Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KSB2424

Why this Republican is for stricter Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Let's take it slow then.

 

We all agree a stay at home mother should have the right to carry enough firepower to adequately defend herself against a single home invader. And we will go ahead and say she should also be able to defend herself against 3 people invading her home simultaneously.

 

For the sake of this discussion, where would you like to draw the line? Give me the number of well armed organized attackers RP's stay at home mom needs to be able to defend herself against.

Howsabout as many as she thinks is necessary for her situation.

 

Slow.........enough...........for...........ya????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take it slow then.

 

We all agree a stay at home mother should have the right to carry enough firepower to adequately defend herself against a single home invader. And we will go ahead and say she should also be able to defend herself against 3 people invading her home simultaneously.

 

For the sake of this discussion, where would you like to draw the line? Give me the number of well armed organized attackers RP's stay at home mom needs to be able to defend herself against.

 

There probably exists data to help make an educated answer, but since I don't have it and you seem to have some awesome point you would like to make, I'll say 4. Without kevlar. Have fun. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howsabout as many as she thinks is necessary for her situation.

 

Slow.........enough...........for...........ya????????????????

 

So we just leave it up to each individual citizen to determine how well armed they are allowed to be? No limits, as long as they feel it's necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we just leave it up to each individual citizen to determine how well armed they are allowed to be? No limits, as long as they feel it's necessary?

It seems to have worked for years. :dunno:

 

But mebbe a 6 bullet limit idea is best for all situations. :blink: :wacko: :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably exists data to help make an educated answer, but since I don't have it and you seem to have some awesome point you would like to make, I'll say 4. Without kevlar. Have fun. :thumbsup:

 

Ok. 4 attackers armed with high capacity semi-automatic weapons (because we are assuming criminals obey the law and don't have anything more powerful) coordinate an attack on an unsuspecting jerryskids. Do you feel confident you can handle the situation with your semi-automatic weapon of choice?

 

I'm admittedly not trained for such a thing, but I feel like I'd personally need a fully automatic machine gun with 100 rounds to even have half a chance at defending myself against 4 attackers with semi-autos. Even then I don't think I am making it. Just that I'd have a chance to fight at least.

 

What about you though? And what about the stay at home mom? Lets discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. 4 attackers armed with high capacity semi-automatic weapons (because we are assuming criminals obey the law and don't have anything more powerful) coordinate an attack on an unsuspecting jerryskids. Do you feel confident you can handle the situation with your semi-automatic weapon of choice?

 

I'm admittedly not trained for such a thing, but I feel like I'd personally need a fully automatic machine gun with 100 rounds to even have half a chance at defending myself against 4 attackers with semi-autos. Even then I don't think I am making it. Just that I'd have a chance to fight at least.

 

What about you though? And what about the stay at home mom? Lets discuss.

holyfockintomoly batman :blink:

so less ammo is your solution ? because its a housewife ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. 4 attackers armed with high capacity semi-automatic weapons (because we are assuming criminals obey the law and don't have anything more powerful) coordinate an attack on an unsuspecting jerryskids. Do you feel confident you can handle the situation with your semi-automatic weapon of choice?

 

I'm admittedly not trained for such a thing, but I feel like I'd personally need a fully automatic machine gun with 100 rounds to even have half a chance at defending myself against 4 attackers with semi-autos. Even then I don't think I am making it. Just that I'd have a chance to fight at least.

 

What about you though? And what about the stay at home mom? Lets discuss.

I'll answer this and then you need to cut the crap and make your point.

 

I don't own a gun so I don't know. And I'm not trained for that scenario. But for grins... If 4 criminals were sober and coordinated an attack on my house, I think it likely that they would leave not long after I started firing at them. If they didn't, then they must want something really focking bad, and I think we are entering an unusual scenario. More likely some or all of them are on drugs. I'd hunker behind a bed and shoot them as they came into the room with as many bullets as I had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "gotcha" moment I'm seeking out here.

 

We all accept that we can't defend ourselves against 1,000 people as that would require a bomb. We seemingly accept that we can't defend ourselves against 50 people as that would require automatic weapons, grenades, and possibly a tank. To protect ourselves against 5 people would likely take more than what is legal to us now. So we already aren't making a stand based on the belief that we need to always be able to defend ourselves.

 

The answer quite simply should be to figure out the line on the graph in which the benefits outweigh the costs. KSB, quite logically, believes that the costs of high capacity cartridges (being able to kill many without having to reload) outweigh the benefits of high capacity clips (being able to defend one's self against several attackers at once without having to reload).

 

We all can do the calculations in our head on some level. We all admit that the benefit of owning a nuke (being able to defend ourselves against tens of thousands of home invaders) is not worth it compared to the downside.

 

I find it illogical that people believe the instances in which being able to fire off 30 shots without reloading are a net positive. But passion clouds logic. And I suppose if 90% of us were 6'3 tall, then guys standing 6'0 would be considered short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find humorous is that RP presented a very realistic scenario, you and KSB are using a one-off example of a whackjob who shot a congresswoman, and you think that RP's example is extreme. :wave:

 

Realistic???? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "gotcha" moment I'm seeking out here.

 

 

 

Biggest load of sh!t post ever.

 

 

You were trying hard to get a "gotcha" moment, but failed miserably.

 

So now that multiple posters have pummeled you, you pull out the 'I was just joking" schtick.

 

It's not flying, Sport. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistic???? :lol:

Thanks for stopping by,ya fukking Moron. :wave:

 

 

OROVILLE -- Three men have been arrested in connection with a home-invasion robbery where two forced their way into a residence and doused a man with pepper spray.

 

Wow! Took seconds to find a story from a few days ago. :doh:

 

 

http://www.chicoer.com/ci_22456097/three-arrested-forbestown-home-invasion-robbery.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest load of sh!t post ever.

 

 

You were trying hard to get a "gotcha" moment, but failed miserably.

 

So now that multiple posters have pummeled you, you pull out the 'I was just joking" schtick.

 

It's not flying, Sport. :doh:

 

Yikes. You are losing it man.

 

There was no gotcha moment because anyone should have seen my point coming from a mile away. It was just logical thinking.

 

But you are so far gone that even the simplest of turns wont be noticed by you until you've run right off the road, into the ditch, and continued to spin your wheels for several hours until the car runs out of gas. Well it's the middle of the night now buddy, the the car just hit E.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes. You are losing it man.

 

There was no gotcha moment because anyone should have seen my point coming from a mile away. It was just logical thinking.

 

But you are so far gone that even the simplest of turns wont be noticed by you until you've run right off the road, into the ditch, and continued to spin your wheels for several hours until the car runs out of gas. Well it's the middle of the night now buddy, the the car just hit E.

Everyone saw it coming from 5 miles away.

 

That is why it was such a massive fayle.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone saw it coming from 5 miles away.

 

That is why it was such a massive fayle.

 

HTH

 

I understand that you made your grand point that woman should be able to defend themselves against up to 3 thugs. But you need to understand that the thread evolved past that, possibly into an actual discussion.

 

Your not even in the game anymore, yet you keep yelling boo yah and attempting flying chest bumps from the sideline everytime the other team only gains 5 yards on first down. It's uncomfortable to watch, yet impossible not to pay attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you made your grand point that woman should be able to defend themselves against up to 3 thugs. But you need to understand that the thread evolved past that, possibly into an actual discussion.

 

Your not even in the game anymore, yet you keep yelling boo yah and attempting flying chest bumps from the sideline everytime the other team only gains 5 yards on first down. It's uncomfortable to watch, yet impossible not to pay attention to.

Gotcha.

 

Let's get back to your "Who gets a nuke discusssion". :rolleyes: :shocking: :overhead:

 

That was so much more intelligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for stopping by,ya fukking Moron. :wave:

 

 

 

 

Wow! Took seconds to find a story from a few days ago. :doh:

 

 

http://www.chicoer.c...on-robbery.html

 

 

I never said it didn't happen...Your scenario didn't have the Thugs armed, MORON... :doh:

 

but I'm sure you start making up more stuff as you go along...I just stopped to say, "Hey look RP's retarded....still" :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it didn't happen.. Your scenario didn't have the Thugs armed, MORON

You said it wasn't realistic.

 

 

On 09-14-10 at about 12:10 AM, Manchester Police responded to an Amherst St address for a report of armed intruders. On arrival, they met with the resident and three guests who reported to police that three armed men wearing bandanas over their faces had entered the apartment, demanding cash and valuables. All three men brandished firearms and threatened the victims to gain compliance. They left with cash and other valuables.

 

Whew!!!

 

It took all of 20 seconds to find an instance of "3 armed intruders". :doh:

 

 

http://www.manchesternh.gov/website/Departments/Police/PoliceBlog/tabid/1177/EntryId/1345/Three-Intruders-Armed-With-Weapons.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you made your grand point that woman should be able to defend themselves against up to 3 thugs. But you need to understand that the thread evolved past that, possibly into an actual discussion.

 

Your not even in the game anymore, yet you keep yelling boo yah and attempting flying chest bumps from the sideline everytime the other team only gains 5 yards on first down. It's uncomfortable to watch, yet impossible not to pay attention to.

What discussion? I played your game and said 4 without kevlar, and you brought up some fully auto 100 bullet crap. So three is realistic, and four requires a small army?

 

I answered your question, what is your own answer and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it didn't happen...Your scenario didn't have the Thugs armed, MORON... :doh:

 

but I'm sure you start making up more stuff as you go along...I just stopped to say, "Hey look RP's retarded....still" :wave:

Should I pile on???

 

 

Oh, what the hell. :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

One dead after shooting during home invasion

 

A man suspected in a possible home invasion Monday morning was shot and killed after a gunfight with a resident.

 

Las Vegas police said a man, woman and infant were at an apartment at the La Ventana complex at 2901 N. Rainbow Blvd., near Cheyenne Avenue, when several suspects knocked on the front door about 10:15 a.m.

 

The man exchanged gunshots with the four suspects in the apartment, and the gunfight then spilled into the parking lot.

 

One of the suspects was shot in the parking lot and died at University Medical Center, said Lt. Ray Steiber, who oversees the department's homicide section.

 

The three other suspects, two men and a woman, left a vehicle at the scene, ran from the area and were being sought by police.

 

 

http://www.lvrj.com/news/three-shot-at-apartment-complex-184695221.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

but I'm sure you start making up more stuff as you go along..

 

Hey look how good I am......I was able to make this story up and get it published in the last 20 minutes. :lol:

 

 

Police say that three armed men broke into an Alexandria, LA home around 4:30AM, intending to rob the occupants. The homeowner reportedly grabbed his gun and fired in self defense, striking two of the intruders and causing the trio to flee

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/armed-homeowner-stops-3-early-morning-intruders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look how good I am......I was able to make this story up and get it published in the last 20 minutes. :lol:

 

 

 

 

http://www.examiner....rning-intruders

 

Look, another story of armed intruders...good thing in your "realistic" scenario your guys were just thugs.

 

(Hint...your scenario never had the thugs armed, MORON)

 

:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many rounds would you allow a stay at home mom up against three thugs who just entered her house?

 

 

Look, another story of armed intruders...good thing in your "realistic" scenario your guys were just thugs.

 

(Hint...your scenario never had the thugs armed, MORON)

 

:wave:

You are usually better than this. So what is your deep, cbfalcon-esque point here? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honcho is dancing faster than all these clowns combined. :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

 

 

 

Look, another story of armed intruders...good thing in your "realistic" scenario your guys were just thugs.

 

(Hint...your scenario never had the thugs armed, MORON)

 

I forgot who I was dealing with. I shoulda differentiated between the kind of thugs who carry guns and the kind of thugs you are delivering apple pies. :overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer: Anybody with a few hours of practice.

 

Let me ask you a question. If criminals already ignore murder and rape laws, what in the focking hell makes you think they will follow these new laws about how many rounds you can have in your gun???

 

What, do criminals have special focking criminal sites or something? You do realize that most criminals aren't well funded drug lords, they are poor ass street thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honcho is dancing faster than all these clowns combined. :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-pGzCre7Po

 

 

 

 

I forgot who I was dealing with. I shoulda differentiated between the kind of thugs who carry guns and the kind of thugs you are delivering apple pies. :overhead:

 

I guess with all your spinning, you would perceive it as me dancing...nice try Black Swan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Katrina. Sandy. Every other week in Florida. Disaster areas. It's weeks until order is restored. No power, no food, no water, no police. Thugs and even decent folks are roaming the area scavenging, trying to find sustenance to survive. Pillaging, raping, murder, raping. In this dire, common situation, you need to protect your family, your supplies, your life.

 

And you clowns want to restrict protection options? Stupid.

 

A guy that I talked to recently, right after Katrina, sitting in the back of his truck, organizing his tools. Several thugs walked up to him with hand guns and demanded valuables. The guy pulled out a semiautomatic and asked them if they really wanted to do this. They backed away and left. The guy calmy put his weapon away and went back to sorting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the issue of severely restricting fully automatic weapons went to the Supreme Court it was upheld. Their reasoning was because fully automatic weapons were not needed for "Standard or Common Use" by ordinary citizens.

 

Would there be outlying instances where an uzi may come in handy? Sure. We can sit here and make up some scenarios (outliers) all day. Mabye a gang of 5 thugs bumrushed your house. Maybe a herd of veral hogs attacked your farm. However those instances are few and far between and when trying to find the proper balance between gun control vs. gun rights we shouldn't go by the outliers, just like the Supreme Court logically thought as well.

 

The vast majority of crimes, including mass murders, robberies and home invasions are perpetrated by less than 3 individuals at a time. The incidence where there are 4, 5, 6 crimnals is few and far between. Consider that most 'gunfights' are over very quickly, take place in a very close proximity and involve the shooter usually taking less than 5 shots.

 

A full gun ban will never happen in this country nor should it. Citizens, including stay at home mom should have the right to own a firearm for personal protection or any other legal reason. I'm all for states deciding on Concealed Caryy license as well after thourough and proper background checks.

 

However there has to be a balance between gun onwership and gun control. And we cannot base that balance on the outliers. Standard and Common Use dictates that in the vast majority of instances that a lot of guns/ammo avaialable today are not really needed (needed not wanted) for home defense or any other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess with all your spinning, you would perceive it as me dancing...nice try Black Swan

Spinning?

 

Is that what you call me curbstomping you into a pile of mush? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we cannot base that balance on the outliers. Standard and Common Use dictates that in the vast majority of instances alot of guns/ammo avaialable today are not really needed for home defense or any other reason.

 

OK. So the people who are pro abortion based on the sole issue of unwanted pregnancy from rape, which is a 1 in 100,000 or so scenario, you would consider them lunatics? Would you enforce anti-abortion laws because outliers should not be considered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The vast majority of crimes, including mass murders, robberies and home invasions are perpetrated by less than 3 individuals at a time. The incidence where there are 4, 5, 6 crimnals is few and far between. Consider that most 'gunfights' are over very quickly, take place in a very close proximity and involve the shooter usually taking less than 5 shots.

 

 

That's very compelling... do you have any data to back any of this up? If so I'm willing to discuss it.

 

Also, from what I've read here and elsewhere, it is not too difficult to make larger clips. So a ban on them would likely have very little effect on the bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a ban on them would likely have very little effect on the bad guys.

 

Maybe for career bad guys this is true. But in mass shooter cases, who are often people without a lot of past criminal associations or records, it would at the very least make them jump through some hoops and potentially raise some red flags along the way. Would James Holmes, the neuroscience student, who purchased all of his weaponry through legal means, have known how to get his hands on illegal magazines? Or Adam Lanza, a 20 year old autistic kid who took his weapons from his law-abiding mother? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe for career bad guys this is true. But in mass shooter cases, who are often people without a lot of past criminal associations or records, it would at the very least make them jump through some hoops and potentially raise some red flags along the way. Would James Holmes, the neuroscience student, who purchased all of his weaponry through legal means, have known how to get his hands on illegal magazines? Or Adam Lanza, a 20 year old autistic kid who took his weapons from his law-abiding mother? :dunno:

Fair questions. The tradeoff then is potentially reducing the number of deaths in such tragedies vs. increasing the number of deaths in home invasions. Also I would argue that Lanza's mom had a bit of an arsenal on her hands and that it is presumptive to think that she wouldn't have had some bootleg larger magazines. Also also, Holmes specifically bypassed larger and closer theaters to choose the one which didn't allow guns, so if we are drawing conclusions from small sample sizes, we should put on the table the outlawing of gun prohibition at movie theaters.

 

I'm not 100% against capacity restrictions; I'm willing to consider it as part of the greater whole to address the problem. I've asked several times for data in this thread from those advocating it and gotten none. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, where I'm from, "gun control" means restricting people's access to some types of firearms/ammunition. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. 4 attackers armed with high capacity semi-automatic weapons (because we are assuming criminals obey the law and don't have anything more powerful) coordinate an attack on an unsuspecting jerryskids. Do you feel confident you can handle the situation with your semi-automatic weapon of choice?

 

I'm admittedly not trained for such a thing, but I feel like I'd personally need a fully automatic machine gun with 100 rounds to even have half a chance at defending myself against 4 attackers with semi-autos. Even then I don't think I am making it. Just that I'd have a chance to fight at least.

What about you though? And what about the stay at home mom? Lets discuss.

:lol:

 

If you had a full auto weapon with only 100 rounds, you'd be empty in about 10 seconds and would probably not hit any of your intended targets. Full auto is great for suppression, not so good for accuracy. You'd be better off with a semi auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair questions. The tradeoff then is potentially reducing the number of deaths in such tragedies vs. increasing the number of deaths in home invasions. Also I would argue that Lanza's mom had a bit of an arsenal on her hands and that it is presumptive to think that she wouldn't have had some bootleg larger magazines. Also also, Holmes specifically bypassed larger and closer theaters to choose the one which didn't allow guns, so if we are drawing conclusions from small sample sizes, we should put on the table the outlawing of gun prohibition at movie theaters.

 

I'm not 100% against capacity restrictions; I'm willing to consider it as part of the greater whole to address the problem. I've asked several times for data in this thread from those advocating it and gotten none. :dunno:

 

I'm not 100% in favor of magazine restrictions either, I'm just taking it over the hurdles. I sure don't have any stats on it, just trying to apply some critical thought without all the hyperbole. I don't know that the suggested ban would do a damn thing. As far as Holmes and his theater selection, I don't have a problem with licensed concealed (or open for that matter) carry, in just about any venue - including schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

If you had a full auto weapon with only 100 rounds, you'd be empty in about 10 seconds and would probably not hit any of your intended targets. Full auto is great for suppression, not so good for accuracy. You'd be better off with a semi auto.

 

Or you could fire in short bursts rather than ripping off all 100 rounds. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could fire in short bursts rather than ripping off all 100 rounds. :dunno:

Your other post read like you wanted a fully auto machine gun so you could go all Rambo on the intruders. :D

 

You could fire in short bursts on full auto, which would be the right way to do it, but you'd still have to deal with muzzle climb. You'd be better off with a semi auto with less recoil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your other post read like you wanted a fully auto machine gun so you could go all Rambo on the intruders. :D

 

You could fire in short bursts on full auto, which would be the right way to do it, but you'd still have to deal with muzzle climb. You'd be better off with a semi auto with less recoil.

 

That wasn't my post. I was just pointing out that an automatic can be fired judiciously. If I'm fighting back a home invasion with multiple perps, I want a shotgun, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×