• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To the Gun Control Crowd: Who do you think we should rely on for our defense?

Goshin said:
There are countries where it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to get anything more formidable than a double-barrel shotgun to keep at home... and most of those countries require it locked up and ammo stored separately, and most of those countries treat you like a murderer if you shoot an intruder.
Click to expand...

We are not talking other countries.

Some jurisdictions in the US have "lock up your protection" laws requiring guns to be locked in a safe, unloaded, with ammo locked up separately... this is not a ban, but it is also not a road I want to go down so much as an inch.
Click to expand...

That is not my state, nor does it have anything to do with assault weapons.

What happens when we compromise with the gun control crowd? Well, their laws don't work very well at all, and that's an excuse to start calling for the next new law they want, on and on endlessly from what I've seen.

It leaves most of us with little inclination to compromise, as we get nothing from it. Gun control in and of itself does not make any place safer.


There is no safety in this world except what you make for yourself.
Click to expand...

In that I agree which is why I am against banning of firearms.
 
Praxas said:
All of my weapons I have in the house will do just fine, including LEGAL rifles. Also that situation is not very probable, just saying. Don't get me wrong, I am not for gun bans but I have yet to see a situation outside of an army that I would need a so called assault weapon.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much a matter of "need" or of probability but, rather, a matter of having the most appropriate tool available for when or if the need comes up. For example, I've got a basin wrench in my tool kit. In the 30+ years I've had it I only needed it once. That doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of it and the time I did need it I was saved a trip to the hardware store or a call to the plumber.
 
Praxas said:
It was inferred. Now read, I'm not going to hold your hand con you're a big boy. If you can't be bothered to read, I'm not going to be bothered to answer.
Click to expand...

Oh it was INFERRED. :lol:
 
Praxas said:
Ok, that's fine, but that still is a type of an assault weapon (FYI like I said in the above post, I hate the term assault weapon because it's not accurate at all) that the normal person is not going to strap on their back and walk downtown with.



I'll agree that there is always the perfect tool for the job, but that doesn't mean they can't be grouped. For instance you use tools as an example. I can buy a really nice wrench set for $400 or I can buy a walmart special kit for $15. Both will do the job but one is meant more for commercial use versus residential but both are wrenches and not used on a screw for example. So while there is a perfect gun maybe for every situation, you still have not let us know a probable situation in which an assault weapon would be needed instead of any other firearm that is legal?
Click to expand...

How about during the LA Riots in which store owners shot around 500 rounds into the air and ground to keep people away from their stores? I'd bet that assault weapons would have been handy during the Ferguson riots also. In such cases your shotgun would have been too dangerous to use as it more than likely would have definitely hit someone, and your pistol with a total of 45 rounds wouldn't have come close.
 
jet57 said:
Well, the cops got to Youtube yesterday in two minutes. If there's been an armed guard at the other end of the property it could have take 2 or more minutes. So, Youtube is supposed to what - arm all their employees now?

We're doin fine considering.
Click to expand...

That time frame is the average response time. Never said it couldn't take below that amount, or above it. And if we were doing "fine", even with consideration, then we'd be addressing why this crap is happening in the first place instead of going after inanimate objects.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How about during the LA Riots in which store owners shot around 500 rounds into the air and ground to keep people away from their stores? I'd bet that assault weapons would have been handy during the Ferguson riots also. In such cases your shotgun would have been too dangerous to use as it more than likely would have definitely hit someone, and your pistol with a total of 45 rounds wouldn't have come close.
Click to expand...

Like I said the pistol with 45 rounds (3 magazines) was pre-loaded by my bed along with the shotgun, that is nowhere near the amount of ammo I have in my home. Along with LEGAL rifles, again, there would be no need for an assault weapon. I get that people have a right to have them, but I have yet to see why someone would need an assault weapon versus legal firearams.
 
Praxas said:
We are not talking other countries.



That is not my state, nor does it have anything to do with assault weapons.



In that I agree which is why I am against banning of firearms.
Click to expand...




I understand, and I got where you were coming from. This was more a commentary on the issue of gun control in general, rather than a retort against what you had said.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How about during the LA Riots in which store owners shot around 500 rounds into the air and ground to keep people away from their stores? I'd bet that assault weapons would have been handy during the Ferguson riots also. In such cases your shotgun would have been too dangerous to use as it more than likely would have definitely hit someone, and your pistol with a total of 45 rounds wouldn't have come close.
Click to expand...


I may never need it as such, but I find my "assault" rifle with the 30 round mags quite comforting as a answer to extreme threats.
 
Praxas said:
Like I said the pistol with 45 rounds (3 magazines) was pre-loaded by my bed along with the shotgun, that is nowhere near the amount of ammo I have in my home. Along with LEGAL rifles, again, there would be no need for an assault weapon. I get that people have a right to have them, but I have yet to see why someone would need an assault weapon versus legal firearams.
Click to expand...

And I would bet those rifles that you have all act exactly the same as what many in the gun control crowd call an "assault weapon". Unless they're bolt action rifles? In which case, again, you would not have stopped "your store", or home, from being decimated by rioters.
 
Kal'Stang said:
When I ask that question I'm talking about individuals when I say "we". Individuals that are being attacked. It takes I believe roughly 7 to 10 minutes for police to respond to an emergency. During that time who should we rely on for our defense? This includes situations such as school shootings. One on one instances such as a mugging or home invasion, store robberies etc etc.
Click to expand...

You can have a gun and have gun control. To imply that you can't is an appeal to the extremist.
 
vegas giants said:
You can have a gun and have gun control. To imply that you can't is an appeal to the extremist.
Click to expand...

Where did I imply otherwise? We have gun control right now in the form of background checks, restrictions against felons and mentally ill from buying/owning guns, CCW permit requirements etc etc.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Where did I imply otherwise? We have gun control right now in the form of background checks, restrictions against felons and mentally ill from buying/owning guns, CCW permit requirements etc etc.
Click to expand...
To imply that someone other than yourself must protect you at all times suggests that you can not own a gun. Protect yourself when appropriate with a gun. Otherwise let law enforcement do it. You can do both of those with all of the mainstream gun control that advocates seek.
 
Praxas said:
Gun control does not equal banning all guns by default. Even if I don’t agree with the ban, if I don’t have an ar-15 I can still defend my home with my shotgun or pistol. So you’re post, as it is stands right now, is really irrelevant since people can still have gun controls and have legal firearms.
Click to expand...

The AR rifle that you can buy at gun shops is not the kind that soldiers use. Soldiers use burst fire weapons or full automatics. The AR rifle available to standard citizens is semi automatic, it fires once for each pull of the trigger. A 30-06 rifle round will do more damage than a round from an AR. So I don't see why you would be opposed to them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Is a shotgun or pistol appropriate in all circumstances?
Click to expand...

Not if somebody has a hostage and you want to shoot the hostage taker without hitting the hostage and they're too far away for you to make an accurate hit with a handgun. You certainly wouldn't want to use a shotgun as due to its spread you would hit the hostage. In such a situation you would want a good accurate rifle.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Not if somebody has a hostage and you want to shoot the hostage taker without hitting the hostage and they're too far away for you to make an accurate hit with a handgun. You certainly wouldn't want to use a shotgun as due to its spread you would hit the hostage. In such a situation you would want a good accurate rifle.
Click to expand...

My god everyone seems to live in a die hard movie. Lol
 
Praxas said:
I use the term clips, but for you grammar Nazis out there, Magazines. Does that make you feel better?
Click to expand...

Clips are one thing magazines are something else. You're setting yourself up for ridicule from the gun crowd if you confuse the two.
 
Kal'Stang said:
When I ask that question I'm talking about individuals when I say "we". Individuals that are being attacked. It takes I believe roughly 7 to 10 minutes for police to respond to an emergency. During that time who should we rely on for our defense? This includes situations such as school shootings. One on one instances such as a mugging or home invasion, store robberies etc etc.
Click to expand...

7 - 10 minutes if and only it a patrol car is in our corner of the county..... Otherwise 15-45 minutes.

Preferred first line of defense = Law enforcement....

Probably first line of defense = My dogs a baseball bat and a .357...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom