every varmint and critter within a thousand miles of your home?

But picking 1 is tough. A long rifle for self defense? A bird-gun for shooting coyotes at 200 yards? How well would they interchange?

So there is a huge advantage to owning 5 guns over 1. There would be some advantage in having 10 guns over 5. But obviously at some point beyond that (probably not all that far beyond that), the advantage becomes marginal.

I have 8 guns. 4 of which are specifically for trap (my son and I shoot). With those 8 guns I can do anything I would ever want to do with a gun. That includes elk, bear, deer and turkey hunting. My 870 even makes a pretty good defensive gun.

So yes, the law of diminishing returns applies. It applies for virtually everything (thus it being a law).

 

[M14 Shooter]

I used to use that line when I sold insurance. Problem is, it's only true up to a certain point in virtually every situation.

It's true having some insurance, whatever kind that is, makes sense. But have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

I already have.

You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
Must have missed it - what's the post number?

 

[Underhill]

Yep - and you cannot show how applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

I already have.

You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
Must have missed it - what's the post number?

When did I claim that?

But you and I both know that an assault weapon makes for a shit self defense gun in most cases. My 870 is better in almost every situation. A pistol might be preferable to the 870 up close (in a confined area). The only advantage to the assault rife is if you happen to have multiple targets at a intermediate to long range.

How often does that happen to the average homeowner? Statistically it's gotta be damn close to 0.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already have.

You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
Must have missed it - what's the post number?

When did I claim that?

I think you need to look back into the coversation.

-The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
-My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
-You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

So, where did you do that?

 

[Underhill]

You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?
Must have missed it - what's the post number?

When did I claim that?

I think you need to look back into the coversation.

-The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
-My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
-You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

So, where did you do that?

When I explained why owning an arsenal is not a rational response to self defense earlier in the thread. It was not part of our conversation currently.

I didn't call out the law specifically. But I already talked about it.

But now you are saying something different. You are taking the initial question and trying to apply my last statement to a comment made 15 post earlier...

 

[Underhill]

"You've shown that the posession of an 'assault wepon' for self-defense, based on the idea that you really do not know will happen tomrrow, is an example of the law of diminishing returns?"

This is what I never said.

Owning an arsenal is an example of the law of diminishing returns. Owning one assault rifle is fine, but there are few (none come to mind) legal things I couldn't do better with another gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When did I claim that?

I think you need to look back into the coversation.

-The question was why was an assault rifle alwys a good idea.
-My response was that you do not know what will happnen tomrrow, and that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.
-You counter this with the idea of law of diminishing returns, and stated that you had already demonstrated how that law applies here, especially once you concede, as you have, the legitimacy of having firearms for self-defense.

So, where did you do that?

When I explained why owning an arsenal is not a rational response to self defense earlier in the thread. It was not part of our conversation currently.

That's not the discussion here.
The discussion here is why it is a good idea to have an assault rifle.
My position is that you do not know what will happen tomorrow, and as it is always better to have and not need then need and not have, there is good reason to have an assault rifle.
Do you care to counter that position, or not?

Note:
The poster who asked the questiion does now know what assault rifles are or how they differ from 'assault weapons', so for the purposes of this discussion the terms can be used interchangeably.