Gun Control question for liberals?

[Marion Morrison]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

Everyone should have a problem with mentally ill or dangerous people such as convicted felons owning guns, regardless one’s political beliefs.

And most liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning ARs and similar semi-auto carbines and rifles; indeed, many liberals own ARs.

The thread premise fails as both a strawman fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

Except that gun laws are still required to be state or local, as the Bill of Rights prohibits any federal infringement at all.
And that there is no way to legislate that mentally ill or dangerous people from obtaining guns.
The only way to make dangerous people safe is by committing them to constant supervision.
They will be just as dangerous with a vehicle, flammables, fertilizer, etc.
As far as convicted felons who have served their sentence, they should have the same right of self defense,
You can't start making a multi tiered society.
Even preventing convicted felons from voting is actually illegal taxation without representation.
Especially since these days it is easy to become a convicted felon over pot possession.

 

[Rigby5]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

Everyone should have a problem with mentally ill or dangerous people such as convicted felons owning guns, regardless one’s political beliefs.

And most liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning ARs and similar semi-auto carbines and rifles; indeed, many liberals own ARs.

The thread premise fails as both a strawman fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

If you really believe that nonsense then you better get out from under that rock. Pay attention to what liberals here say about AR's and like guns. Pay attention to liberal cities and states who want to ban those weapons.

 

[KGB]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

I want you to replace any other right we have in place of gun ownership & see if you support that logic. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, not a privilege...

 

[KGB]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

If somebody breaks into your home, the last thing you're concerned about is if it's rare or not. Yes, the longer the barrel of a gun, the more accurate that weapon is.

So you're assertion here is that home break-ins are rare. Okay, let's go with that, they are rare. Now why do you suppose they are rare?

The reason they are rare is because nobody knows if you have a firearm in that home to defend yourself with, that's why. If somebody is assured you are not capable of defending yourself, why would they not break in while you are there? After all, you know where your valuables are hidden at. You are an asset to the criminal. He may even use you to go to the ATM and use your cards to withdraw even more money.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

See that, OP? Three posts in a row have called out your strawman. In fact the only post that did not, already self-identified as "not a Liberal".

Also you might want to look up the definition of the word tenure.

Because the leftist call for more gun control will have no effect on crime or gun deaths why call for more gun control unless it's the goal to take guns from private citizens?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

That is a lie you bought hook, line, and sinker. The Democrats want a total disarmament of society. They may not come right out and say it, but they will (and are) using incremental steps to get there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Same reason you need a $48,000 Ford Pick-up Truck... Because... I will answer the question with all the honesty I can muster... Private Property Protection... As far as the CCW permit, I'm proud of you... It is your right under the protection of the Second Amendment and what every State you live in......

It may be a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it won't land you into trouble.

I live in Ohio, a very gun liberal state. I can use deadly force if I am facing the possibility of serious bodily harm (which there is no legal definition of) or death. I can even defend somebody else in the same situation. If somebody attempts to enter my vehicle, over here, it's the same as somebody breaking into your home. I have the legal ability to use deadly force.

However if my permit was allowed in let's say New York, I would never use deadly force unless I was about to be killed myself.

Being able to carry or possess a firearm is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. If the laws protecting the shooter are weak, it's like having no ability to protect yourself at all.

Not so. If you're going to apply deadly force you need to be prepared for the consequences.

Correct, and as I just posted, the consequences are different in each state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

Speaking of Uninformed, it couldn't have anything to do with your obstinate resistance to using the term Liberal properly, even after you've been schooled therein, and what it says about your mendacity.

Naaah, couldn't be that.

You derail almost every topic with that definition crap. Cut it out already and start sticking to the subject of the thread.

And y'all mendacitymongers always piss your collective pants when your lie is called out for what it is.

Tough titty. Until you quit doing it, the beatings will continue.

Then you will end up on the ignore list which very, very few people are on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

 

[Defiant1]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

Everyone should have a problem with mentally ill or dangerous people such as convicted felons owning guns, regardless one’s political beliefs.

And most liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning ARs and similar semi-auto carbines and rifles; indeed, many liberals own ARs.

The thread premise fails as both a strawman fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

Giving convicted felons the right to vote is probably more dangerous than giving them the right to bear arms.

If you don't think a person has the right to protect their own life, why do you think they should vote?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

So, we don't need anymore gun regulation?

Good. I agree.

End of discussion.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

It is a right. You cannot license a right. A license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

If you want mandatory training, make it a mandatory part of school curriculum. Nobody gets into high school without 3 full years of mandatory gun training.

The problem is that your commie overlords don't want that, because then, nobody would have the irrational fear of guns these commie motherfuckers have worked for decades to create.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you don't think a person has the right to protect their own life, why do you think they should vote?

Because criminals voting helps the Democrats since most criminals will vote Democrat. They have even suggested letting people as young as 16 vote because they are in the indoctrinated schools. People who know little to nothing about politics also vote Democrat. After all, Democrat sounds like democracy, right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you don't think a person has the right to protect their own life, why do you think they should vote?

Because criminals voting helps the Democrats since most criminals will vote Democrat. They have even suggested letting people as young as 16 vote because they are in the indoctrinated schools. People who know little to nothing about politics also vote Democrat. After all, Democrat sounds like democracy, right?

If you can't own a gun you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you don't think a person has the right to protect their own life, why do you think they should vote?

Because criminals voting helps the Democrats since most criminals will vote Democrat. They have even suggested letting people as young as 16 vote because they are in the indoctrinated schools. People who know little to nothing about politics also vote Democrat. After all, Democrat sounds like democracy, right?

If you can't own a gun you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Agreed, but the Dems will run with that one if they get their way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Make gun training MANDATORY for all school children ages 12 and older.

2. Do nothing else but repeal all federal gun laws.

Insurance is retarded. Accidental shootings are so fucking rare, it would be more effective to force everyone to carry lightening insurance. Besides, most homeowners and renters policies cover accidental shootings anyway. Intentional shootings will NEVER be covered or insurable. That is not how insurance works.

Regarding mandatory storage requirements, that is more bullshit. Weapons must be accessible to owners to actually be useful. See the D.C. case and others.