Can I resume our discussion/debate?

[jakk280rem]

What exactly is it you want? I don't know what to tell you because we have no common ground. Your position is completely alien to me. I cannot conceive of your viewpoint of a completely disarmed society. Do you hate liberty so much? Are you so willing to discard your freedoms so as to discard mine? You may do what you please concerning your liberties, but have no say in how I exercise mine. Or are you advocating the stripping of an entire species creator imbued rights so that you may feel warm fuzzies?

Do you understand what a civil liberty is? You do understand the majority of the members of this forum place their right to keep and bear arms at the same level of importance as worshiping at a church of their choice, or indeed not worshipping? As important as writing, feeling and thinking as they please and deserving of the same protection under the law and deserving of the same vociferous response when such liberties are threatened?

 

[allaroundhunter]

I do have an alarm on my house, and I'm careful at night, but I don't feel I need a gun to be safe.

You know what I call this?

Famous last words.

I continue to believe that, in at least some of these mass shooting situations, if the shooter had lower capacity magazines, lives would have been saved.

Timmy, watch this video. In between the 2nd and 3rd array of paper targets there is a reload. Honestly, it does not take as long to conduct a reload as some people, mainly non-gun owners, would have you think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrTgtsYWTjM

 

[timmy4]

The fact of the matter is you are never going to be "protected by the police." Up to and including the point where you live in a police state. The right to self-defense is God-given and constitutionally-protected. But at the same time, it is a personal responsibility. YOU are responsible to protect yourself and those you love. If you would rather live in a police nanny state and hope that the police will be there 24/7 to protect you, then that is your prerogative, but the fact remains, they will never be there 1,440 minutes of every day, and it is MY prerogative to have the means to defend myself as best as I possibly can.

There's a far cry between what I wrote and wanting a police state. I don't want the latter.

 

[9MMare]

1. I don't expect the police to be at my beck and call, so maybe I wrote that wrong. I live in Orange County, California, in a nice suburb in Huntington Beach, and I generally feel safe. I do have an alarm on my house, and I'm careful at night, but I don't feel I need a gun to be safe. But that's just me. Some of my neighbors do feel the need to have guns, and that's their right, of course.

How would you protect your family if 3 armed invaders broke into your home at nite?

Or are you just playing the odds that it wont happen?

 

[Solo]

2. I continue to believe that, in at least some of these mass shooting situations, if the shooter had lower capacity magazines, lives would have been saved.

You have a right to believe anything you desire, but belief is only worth anything if it is based on hard, solid fact. I could believe all I want about the danger/lack of climate change, but without data to back me up, all my opinions are but hot air.

If I may ask, timmy4, what would your opinion be of a man, whose knowledge of physics comes entirely from episodes of Star Trek, warning Stephen Hawking about the dangers of the Large Hadron Collider creating a black hole that will swallow the earth*? Or an anti-vaccine activist, who has not taken a biology class, protesting the vaccination of children against polio because it will cause autism**? How about the hippies who are against genetically modified food, despite the fact that GMO crops are the only reason we can feed the over 7 billion people alive on this planet, as organic farming methods are too inefficient to do so***?

* Physically impossible
** Neither vaccines or autism work that way
*** GMO crops are awesome

 

[holdencm9]

There's a far cry between what I wrote and wanting a police state. I don't want the latter.

Good luck being protected by the police then.

 

[fanchisimo]

Timmy, I'm glad that you listened to us, enough to see some of the fallacies of the anti-gun agenda. I only read 16 pages of one of your previous posts, but in addition to the others you've heard, the one of the reasons I am against Universal Background Checks is the cost on both sides of the phone. Having an FFL do the check costs $25-$30 per firearm which can be a decent cost increase of the firearm. Upgrading the NICS system to accommodate all of the transfers would also be a costly endeavor, and with the US being in a financial pinch right now, it's cost to benefit ratio would be pathetic since criminals don't do background checks.

That brings us to registration. What good would registration do? Most of the time they only trace a firearm if a crime has been committed so it wouldn't prevent nothing. Most of the guns used in crime would probably be traced to a theft of said gun, or the fast and furious program. Also again, I bring up the issue of cost to implement these programs. It comes down to if these programs did any good, they might have more support, but the cost in money and rights lost is too great to allow.

I will repeat what others have said, though, that it probably wouldn't happen soon, but eventually someone in power will try to confiscate if registration goes through. The US gun history shows this, they will come up with legislation, acting like it's the last thing ever needed, but then a generation later, a new politician comes along wanting the next step. I just think that enough has been given to show that gun control doesn't work. Good luck though in your endeavor to learn, and it is admirable that you came into hostile territory to do so.

 

[timmy4]

What exactly is it you want? I don't know what to tell you because we have no common ground. Your position is completely alien to me. I cannot conceive of your viewpoint of a completely disarmed society. Do you hate liberty so much? Are you so willing to discard your freedoms so as to discard mine? You may do what you please concerning your liberties, but have no say in how I exercise mine. Or are you advocating the stripping of an entire species creator imbued rights so that you may feel warm fuzzies?

Do you understand what a civil liberty is? You do understand the majority of the members of this forum place their right to keep and bear arms at the same level of importance as worshiping at a church of their choice, or indeed not worshipping? As important as writing, feeling and thinking as they please and deserving of the same protection under the law and deserving of the same vociferous response when such liberties are threatened?

When did I ever say that I wanted a completely disarmed society? For the record, I don't. You claim we have no common ground; I don't believe you.

You ask what I want: to be specific, right now out of all the proposed new gun laws there is only a few that I'm SURE I'm in favor of: universal background checks, and a national database of all guns that exist in this country.

 

[goon]

Timmy4 - how could anyone possibly ever change society to give 100% reliable perfect police protection?
Especially in places like rural Montana or Alaska?

I remember growing up in rural PA and my grandparents called the police to deal with a troublesome neighbor. I went to the end of he driveway to direct the state police to the right place and they blew right past. Then they drove past and missed it again. If that situation had gotten nasty, my grandparents could have been dead by the time the police even found the right place.

Now I live in a place where brown bears are a legitimate threat. It could take police over a day by plane to reach some areas near me. People here DO use semi-auto rifles with twenty and thirty round magazines for defense here. Rifles I have personally seen in use as defensive weapons include a VZ-58, an SKS with forty round magazines, a Mini-14, and an AR-10 variant with twenty round magazines.

I think your opinions are based on a point of view that doesn't take the reality of many peoples' lives into consideration. Have you always lived in places where everything is paved?

 

[timmy4]

How would you protect your family if 3 armed invaders broke into your home at nite?

Or are you just playing the odds that it wont happen?

If 3 armed invaders broke into my home at night, I'm probably dead along with my entire family.

Am I absolutely sure this will never happen? Of course not? But I am reasonably sure this will never happen? I am. I don't think such an event has happened in decades in the city in which I live. This is one of the safest cities in the United States.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Timmy, quick question.

How do you feel about the decision by a NY newspaper to publish the location of every single lawful gun owner in that state?

 

[Solo]

Worrying about multiple home invaders borders on paranoia. Of course, so is worrying about school shootings... statistically, at least.

 

[timmy4]

You have a right to believe anything you desire, but belief is only worth anything if it is based on hard, solid fact. I could believe all I want about the danger/lack of climate change, but without data to back me up, all my opinions are but hot air.

If I may ask, timmy4, what would your opinion be of a man, whose knowledge of physics comes entirely from episodes of Star Trek, warning Stephen Hawking about the dangers of the Large Hadron Collider creating a black hole that will swallow the earth*? Or an anti-vaccine activist, who has not taken a biology class, protesting the vaccination of children against polio because it will cause autism**? How about the hippies who are against genetically modified food, despite the fact that GMO crops are the only reason we can feed the over 7 billion people alive on this planet, as organic farming methods are too inefficient to do so***?

* Physically impossible
** Neither vaccines or autism work that way
*** GMO crops are awesome

The problem with all of your examples is this: unless YOU personally have been in a situation where you were forced to defend your home against invasion, and where high capacity magazines were a successful and NECESSARY form of defense for you, you're no more of an expert on the subject than I am.

 

[jakk280rem]

We have no common ground. Like I said your viewpoints are unfathomable to me.

How would a national firearm registry work? Describe your ideal law.

How would a universal background check system work? Describe your ideal law.

You use the word debate alot. Debate can only happen if the two sides know what they are debating.

 

[timmy4]

Timmy, quick question.

How do you feel about the decision by a NY newspaper to publish the location of every single lawful gun owner in that state?

Truth be told, it troubles me greatly. But not for the sake of the gun-owners; for the sake of people like me who don't own guns, and thus will be perceived as easier targets for robbers.

While I believe in a federal database, I don't think it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, any more than private Social Security numbers should be.

 

[9MMare]

Worrying about multiple home invaders borders on paranoia. Of course, so is worrying about school shootings... statistically, at least.

There ya go!

Works for me.

 

[Solo]

The problem with all of your examples is this: unless YOU personally have been in a situation where you were forced to defend your home against invasion, and where high capacity magazines were a successful and NECESSARY form of defense for you, you're no more of an expert on the subject than I am.

Then let us work together to find someone who has so that we may understand the issue better and uncover the truth, which we all desire. Would you like for people to provide examples of citizens who have defended themselves with high capacity magazines?

First off, let us define the terms. What is a high capacity magazine? One with more than 7 rounds? More than 10? 100?

 

[9MMare]

If 3 armed invaders broke into my home at night, I'm probably dead along with my entire family.

Am I absolutely sure this will never happen? Of course not? But I am reasonably sure this will never happen? I am. I don't think such an event has happened in decades in the city in which I live. This is one of the safest cities in the United States.

Home invasions happen everywhere.

Good luck to you.

 

[BHP FAN]

Timmy, under the law at this moment, I have the right to a firearm, and you have the right not to have one. Everybody's happy....why mess with success?

 

[Bobson]

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.

The problem is that no such society exists, or ever has existed. Furthermore, the very nature of law enforcement makes this type of society impossible. "Police" never have and never will be able to protect the everyman in any society. Historically, law enforcement has been nearly entirely reactive, and while steps have been taken to get away from that, only so much can be done to make law enforcement active instead of reactive. Short of living in a Minority Report world, LE will always be forced to focus on responding to crimes after they've taken place.

You may have heard the phrase, "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away." That isn't just an internet quote. Many police officers, police chiefs, and sheriffs across America do what they can to ensure the people they serve understand that it's entirely true. What you're suggesting is living in a society where everyone has permanently assigned bodyguard staff. That doesn't even begin to warrant a rebuttal, because you know its ridiculous and won't ever happen, but I'm still going to address it. It goes against the grind of human nature itself. If 100% protection for everyone were possible, it could only be because evil would no longer exist.

Frankly, given your opinion on this matter, I'm nearly convinced you don't necessarily believe in the concept of evil. And if that's accurate, this whole thread is moot, because nobody who believes in evil will ever agree that we don't need to protect ourselves. If, on the other hand, you do believe evil exists, I can't begin to fathom why you would be against self-defense. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that you place absolutely zero value in life itself.

 

[allaroundhunter]

The problem with all of your examples is this: unless YOU personally have been in a situation where you were forced to defend your home against invasion, and where high capacity magazines were a successful and NECESSARY form of defense for you, you're no more of an expert on the subject than I am.

I have been attacked by feral dogs and have needed more than 10 rounds to put them down. I have also had a friend who was walking with his wife, 3 y/o daughter, while carrying his 10 month old daughter who was also attacked. He had to fire upwards of 12 times... Neither of us would have had time to reload, regardless of how fast we could have done it. He was still holding his daughter and did not have a free hand. I was trying to keep my little brother behind me with my weak hand...

Truth be told, it troubles me greatly. But not for the sake of the gun-owners; for the sake of people like me who don't own guns, and thus will be perceived as easier targets for robbers.

Perhaps you don't realize, but that information was used by burglars to target a residence owned by a firearm-owner who was listed in the newspaper for the sole fact that they wanted to steal his guns.... How would a national registry help track a firearm(s) after they had stolen it should they have been successful?

 

[9MMare]

The problem with all of your examples is this: unless YOU personally have been in a situation where you were forced to defend your home against invasion, and where high capacity magazines were a successful and NECESSARY form of defense for you, you're no more of an expert on the subject than I am.

That's untrue.

There are many documented incidents. Many from police depts. Some, including a classic, from the FBI. All in the final reports...how many bullets and what caliber and at what angles and distances...and how long the attackers (and police, FBI, etc) kept firing and fighting.

As well as accounts of how many shots were fired, at what range...and how many MISSED. By trained professionals.

 

[Librarian]

Timmy, you suggest you support

a national database of all guns that exist in this country.

What do you see as the value of such a thing?

Suppose we do the thought experiment.

Now, every single firearm in the United States is registered. Every one is known by make, model, caliber and serial number, and every one is tied to a responsible individual by an officially-issued government ID, including name, address, and physical description.

When people move, they are required to report their address to the government, so that database is up to date.

The information is available in a very fast, available 24/7/365 database; a query from law enforcement returns info on a gun, or a person, or an address, or an automobile license plate, within 3 seconds.

Let us suppose an officer receives a call on his car radio for a domestic disturbance.

The officer requests a firearms check of the address, and the database is smart enough to check the individuals known to live at that address as well; the return is 'no registered firearms'.

If you were that officer, would you approach that residence confident that no firearms were present?

Yes or no? Why, or why not?

 

[9MMare]

Truth be told, it troubles me greatly. But not for the sake of the gun-owners; for the sake of people like me who don't own guns, and thus will be perceived as easier targets for robbers.

Yup.

 

[Alaska444]

Hello, I'm back, and I'm eager to resume our discussion/debate. However, I have a few concerns:

1. I don't want to upset the moderators or anyone else here. Obviously, based on our previous discussions, I have a different viewpoint than most of you here. While I believe that I can express myself with the utmost respect and without personal attacks, there is no doubt that I'm going to anger some of you. These are touchy times and I get that people on all sides of the gun issue have strong feelings. What I don't want is for those feelings to overwhelm our conversation.

2. I am not a troll. My purpose is to discuss, debate, and to learn. The two previous threads I was involved in became somewhat bogged down with people arguing about my motives. I just stated what my motives are. If you don't believe me, or if you're not interesting in engaging in debate with someone you refer to as an "anti" (this forum is the first time I've ever heard that word used in this context) then please for both of our sakes stay out of the thread, so the moderators won't feel compelled to close it or punish anyone.

3. Regarding the moderators- you guys consistently closed my previous threads. Obviously that's your choice, but if there is something that I'm doing wrong that is causing this, I would appreciate you letting me know beforehand. I will limit my posts to this thread and this thread only, if that is what you want, but I would like the thread to stay open even when I am not around, so I don't have to petition you guys to open it up again. And I'd also like to avoid having you close the thread and asking me to stay away for a few days as you did last weekend. Again, please provide me with specific rules and I will follow them.

I think conversations/debates like these are very important, especially now. The issue of guns is front and center in American politics for the first time in many years. It's absolutely worth discussing and even arguing about, if for nothing else to clarify our positions. However, I want to make sure that I am welcome here. If a majority of you believe that it would serve no purpose for you to discuss these issues further with an "anti", then let me know and I will depart from this forum forever with no ill will.

I await your response.

Timmy4, the thread that got closed and you complained was over 22 pages if I remember correctly and you stated you were going to be gone for 2 days.

The mods closed and invited you to start another thread if you wished when you returned. Let's be accurate.

Secondly, Not sure what else there is to debate, you had literally hundreds of responses from dozens of people just for you alone on an essentially private thread just for you which I have never seen done before on THR. I don't believe I would complain about how the mods have treated you, they have bent over backwards to accommodate your views and your schedule. I would be a little more gracious.