Those Who Say Guns Aren't Good For Self Defense Don't Know Guns

[Thingfish]

Cannot tell if this is serious or silliness. "commie socialists"?

okay, then just start reading after the first comma for the tiny bopper version.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm ignoring you after this, because you're clearly not interested in any honest discussion. If you were informed or if you had read that article, you'd have seen that it was determined to be unconstitutional because it effectively discriminated against minorities. As I said, the point is that Republicans are very okay with denying people their rights, so long as it's people they don't like, or disagree with, and it won't affect them.

It could definitely be argued that background checks could be unconstitutional for similar reasons, or continuing to deny felons their 2nd Amendment after their sentence is served and they're released, and especially in regards to felons, I don't think most conservatives care. Just like they don't want to give them the right to vote back. Just one of the reasons I listed originally, "they deserve it".

I think we have to safeguard the electoral process. In 2016, we had a rigged election that those who rigged it lost, and then they rigged an investigation, which ended up not turning out they way they wanted. I don't want people voting who are not legal voters. And honestly, I wish voting was a bit tougher for people who are uninformed or uneducated. But I feel the same way about voting as with gun rights. I error on the side of letting too many vote rather than take the chance of people who are legitimate voters miss voting in an effort to weed out bogus voters. And the same with guns, I understand that our laws means sometimes bad guys are able to actually legally buy guns or acquire them from legal sellers-even though their possession is a federal felony. But that is less troubling than a system where some honest people are prevented from owning guns.

 

[Wan]

Heads are small and move fast. They're hard to hit. Putting one round in the attacker's chest is much more valuable than putting six in the wall behind him.

I see. Thanks.

 

[Thingfish]

Heads are small and move fast. They're hard to hit. Putting one round in the attacker's chest is much more valuable than putting six in the wall behind him.

group therapy usually works.

 

[apdst]

This makes sense. However, why dont people simply shoot the attacker in the head? I heard that's what cops are trained to do. To stop the attacker completely.

Head shots are a more difficult shot. The presence of more bone and the curvature of the skull make the target area a lot smaller.

 

[TurtleDude]

This makes sense. However, why dont people simply shoot the attacker in the head? I heard that's what cops are trained to do. To stop the attacker completely.

That's not what I taught. we train for center of mass since it is the most reliable overall. Now, if you are a sniper dealing with a hostage taker-that's a different matter.

 

[Wan]

Head shots are a more difficult shot. The presence of more bone and the curvature of the skull make the target area a lot smaller.

That's not what I taught. we train for center of mass since it is the most reliable overall. Now, if you are a sniper dealing with a hostage taker-that's a different matter.

Ah I see. Thanks to both of you.

I still have a lot to learn.

 

[jet57]

Anybody who claims guns aren't good and effective for self defense don't know anything about the effectiveness of guns in self defense. Guns are the most effective means for self defense as demonstrated in this video.
YouTube

So, who says that guns aren't good for self defense?

Names please.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I still have a lot to learn.

Most people do. This is why training is so important, and why I think we need firearm training in schools before we consider adding firearms into them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Most people do. This is why training is so important, and why I think we need firearm training in schools before we consider adding firearms into them.

well that is an interesting argument. Obviously, if teachers are going to be armed, they need training. I don't know if that is the same as adding firearms "into them".

 

[marke]

Including shooting her?

Women who are abused are TWENTY TIMES more likely to be killed if there is a gun in the house.

https://nrcdv.org/dvam/sites/default/files2/FirearmsandDV-TalkingPointsForm.pdf

A woman is a thousand times more likely to be killed by a gunman if she has no gun of her own for protection than if she is protected.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Yes I'm sure a lot more people die from old age too. You guys simply like the idea of being able to kill easily and won't be denied the 'thrill' of it .... whatever the cost as we see repeated every other month

England likes the idea of being able to kill easily too, what with stabbings surging in London.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

well that is an interesting argument. Obviously, if teachers are going to be armed, they need training. I don't know if that is the same as adding firearms "into them".

Honestly, I agree with liberals who say that untrained, unprofessional people should not carry weapons.

But since this is a human right, the only morally acceptable solution is to ensure that every adult has proper training before they reach adulthood.

 

[Casper]

there's no point in trying to argue about this type of thing (or anything, really) with right-wingers. they only care about rights when it's their's being infringed, and even then, only if it's coming from a non-right-winger. They'll gladly give up their rights or betray their own beliefs if they think they'll be safer from Muslims or Mexicans. And they'll gladly violate anyone elses' rights because "they deserved it" or "they don't count" or any number of other dumb ****.

So argue your point with a Liberal that supports the 2nd A and believes we have enough gun laws and, in some states, laws that are obvious violations of the Rights set in place by the founders. There are several of us here, convince me that the end game is not a set of gun laws like Australia has or worse.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So, who says that guns aren't good for self defense?

Names please.

Just look at some of the posts on this forum where people claim that keeping a gun in the home is more likely to get yourself or another family member killed than it is to stop a bad guy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Honestly, I agree with liberals who say that untrained, unprofessional people should not carry weapons.

But since this is a human right, the only morally acceptable solution is to ensure that every adult has proper training before they reach adulthood.

Many liberals don't want ANYONE to own, let alone carry firearms, training or not. Most of the anti gun liberals (remember, not all left wingers are anti gun, but most anti gun types are left wing)who scream for training do so merely because they see that as another obstacle to be put in the way of gun ownership. Since the vast m majority of gunshot deaths are intentional, training has little relevance to cutting down on those numbers, unlike driving, where the vast majority of driving deaths come from negligence or a lack of skill.

I do think firearms safety is a worthwhile topic for older grade school or more mature students.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

As a pro-gun "liberaltarian", I am well aware of how the demographics fall out, unfortunately.

 

[TurtleDude]

England likes the idea of being able to kill easily too, what with stabbings surging in London.

England also liked the idea that those areas it subjugated, were disarmed. I believe Gandhi noted England's disarming of the Indian population was one of the great crimes against humanity.

 

[marke]

Many liberals don't want ANYONE to own, let alone carry firearms, training or not. Most of the anti gun liberals (remember, not all left wingers are anti gun, but most anti gun types are left wing)who scream for training do so merely because they see that as another obstacle to be put in the way of gun ownership. Since the vast m majority of gunshot deaths are intentional, training has little relevance to cutting down on those numbers, unlike driving, where the vast majority of driving deaths come from negligence or a lack of skill.

I do think firearms safety is a worthwhile topic for older grade school or more mature students.

Several of our teachers carry concealed weapons on them in class (in our Christian school), but the kids never see their guns. However, we do offer firearms training for high school students as an elected course.

 

[nekrodev]

So argue your point with a Liberal that supports the 2nd A and believes we have enough gun laws and, in some states, laws that are obvious violations of the Rights set in place by the founders. There are several of us here, convince me that the end game is not a set of gun laws like Australia has or worse.

I'm happy to talk about my views on guns and control, but I'm rather sick of going over this in unrelated topics. I'm somewhere more left, hard to really classify, because it varies on the issue, but let's say I'm closer to a social democrat than anything, I guess. I own a gun, I'm not for banning guns, necessarily, at least not in the immediate future. I do, however, think that having such a strong stance that guns could never be banned or restricted in a meaningful way is not good. I think we should start looking at the problem from further out, and work our way in.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm happy to talk about my views on guns and control, but I'm rather sick of going over this in unrelated topics. I'm somewhere more left, hard to really classify, because it varies on the issue, but let's say I'm closer to a social democrat than anything, I guess. I own a gun, I'm not for banning guns, necessarily, at least not in the immediate future. I do, however, think that having such a strong stance that guns could never be banned or restricted in a meaningful way is not good. I think we should start looking at the problem from further out, and work our way in.

I'd like to start by examining the socioeconomic consequences of the War on Drugs, and the purely psychological devastation of toxic masculinity and its role in fueling every kind of terrorism.

Of course, neither side is interested in either of those conversations, because the only moral objective either side has is hurting the other.

 

[nekrodev]

I'd like to start by examining the socioeconomic consequences of the War on Drugs, and the purely psychological devastation of toxic masculinity and its role in fueling every kind of terrorism.

Of course, neither side is interested in either of those conversations, because the only moral objective either side has is hurting the other.

There are definitely some members of the Democratic party that are already advocating for some of that, and more that are open to it. Bernie Sanders is probably the closest thing we have to ideal right now, but he does support an "assault weapon" ban and other restrictions, which I'm not fond of. It's not likely that those things will get passed, and I doubt they're real priorities for him. All it'd take is a mass shooting to bring that up, though.

I disagree that this is a "both sides" issue. It's literally impossible to make headway with most conservatives, and certainly the Republican politicians. Some of their own policies from 20 years ago are considered "socialist" now.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I disagree that this is a "both sides" issue. It's literally impossible to make headway with most conservatives, and certainly the Republican politicians. Some of their own policies from 20 years ago are considered "socialist" now.

If you don't believe me, go find any gathering of anti-gunners and propose that literally any other solution will reduce violent crime and gun deaths more than whatever policy they're proposing.

Come talk to me then about what's literally impossible.

 

[nekrodev]

If you don't believe me, go find any gathering of anti-gunners and propose that literally any other solution will reduce violent crime and gun deaths more than whatever policy they're proposing.

Come talk to me then about what's literally impossible.

not that i agree with your use of "anti-gunners" here, because you basically mean anyone who isn't rabidly pro-gun - but if i were to take that as you wrote it, why would i search out a group of people who have no interest in anything other than banning guns? also, considering we don't have any of those in our government, it's not worth talking about.

while I disagree with Bernie Sanders, and other Dems, on how to approach gun control, I can at least honestly say that none are trying to ban guns entirely. They're not terribly well educated on guns and the statistics around them, apparently, which is understandable, given the lengths the Republicans and NRA lobbying have gone to make it difficult to study the issue properly. i've seen a couple of idiots on here that definitely fit your description of "anti-gun", but i can't say that i've ever found them in real life or seen them in our government.

meanwhile, the standard point on the Republican side is almost literally "no new gun regulations are acceptable".

 

[TurtleDude]

not that i agree with your use of "anti-gunners" here, because you basically mean anyone who isn't rabidly pro-gun - but if i were to take that as you wrote it, why would i search out a group of people who have no interest in anything other than banning guns? also, considering we don't have any of those in our government, it's not worth talking about.

while I disagree with Bernie Sanders, and other Dems, on how to approach gun control, I can at least honestly say that none are trying to ban guns entirely. They're not terribly well educated on guns and the statistics around them, apparently, which is understandable, given the lengths the Republicans and NRA lobbying have gone to make it difficult to study the issue properly. i've seen a couple of idiots on here that definitely fit your description of "anti-gun", but i can't say that i've ever found them in real life or seen them in our government.

meanwhile, the standard point on the Republican side is almost literally "no new gun regulations are acceptable".

It is currently illegal for those adjudicated dangerous to own guns, to legally own them, and every harmful thing one can do with a gun is illegal at state, and often federal levels. All that remains are laws that ONLY restrict what honest people can do that is currently legal.