Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[jon_berzerk]

It is not arbitrary. It is a number that should be high enough for self defense. Given that there isn't an example of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for defense, the number is 10 or lower. That makes it not an arbitrary number.

I'm not being dishonest, they are questions, not statements. If you really wanted to keep guns away from criminals, shouldn't you be for stronger background checks? If you really wanted to slow a mass shooter shouldn't you be fine with limits on magazine capacity? My questions are what any intelligent person would guess about you based on your own comments.

it is a made up number no other way around it

why are you for criminal having 10 round magazines

personally i am against

Sorry but I just explained my reasoning for why the number is 10 or less. An arbitrary number is random. I used reason to arrive at the number. That makes it not at all an arbitrary number. Look up the definition if you have to.

I'm for stronger background checks so I'm for criminals having no gun.

you have proven it is random number

we already have a back ground check

 

[Noomi]

The Monash shooting doesn't count - a mass shooting is defined by your own FBI as being the shooting deaths of four or more people - not including the shooter themselves.

Australia has not had a single mass shooting since 1996. We have become a safer country, we do not have a rise in home invasions, and suicide by firearm has dropped majorly.

Gun control: After Connecticut shooting, could Australia's laws provide a lesson?

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Yes, shootings still occur, but they are no where near as bad as Port Arthur, and never will be.

You also cannot claim that there have been more rapes, unless you are claiming that those victims would have defended themselves with a gun. Find me stats on how many rape victims in the decade BEFORE Port Arthur defended themselves with a firearm? Likely not many.

 

[Brain357]

it is a made up number no other way around it

why are you for criminal having 10 round magazines

personally i am against

Sorry but I just explained my reasoning for why the number is 10 or less. An arbitrary number is random. I used reason to arrive at the number. That makes it not at all an arbitrary number. Look up the definition if you have to.

I'm for stronger background checks so I'm for criminals having no gun.

you have proven it is random number

we already have a back ground check

No actually it is not random. You don't use reasoning to come up with a random number. I told you how I came up with the number, that makes it by definition not random. Are you like 12 or something?

We do, but as someone pointed out earlier it sometimes fails. So as I mentioned I'm for strengthening it so it is less likely to fail.

 

[Brain357]

[/B]
You said this ^^^

Then you say this:

Sorry, but it's pretty clear to any intelligent person that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

I'm sorry - you made a claim, and, as demonstrated, you haven't proven it.
To argue otherwise is simply dishonest.

My claim is backed up by the 1000's of documented successful home defenses that didn't need a hi cap magazine. Do you really need me to list them? If you could list even one of someone needing one you might have some argument. I've already listed the shotgun and revolver defenses. As of right now you have nothing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sorry but I just explained my reasoning for why the number is 10 or less. An arbitrary number is random. I used reason to arrive at the number. That makes it not at all an arbitrary number. Look up the definition if you have to.

I'm for stronger background checks so I'm for criminals having no gun.

you have proven it is random number

we already have a back ground check

No actually it is not random. You don't use reasoning to come up with a random number. I told you how I came up with the number, that makes it by definition not random. Are you like 12 or something?

We do, but as someone pointed out earlier it sometimes fails. So as I mentioned I'm for strengthening it so it is less likely to fail.

there is no reasoning behind it

other then some anti gun folks using that number

the mayor of NYC thought seven was a good number

just another random number that he felt was a good number

 

[Brain357]

you have proven it is random number

we already have a back ground check

No actually it is not random. You don't use reasoning to come up with a random number. I told you how I came up with the number, that makes it by definition not random. Are you like 12 or something?

We do, but as someone pointed out earlier it sometimes fails. So as I mentioned I'm for strengthening it so it is less likely to fail.

there is no reasoning behind it

other then some anti gun folks using that number

the mayor of NYC thought seven was a good number

just another random number that he felt was a good number

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

 

[PaulS1950]

Violent crime (not GUN CRIME but the total violent crime) has always gone up with stricter gun controls. I am just as concerned about the illegal use of firearms as anyone and that is why I am against "gun control" in all of its various forms. It is already illegal for a criminal to have a gun - even if it only carries one round and is unloaded - it is still illegal. Criminals don't obey the law - that's why they are criminals. New, stricter laws will not affect criminals but they do serve to disarm those 2 million people who successfully defend themselve with a gun each year. It does restrict our second amendment rights. It will cost lives.
Disarming those who defend themselves successfully (most often without firing a shot) will increase the violent crime rate here in the US just as it has in England, Australia and every other country in the world. "gun" crime goes down but violent crime always goes up because the criminals know that they are not likely to face an armed civilian.
So, lets work on reducing the VIOLENCE and keep the guns out of it. Get the criminals off the street and in jail where they belong. Get the insane into hospitals where they can be helped and off the street. Teach gun safety from a very early age, do away with "gun Free" zones so that people can protect themselves. Lets make it as hard for the criminal to find a victim as is humanly possible. Lets ban the criminals!

 

[jon_berzerk]

No actually it is not random. You don't use reasoning to come up with a random number. I told you how I came up with the number, that makes it by definition not random. Are you like 12 or something?

We do, but as someone pointed out earlier it sometimes fails. So as I mentioned I'm for strengthening it so it is less likely to fail.

there is no reasoning behind it

other then some anti gun folks using that number

the mayor of NYC thought seven was a good number

just another random number that he felt was a good number

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

you have offered no reasoning

other then a need to disarm legal folks

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, but it's pretty clear to any intelligent person that hi cap magazines are not needed for defense.

I'm sorry - you made a claim, and, as demonstrated, you haven't proven it.
To argue otherwise is simply dishonest.

My claim is backed up by the 1000's of documented successful home defenses that didn't need a hi cap magazine.

You claim X.
You argue that because X applies to a subset of the whole, X must then apply to the whole.

This is patently unsound, and is therefore not proof of your claim.

Thus, your claim has not been proven. No way to argue otherwise.

So, please prove your claim to be correct, or admit you cannot.

Remember that his is your claim, and so the burdern, in toto, falls upon you to prove it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

there is no reasoning behind it

other then some anti gun folks using that number

the mayor of NYC thought seven was a good number

just another random number that he felt was a good number

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

you have offered no reasoning

Not true -- he has offered reasoning; the reasoning is simply unsound.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

you have offered no reasoning

Not true -- he has offered reasoning; the reasoning is simply unsound.

true

i stand corrected

--LOL

 

[Brain357]

I'm sorry - you made a claim, and, as demonstrated, you haven't proven it.
To argue otherwise is simply dishonest.

My claim is backed up by the 1000's of documented successful home defenses that didn't need a hi cap magazine.

You claim X.
You argue that because X applies to a subset of the whole, X must then apply to the whole.

This is patently unsound, and is therefore not proof of your claim.

Thus, your claim has not been proven. No way to argue otherwise.

So, please prove your claim to be correct, or admit you cannot.

Remember that his is your claim, and so the burdern, in toto, falls upon you to prove it.

As it sits I can give lots and lots of examples of successful home defense without needing a hi cap magazine. As of now nobody has been able to provide an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for home defense. So I conclude that they are not needed for home defense. Now if you want to believe for apparently no reason that they are needed, then that's fine. But as of now nobody has given me any reason to believe I am wrong.

 

[Brain357]

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

you have offered no reasoning

Not true -- he has offered reasoning; the reasoning is simply unsound.

I'm confident the majority of people would find it sound.

 

[Brain357]

Violent crime (not GUN CRIME but the total violent crime) has always gone up with stricter gun controls. I am just as concerned about the illegal use of firearms as anyone and that is why I am against "gun control" in all of its various forms. It is already illegal for a criminal to have a gun - even if it only carries one round and is unloaded - it is still illegal. Criminals don't obey the law - that's why they are criminals. New, stricter laws will not affect criminals but they do serve to disarm those 2 million people who successfully defend themselve with a gun each year. It does restrict our second amendment rights. It will cost lives.
Disarming those who defend themselves successfully (most often without firing a shot) will increase the violent crime rate here in the US just as it has in England, Australia and every other country in the world. "gun" crime goes down but violent crime always goes up because the criminals know that they are not likely to face an armed civilian.
So, lets work on reducing the VIOLENCE and keep the guns out of it. Get the criminals off the street and in jail where they belong. Get the insane into hospitals where they can be helped and off the street. Teach gun safety from a very early age, do away with "gun Free" zones so that people can protect themselves. Lets make it as hard for the criminal to find a victim as is humanly possible. Lets ban the criminals!

This is why I don't argue to disarm, but believe we should have a limit on the capacity of magazines. All my research has shown that nobody has needed a hi capacity mag for defense, but they are used in mass shootings. And as you mention a shot is usually not even fired for defense. So it should be a good compromise for anyone who would want to save lives.

I also support stronger background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Again this will not effect somone from defending themself.

I think these would save lives and everyone keeps their gun.

I look at this as just part of the fight. There are clearly other things that should be done and you mention some that I agree with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My claim is backed up by the 1000's of documented successful home defenses that didn't need a hi cap magazine.

You claim X.
You argue that because X applies to a subset of the whole, X must then apply to the whole.

This is patently unsound, and is therefore not proof of your claim.

Thus, your claim has not been proven. No way to argue otherwise.

So, please prove your claim to be correct, or admit you cannot.

Remember that his is your claim, and so the burdern, in toto, falls upon you to prove it.

As it sits I can give lots and lots of examples of successful home defense without needing a hi cap magazine. As of now nobody has been able to provide an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for home defense. So I conclude that they are not needed for home defense.

Restating your unsound premise, the reasoning that, in and of itself, proves that your premise IS unsound, and then reaching an unsound conclusion does not make your premise any less unsound.
You can't prove it, and you know it; at this point its clear that you simply refuse to be honest about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you have offered no reasoning

Not true -- he has offered reasoning; the reasoning is simply unsound.

I'm confident the majority of people would find it sound.

Fallacy: Appeal to popularity.

 

[Brain357]

You claim X.
You argue that because X applies to a subset of the whole, X must then apply to the whole.

This is patently unsound, and is therefore not proof of your claim.

Thus, your claim has not been proven. No way to argue otherwise.

So, please prove your claim to be correct, or admit you cannot.

Remember that his is your claim, and so the burdern, in toto, falls upon you to prove it.

As it sits I can give lots and lots of examples of successful home defense without needing a hi cap magazine. As of now nobody has been able to provide an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for home defense. So I conclude that they are not needed for home defense.

Restating your unsound premise, the reasoning that, in and of itself, proves that your premise IS unsound, and then reaching an unsound conclusion does not make your premise any less unsound.

You can't prove it, and you know it; at this point its clear that you simply refuse to be honest about it.








Now if you want to believe for apparently no reason that they are needed, then that's fine. But as of now nobody has given me any reason to believe I am wrong.

[/QUOTE]

Interesting way to say you have nothing to dispute my argument.

 

[Darkwind]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

My life is protected by My weapons. My liberty is ensured because of My weapons. My happiness is living free of fear BECAUSE of My weapons.

No one, Not even you, are permitted to take that away from Me.

 

[Darkwind]

Violent crime (not GUN CRIME but the total violent crime) has always gone up with stricter gun controls. I am just as concerned about the illegal use of firearms as anyone and that is why I am against "gun control" in all of its various forms. It is already illegal for a criminal to have a gun - even if it only carries one round and is unloaded - it is still illegal. Criminals don't obey the law - that's why they are criminals. New, stricter laws will not affect criminals but they do serve to disarm those 2 million people who successfully defend themselve with a gun each year. It does restrict our second amendment rights. It will cost lives.
Disarming those who defend themselves successfully (most often without firing a shot) will increase the violent crime rate here in the US just as it has in England, Australia and every other country in the world. "gun" crime goes down but violent crime always goes up because the criminals know that they are not likely to face an armed civilian.
So, lets work on reducing the VIOLENCE and keep the guns out of it. Get the criminals off the street and in jail where they belong. Get the insane into hospitals where they can be helped and off the street. Teach gun safety from a very early age, do away with "gun Free" zones so that people can protect themselves. Lets make it as hard for the criminal to find a victim as is humanly possible. Lets ban the criminals!

This is why I don't argue to disarm, but believe we should have a limit on the capacity of magazines. All my research has shown that nobody has needed a hi capacity mag for defense, but they are used in mass shootings. And as you mention a shot is usually not even fired for defense. So it should be a good compromise for anyone who would want to save lives.

I also support stronger background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Again this will not effect somone from defending themself.

I think these would save lives and everyone keeps their gun.

I look at this as just part of the fight. There are clearly other things that should be done and you mention some that I agree with.

What does need have to do with anything?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting way to say you have nothing to dispute my argument.

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.