Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[Skribs]

Hey, if I'd had a gun when my neighbor's dog jumped the fence and bit my dog, my dog would have gotten a few less teeth marks. I'll stop the attack on me and my own whether the perpetrator or victim is human or not. That said, I wouldn't have swept my neighbor.

That said, just because we talk about being responsible when carrying doesn't mean all folks who carry are responsible, or even that when heated we will act responsibly. Although people who do carrry, even without training, are still probably going to weigh potentially needing the gun if they get into a fistfight, and may get into less altercations. However, if someone wants to cause harm to another human being, they can do so with or without a firearm.

 

[JBeechel]

Glad I could help Trent!

It's the least I could do after you went through all this with a gun control nut, lol. :banghead:

 

[Trent]

Hey, if I'd had a gun when my neighbor's dog jumped the fence and bit my dog, my dog would have gotten a few less teeth marks. I'll stop the attack on me and my own whether the perpetrator or victim is human or not. That said, I wouldn't have swept my neighbor.

Gotta be careful about that. Dogs and cats are protected.

You can put down a coyote, wolf, etc at whim.

But shoot a dog that isn't attacking a human and you run the risk of getting felony charges brought against you for animal cruelty.

(Humans defending themselves or others are fine; my wife's sister killed a rottweiler with a knife a couple years ago when it jumped through the screen in to her HOUSE and attacked her - went after her dog first, then went after her. She was a big time animal lover and it tore her up pretty bad to have to do that.)

 

[Trent]

Holy crap I'm busy with debates today.

 

[Trent]

Since every gun owner will certainly be drug in to a conversation over this in the coming weeks I offer this tidbit.

The most profound comment I've made so far today was in response to a person screaming for an assault weapons ban in the wake of this shooting:

I said;

Why is it every time someone shoots up a place, people want to take away guns from everyone else who did NOT do it?

There's 50 million legal gun owners in the country who did NOT shoot up a school today.

There's ONE person who did.

So .. punish the 50 million owners over the one prohibited person? This makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, other than from an emotional knee jerk reaction perspective.

My recommendation is to keep any dialog you engage in VERY short and simple, folks. Emotions are high.

Edited: shooter identified as 24 yr. old.

 

[Phatty]

Of course you could also mention the horrible school attack that took place in China today where the attacker used a knife. Taking away guns does not eliminate tragic events or the nut cases that cause them.

 

[Trent]

Oh I've been quoting that AND the Osaka massacre, as examples of how school massacre's go down where guns are not available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

 

[Trent]

Another comment I just made;

I will say this Owen; you may want a sweeping re-write of gun control laws, since our current ones "aren't working."

But consider for a moment, that a person intent on committing mass murder does NOT care about what other statutory violations they might incur on the way. The ONLY way you will prevent this is if you eliminate firearms from the planet; which is impossible as long as the technology to MAKE them still exists.

Even if private possession of firearms was impossible, this guy could have played whack-a-mole with a baseball bat on the back of a police officer's head and taken HIS arms to do it.

There's ALWAYS a way. Limiting or prohibiting private possession of firearms won't work. Regulating what you can buy won't work. Regulating what you can DO with them won't work.

Because someone who's about to kill children doesn't give one THOUGHT about what OTHER felonies they're also committing.

 

[Trent]

Whoops;

Just realized this thread should have been called:

"Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part IV"

There's already a thread titled part III of my saga.

 

[Trent]

I think where I disagree with all of your logic on this point is that I still think that despite SOME availability of guns, reducing the number would be a positive move. And Trent, the whole taking a police officer's gun point is why only a very small number of police officers in Britain even carry guns anymore. It simply isn't necessary.

Response

I would imagine the families of the British police officers who were shot this year would probably argue against that point better than I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Fiona Bone, age 32, shot 18 September 2012.
Nicola Hughes, age 23, shot 18 September 2012.
Ian Dibell, age 41, shot 9 July 2012.

 

[Trent]

3. In a country of more than 50 million people. Of course, I'd wager the list of American cops in the same situation is hundreds of names long...in a country only six times larger.

Response

Actually, last year it was 62 killed by firearms; roughly the same amount which were killed by vehicles (60).

So we should outlaw cars?

 

[zorro45]

Dear Trent,
Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, with your permission I am going to laminate it and carry it with me as I go into deep liberal country for a Christmas Eve celebration at my sister's house, perhaps my son and I will quiz each other on the way there to commit these figures to memory.

 

[Trent]

Oh come on. Cars have a legitimate purpose, transportation. So do firearms used for pursuits like hunting and recreation (like a firing range, which I have no problem with.) But there are certain guns designed for nothing more than mowing down people.

Someone else chimed in while I was posting my response.

Some cars have no legitimate purpose in transportation, so lets get rid of sports cars. Football provides entertainment and exercise, but both of those things can be gotten in other, less-dangerous ways. Alcohol probably hasn't contributed ANYTHING to society.
It's a slippery slope to want to restrict freedoms because you don't like them.

My response

Not trying to make this hostile, but what you wrote is emphatic of most people arguing a stance purely off of emotion, instead of logic or reason.

Because you don't like guns, you ASSUMED the list of American police officers would be "hundreds of names long." Please keep the debate factual.

Guns aren't designed for "mowing down people" (another emotional argument).

Guns have a VERY specific purpose for self-defense. They are VERY effective in this regard; which is why police carry them.

 

[Greg528iT]

Of course you could also mention the horrible school attack that took place in China today where the attacker used a knife. Taking away guns does not eliminate tragic events or the nut cases that cause them.

I generally will go with this, but with care taken that, While a gun is just a tool, it is a HIGHLY efficient tool for killing people. Knifing a person is UP close and personal, takes a fair bit of energy. Be prepared to admit that the possibility of carnage is higher with a gun. on a scale of fists, knife, sword, ......... single action pistol, bolt action rifle, DA pistol, semi pistol, and then semi rifle.. I was going to put fully auto rifle last, but actually thinking about it.. in untrained hands a fully auto would run out of bullets way too fast. Lots of misses.

 

[Trent]

Dear Trent,
Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, with your permission I am going to laminate it and carry it with me as I go into deep liberal country for a Christmas Eve celebration at my sister's house, perhaps my son and I will quiz each other on the way there to commit these figures to memory.

Feel free to use anything I write. You don't need to give credit or anything; cut & paste away. Everything I've written in the gun debate threads is public domain.

 

[Trent]

This one got a lot of "Likes" by people watching the discussion, was an afterthought to my previous comment.

Also; several times MORE people are killed every year with bare fists and hands, than with assault rifles. Assault rifles represent less than 3% of all gun crime in the US. You're barking up the wrong tree with an assault rifle argument.

 

[Trent]

The number of police officers killed last year in the line of duty was 163, if you'd like the specific number. Most guns aren't designed for mowing down people, but assault rifles are. Just because I am not entirely pro-gun doesn't mean I can't distinguish between them. And other countries have banned certain (or in some cases, even most) types of guns and seen benefits in violent crime statistics from that move. Again, I respect your opinions on these issues, and I understand that gun ownership represents an important facet of American life to a lot of people, and I don't necessarily want to change that. But I do believe that this conversation is becoming counterproductive to a certain extent.

This guy is irritating me.

Response;

163 TOTAL. 62 by firearm. 60 by vehicle. The remainder by other causes. Be careful trying to twist facts - I do my homework.

Assault rifles aren't designed for mowing down people. I own several (78 of them, in fact; I have a large collection), and they haven't ever been used "to mow people down." There's no instructions that ship with the gun that says "THIS IS HOW YOU MOW PEOPLE DOWN. STEP 1: LOAD WEAPON..."

Also, I offer you this piece of advice. If you want to live in a country which bans weapons, MOVE TO ONE.

There are over 300 million firearms in this country; more firearms than people. If you don't like firearms, you live in the wrong nation.

Sigh.. my patience is wearing thin and it's showing.

 

[zorro45]

To complete my laminated sheet I would like the reference on % chance of LEO being arrested in a given year vs. CHL holder being arrested in a given year,
and,
the figures on mean#victims killed by active shooter, whether stopped by LEO or CL holder, if anyone has them handy. hank you.

 

[Trent]

A rephrasing.

Sorry, I got irritated there.

Let me rephrase.

A standard capacity AR15 carries 30 rounds. It's the "colloquial evil black rifle" that epitomizes everything wrong with firearms, in the eyes of anti-gun folks.
Compare to a standard capacity handgun, we'll use a standard size Glock 9mm; holds 17 rounds standard.
Compare to a reduced capacity handgun (restricted to hold 10 rounds.)

I can fire, accurately, 3 rounds per second from a 5.56 "Assault Rifle", or handgun (standard capacity or extended capacity).

It takes me 10 seconds to fire all 30 rounds out of the AR15. It takes me 4 seconds to load the rifle. (More complex than handgun, magazines are larger, more steps required.) Another 10 seconds to fire another 30 rounds out of the AR15. Benchmark = 24 seconds for 60 rounds.

Now take the standard 17-round capacity Glock. I have to reload the Glock 4 times, but it's faster (takes under a second if you're proficient, less complicated.) So we'll factor one second for reloads. It still takes me 24 seconds to fire 60 rounds. (Same as the AR-15, matching our benchmark).

Now take the reduced capcity 10 round handgun. I have to reload this SIX times to fire 60 shots - for a total of 26 seconds (60/3=20, +6 for reloads), to fire the same 60 shots.

I can still shoot a reduced capacity (restricted) handgun 60 times in under a half of a minute.

So, where's the benefit here?

 

[Skribs]

I've seen some anti-gun sentiments in the show Flashpoint, but they make a very good case for why knives are just as dangerous as guns: more prevalent (you can find them in ANY kitchen and they're NEVER locked up), cheaper, don't require a background check, unlimited ammo, quieter...

I know this is from a TV show, but all of the above are true.

ETA: Trent, might want to include times for revolvers with speed loaders as well, because that's obviously the next step down.

 

[Trent]

I have to modify future arguments.

The individual who they identified today was 24 years old. Not a prohibited person. (EDIT: And, the guy could still legally possess a handgun even if he was 20; as many people pointed out on PM)

Still, the argument against gun free zones applies, tragically.

Anyway wanted to clear that up for anyone following this thread.

 

[Trent]

And.. he quit.

Alright, I've found this conversation interesting, but I think we just fundamentally disagree. That's alright. Thanks guys.

That ends that mini debate.

That guy was a hard core anti-gunner. Wanted a complete re-write of gun control laws in the US to be more like the UK model.

 

[Trent]

The "illegal gun" issue is apparently back on the table today.

Media announced a Bushmaster AR-15 was used.

Those have been illegal in that state since 1994; Bushmaster rifles are named items in the CT assault weapons ban. (http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm)

Another dent in the gun control argument. That's TWO gun laws which didn't matter one bit today; one of which was a ban on the type of firearm used.

 

[Skribs]

Are you sure it wasn't a compliant version?

 

[Trent]

Are you sure it wasn't a compliant version?

No idea. Media has been historically inaccurate in reporting, so who knows.

I'm not arguing the point with people until facts are known. There's enough on the table about gun free zones and lack of armed security to drive the point home.