Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345930 times)

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #550 on: March 17, 2016, 02:58:40 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. My point has been, that that motivation is totally outdated. If someone wants to keep a gun for personal protection, you should motivate it with personal protection, not the need of the gun to secure a free State. "Think about the freedom of the State" is just another version of "think about the children".

That's not the way inherent rights work.  You may be from a location that does not believe in inherent rights, in which case, you have my sympathy. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #551 on: March 17, 2016, 02:59:55 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using?  AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war.  Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #552 on: March 17, 2016, 03:00:47 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.
Could you please provide a link. Not going to go through 550 post on your say so. Thanks.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #553 on: March 17, 2016, 03:07:22 PM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the goverment in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

*If they don't have the support of the armed forces, then you wouldn't need to defend yourself from the government by using guns in the first place.

Stop the US government?  Nope. 

In addition to self-defense, I think it also helps in localized scenarios.  Which businesses didn't get looted in the LA riots?  The guys standing on the roof that were armed.  Same with Katrina, I'd rather be armed in a situation like that than unarmed.  To me firearms are just another preparation just like you would prep for a hurricane, tornado, tsunami, etc.

I have a fire extinguisher I pray I'll never use and the same goes for my firearms.  I pray the only thing I'll ever have to shoot is cardboard.  But I feel safer having tools for different contingencies at my disposal.  I take the responsibility of ownership seriously, obey the laws, and choose to exercise my constitutional right.  It's a choice and I've made mine.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #554 on: March 17, 2016, 03:19:42 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

I know from personal experience, there is no 5.56 round available that wont penetrate two layers of 3/8ths inch thick drywall and still have potentially lethal momentum.  While there do exist home defense shotshells that are specifically designed towards rapid loss of momentum upon a first impact.  If you only buy one gun, the shotgun is the most versatile in any of the most likely home defense scenarios.

Quote
As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using? AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

And that reason is that SWAT teams take their incursion training from the US military, along with most of their personnel; both of which instills a preference for the AR-15.  Also, they are cheaper using federal grants of used military equipment.  Shotguns are rare in the military.

Quote

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war. Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

A knife shirt (Level 1 or Level2a) is about as bulky as the normal person is going to habitually wear, and they still cost too much.  A thick, leather biker's jacket can provide almost the same degree of protection. And if anyone breaks in carrying those above mentioned AR15's, then nothing less than Level 3 is going to have a hope of doing a damn thing except slow you down, and it's still going to hurt.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #555 on: March 17, 2016, 03:23:56 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.
Could you please provide a link. Not going to go through 550 post on your say so. Thanks.

No.  Use the site's search function.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #556 on: March 17, 2016, 03:32:25 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

For home defense a shotgun or AR-15 are both good choices.  Personally, I lean towards the AR-15, which may surprise people because they think overpenetration.  However, a fast moving projectile such as the 5.56 round tends to break up more upon impact than handgun calibers.  The key is to use the right type of ammo, and luckily civilians are not as restricted as the military.  You'd want hollow point for both stopping power and to eliminate overpenetration or soft point for some barrier penetration. 

I know from personal experience, there is no 5.56 round available that wont penetrate two layers of 3/8ths inch thick drywall and still have potentially lethal momentum.  While there do exist home defense shotshells that are specifically designed towards rapid loss of momentum upon a first impact.  If you only buy one gun, the shotgun is the most versatile in any of the most likely home defense scenarios.

Quote
As always, the best choice is the one you train and feel most comfortable with.  There is no 1 perfect self-defense gun, they all have their pros and cons.  But if you look at SWAT teams and such, guys specializing in close quarter home encounters, what are they using? AR-15s for the most part and there's a reason.

And that reason is that SWAT teams take their incursion training from the US military, along with most of their personnel; both of which instills a preference for the AR-15.  Also, they are cheaper using federal grants of used military equipment.  Shotguns are rare in the military.

Quote

As for bullet-resistant armor, it depends on what you're trying to stop.  They rate from being able to stop a 9mm up to rifle calibers.  But more protection means more bulk.  Generally a level III soft armor is all you'll need.  You can go up to hard (and heavy) AR500 plates if you want but it's overkill IMO, you're not going to war. Honestly, I don't think body armor is all that useful in self-defense.  Takes too long to put on and limits mobility.

A knife shirt (Level 1 or Level2a) is about as bulky as the normal person is going to habitually wear, and they still cost too much.  A thick, leather biker's jacket can provide almost the same degree of protection. And if anyone breaks in carrying those above mentioned AR15's, then nothing less than Level 3 is going to have a hope of doing a damn thing except slow you down, and it's still going to hurt.

You're correct in that even the 5.56 will overpenetrate to some degree.  It is the biggest con in home defense.  Perhaps there is some frangible ammo that doesn't prevent drywall penetration but I'm not aware of any.

A shotgun is a perfectly fine choice.  I personally prefer the accuracy (by this I mean less spread if using buck/birdshot or less recoil if using slugs), capacity, and modularity of the AR-15.  But it is what I'm most familiar with so that goes a long way as well.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #557 on: March 17, 2016, 07:38:17 PM »
And you think people should have guns.... Right

https://youtu.be/cnh75XCu49c?t=25s
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #558 on: March 17, 2016, 08:30:44 PM »
And you think people should have guns.... Right

https://youtu.be/cnh75XCu49c?t=25s

No one thinks people should have guns. They think people should not be prevented from having them. Big difference.  (And the men in the video, as habitual users of controlled substances, are prevented in most areas from possessing firearms.)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 10:36:05 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #559 on: March 17, 2016, 10:17:07 PM »
On my way home tonight at about 10 pm, I get off my exit and run into only the 2nd police checkpoint in my driving career.  They were looking for drunk drivers.  They were so professional & polite, and were obviously making their best effort to reduce the inconvenience for sober drivers.  Because I have my CC license, I'm required to present it whenever I'm asked for ID by a policeman.  So I give him my license & CC ID, and he says in a very polite but distinct voice, "Sir, without reaching for it, (emphasis was his) do you have your weapon in the car?"  "No, I do not."  "Thank you, here are your ID's and have a lovely night."

Somehow, I don't suspect this interaction would go nearly as smoothly if I were carrying a long gun in open view behind my head in a gun rack, which is basically what the alternative is if we were to ban handguns & repeal concealed carry permit laws.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #560 on: March 18, 2016, 12:46:44 AM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less!   

Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.   


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #561 on: March 18, 2016, 02:38:25 AM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less!   

Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.   

Yes - there were several posts towards the beginning of this thread where users of this site have used firearms in self defense.

In the fire suppression system analogy, I guess you would have to decide which is worse for you? The very very unlikely feeling of helplessness as you watch your house burn, or the terrible, very very unlikely feeling of cleaning up your flooded house...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #562 on: March 18, 2016, 01:54:51 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 02:09:44 PM by armueller2001 »

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #563 on: March 18, 2016, 02:44:18 PM »
Its almost like if I became obsessively concerned with my house burning down so I install some industrial strength sprinkler system that certainly stops any fire, but could also flood my house at any moment.

I don't think this analogy fits for a few reasons.  1) Because you have a gun doesn't mean you obsessively think about a home intrusion.  It's there if you need it but it doesn't occupy every waking minute (at least for me).  And 2) "industrial strength sprinkler system" implies high cost of capital when in actuality you can purchase a firearm for a few hundred bucks.

I think my fire extinguisher analogy is closer than an industrial strength sprinkler.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #564 on: March 18, 2016, 03:01:23 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
Yes and most think they are among the "good" group.  Like if you ask people if they are a good, middle or poor most say they are a good driver. 
My brother has guns and I think nothing of having my daughter at his house because he is a responsible gun owner.  My daughter can't get the guns, they are in a safe.  And even if she could, the bullets are in their own mini-safe.  Compare that to my ILs who think by putting their guns on the shelf in the closet, they are being responsible because he assumed the kids could not get it.  My daughter (and their son) could easily reach them.  I'm not trusting personal judgement, that is why I think we need safety courses, requirements on that safety etc.  People are stupid, we know this.  Why not account for it?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 06:20:47 PM by Gin1984 »

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #565 on: March 18, 2016, 05:55:28 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?   So it's not part of the government, in some sense it's 'owned' by the party.   Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?   I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a  tyrannical government.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #566 on: March 18, 2016, 06:27:46 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

Is that the wording he used?  Seems unlikely.

Quote

The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?
So it's not part of the government, in some sense it's 'owned' by the party.
Yes.  But the Boy Scouts are a private institution, and they were forced to allow gay boys to participate, so simply being a private institution doesn't mean as much as it once did.

Quote
Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?

No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing.  Pro-Trump supporters are more likely to engage in 'precision impeachment'.  From where I stand, I hear whispers that Mitch McConnel is already on the short list; and I live in his district.  Actually, I live in Rand Paul's district, but as popular as Mitch is with the voter base, he does have some rather heated opposition in his own party.
Quote

 I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a  tyrannical government.

I doubt that.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 06:30:30 PM by MoonShadow »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #567 on: March 18, 2016, 06:34:14 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

Is that the wording he used?  Seems unlikely.


"I think you’d have riots... I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.”

Interesting.  But how is such a veiled threat as this different than "No Justice, No Peace"?

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #568 on: March 18, 2016, 08:00:29 PM »
Just curious, has anyone here ever had to use a gun in self-defense, or know of someone who did? 

My wife's mother is a former police officer in a major city. There were at least 2 occasions when she was off-duty with her kids in the car and, without going into specifics, her showing her pistol to someone caused them to stop what they were doing and walk away in a hurry.

I don't want to think about what might have happened had she been unarmed.

Because, pretty much all the data on the subject (admittedly not much, just the way we like it!) says that having a gun in close proximity increases the chance that you, or someone in your household, will be, you know, shot with a gun.  So you're basically trading a super low probability event (getting violently assaulted by someone you don't know) for the increased probability that you or someone in your household will be getting shot. And by you, no less! 

See, the thing about that statistic is that it's not random chance like the lottery. You can choose to lock your firearm up away from children, you can choose not to kill your family, etc.

Also, yeah of course having a gun in the home increases the chances that someone will get shot. Having a car in the garage increases the chances that you'll get in a car accident. Having a 6 ft. rope increases the odds you'll hang yourself.
Yes and most think they are among the "good" group.  Like if you ask people if they are a good, middle or poor most say they are a good driver. 
My brother has guns and I think nothing of having my daughter at his house because he is a responsible gun owner.  My daughter can't get the guns, they are in a safe.  And even if she could, the bullets are in their own mini-safe.  Compare that to my ILs who think by putting their guns on the shelf in the closest, they are being responsible because he assumed the kids could not get it.  My daughter (and their son) could easily reach them.  I'm not trusting personal judgement, that is why I think we need safety courses, requirements on that safety etc.  People are stupid, we know this.  Why not account for it?

I think there is a law here (I will have to check) that states you must inform parents that you own firearms if the child will be in your home without them.  Something to that extent anyway, which seems reasonable to me.

Even if it isn't law, I make sure parents who leave their child in our care are aware we have firearms in the home.  When there are kids around, the handgun gets locked up and the rifles get put at the top of the closet (about 6'5" high, and these are toddlers).  All unloaded as well.  We don't watch very many kids so it's a rare instance but I realize guns are a delicate subject so I want to make sure parents are informed and at that point, they can decide if they trust me or not.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #569 on: March 18, 2016, 08:05:45 PM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

He said he thinks there would be riots but he wouldn't instigate them.  Still, he's a moron loudmouth so I'm not surprised he said it.  He could have easily said there would be protests but again, he's a moron.

Quote
The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?

Democrats have a similar selection process.  Not sure if that's what you mean.

Quote
Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?
I hope they protest peacefully but there might be sporadic violence.  Anyone who takes their firearm to the streets should be shot.

Quote
I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a tyrannical government.

That would be misplaced anger as it would be the GOP that's really screwing Trump.  They should view it as a major malfunction of the GOP and probably a fast pass for Hillary to POTUS.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #570 on: March 19, 2016, 07:52:41 AM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 
yeah, the black bloc are definitely on the leftist side.   I was thinking more of the ranchers in Oregon last winter.   You're correct, that wasn't a riot, they just took over a government building, didn't they?

My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?    Can you do this to a party nominee?     I should probably move this to another thread...

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #571 on: March 19, 2016, 10:16:33 AM »
Wow, I never thought my thread would go on for so long.

Donald Trump is threatening riots if the GOP figures out some way to deny him the nomination.

The candidate selection process is a Republican thing, correct?   So it's not part of the government, in some sense it's 'owned' by the party.   Do you think pro-Trump supporters will take their firearms and riot in the streets?   I could see how angry Trump supporters might view this as an action of a  tyrannical government.
some of us liberal democrats might have them out gunned ;). But seriously,  I can't imagine anything like that would ever happen. I think The Donald would do some ranting and then eventually go back to earning and losing and earning billions.
Retired at 42 to play!

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #572 on: March 19, 2016, 10:30:46 AM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 


My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?    Can you do this to a party nominee?     I should probably move this to another thread...

The Republicans are known as 'The Stupid Party'. This election season proves it. Best chance they have ever had to win an election, and they can't come up with better than that lame lot? Of course, the Dems are 'The Evil Party', as perfectly exemplified by Hill. Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.

I agree with the post above, the Right in the US is basically non-violent, barely even a cohesive group. They do throw out the occasional loner nut-case, but not large mobs of them like the left does at the drop of a hat. Trump, however, is a populist, not a conservative. His crowds could run wild, if he were to lead them to it. I doubt any Republican could do that other than Trump.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #573 on: March 19, 2016, 02:23:22 PM »
Quote
No, random riots & property damage are a leftist thing. 
yeah, the black bloc are definitely on the leftist side.   I was thinking more of the ranchers in Oregon last winter.   You're correct, that wasn't a riot, they just took over a government building, didn't they?

My impression is that there's a large swath of the population that's fed up with the American political class.    We have Clinton's apparent corruption.    Sanders social proposals which sound promising but appear fiscally in-feasible.   Republicans who seem more interested in banning abortion than improving the economy, especially for the folks who used to work in sectors of the economy that have been off-shored.    The general dysfunction you guys experienced between the Democratic president and the Republican congress and senate.   And so on.    BTW, I'm not trying to quote people verbatim, just to explain my impression.   

I think you have a very good impression of what has really been going on.  A lot of Bernie's support isn't because his supporters actually think his plans will actually work, but that he actually believes what he is saying.  He may be a crazy old man, but he is an honest one, and that has made all the difference.
Quote
I was curious what the right would do if they don't have an acceptable candidate.   What do you mean by precision impeachment?   


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #574 on: March 19, 2016, 02:25:27 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #575 on: March 19, 2016, 08:23:26 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #576 on: March 19, 2016, 09:03:33 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #577 on: March 19, 2016, 09:19:02 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.
On the 5001st attempt, maybe.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #578 on: March 20, 2016, 04:25:53 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #579 on: March 20, 2016, 04:46:02 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #580 on: March 20, 2016, 06:49:17 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

hedgefund10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #581 on: March 20, 2016, 07:13:40 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

That won't be able to stop my horde of zombie Bernie protesters.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #582 on: March 20, 2016, 07:32:55 PM »
Next few years may turn out to be interesting, in the bad way. Time to buy some ammo? Just in case, you know.


I have a case of 5000 in my basement.  I'm good to go.

Ah, but if the shit hits the fan, you'll definitely wish you had more. Probably ought to double it, at least. When it comes to guns and ammo and protecting your property from THEM, you can never be too paranoid.

Your house will be the first one looted. Congrats.

Perhaps, but not because of that.

The response was to dramaman, not you.

Not with my 500,000 in the basement, not to mention the landmines, flame throwers and tanks I have waiting. You just can't go overboard when it comes to protecting your castle.

You know, that's exactly what I told my wife, when I had the moat dug.

powskier

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #583 on: March 30, 2016, 01:13:31 AM »
Quote from: spartana
[/quote
Yes we are generally being over cautious. It's not a problem here generally but for me, a woman hiking alone often, it gives me a greater sense of comfort even if probably never needed. I will add that there are some places like Alaska where most people DO carry loaded firearms (handguns or rifles) when out in the wilderness (it's legal to do that there unlike in many other states) because of bears but even there it isn't too much of a problem (I lived there for 4 years).
i have lived in Alaska for 22 years and travelled all over this state, It looks to me like maybe 30% of folks carry in the wilderness( excluding hunting). I only carry a rifle if I am hunting. I know 4 people who were mauled by bears and 3 of whom were armed at the time, and 1 person who was charged and killed a grizzly with 2 shots about 10 ft from her, she missed the first one. 3 of these were in wilderness areas and 2 not.  I know to different folks who averted stalking and charging behavior with bear spray. I have had well over 50 bear encounters included me surprising a black  bear and making the instinct to charge her....it worked. I have accidentley split up 1 cub and a grizz and was able to make the right moves to avert a bad situation. Staying calm is key. Bears do not want anything to do with people any more than we want to deal with them, except in really rare cases.

 I have also had 3 guns pulled on me in the wilderness because of paranoid idiots who are so focused on their gun they forget their environment and were "surprised to see me".

I do not have any problem with responsible gun owners and no matter how you slice it if you need the cops NOW, it is usually too late.
That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #584 on: March 30, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »

That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

Me too, but that phrase likely doesn't mean what you think it means.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #585 on: March 30, 2016, 04:37:13 PM »
Quote from: spartana
[/quote
Yes we are generally being over cautious. It's not a problem here generally but for me, a woman hiking alone often, it gives me a greater sense of comfort even if probably never needed. I will add that there are some places like Alaska where most people DO carry loaded firearms (handguns or rifles) when out in the wilderness (it's legal to do that there unlike in many other states) because of bears but even there it isn't too much of a problem (I lived there for 4 years).
i have lived in Alaska for 22 years and travelled all over this state, It looks to me like maybe 30% of folks carry in the wilderness( excluding hunting). I only carry a rifle if I am hunting. I know 4 people who were mauled by bears and 3 of whom were armed at the time, and 1 person who was charged and killed a grizzly with 2 shots about 10 ft from her, she missed the first one. 3 of these were in wilderness areas and 2 not.  I know to different folks who averted stalking and charging behavior with bear spray. I have had well over 50 bear encounters included me surprising a black  bear and making the instinct to charge her....it worked. I have accidentley split up 1 cub and a grizz and was able to make the right moves to avert a bad situation. Staying calm is key. Bears do not want anything to do with people any more than we want to deal with them, except in really rare cases.

 I have also had 3 guns pulled on me in the wilderness because of paranoid idiots who are so focused on their gun they forget their environment and were "surprised to see me".

I do not have any problem with responsible gun owners and no matter how you slice it if you need the cops NOW, it is usually too late.
That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )
You are probably right but when I lived there, especially when in Kodiak and Cordova, it seemed like everyone carried - both in the wilds and in town. Anchorage was different though being a city. It's probably a highly personal choice for everyone with some people like me feeling more comfortable carrying when hiking and others not feeling the need at all.
Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #586 on: March 30, 2016, 07:56:40 PM »
As long as people have the choice, I think all will be well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #587 on: April 04, 2016, 08:17:09 AM »
Wow, where to start with this thread?

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Conveniently, the Founding Fathers of the United States recognized and acknowledged this. They had a first hand view of how difficult it could be to practice self determination when the government maintained a near-monopoly on firearms.

As a result, they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. The existence of the 2A does not CREATE the right to keep and bear arms. That right is an inherent human right as outlined above. The 2A and the rest of the BOR was imperfectly written by imperfect people in an attempt to "enshrine" certain principles. However, I tend to agree with some of our Founders that simply writing the BOR was a dangerous and short-sighted move. Take for example the words of Hamilton in Federalist no. 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Yes, Hamilton and others argued AGAINST even having a BOR. The anti-BOR folks argued that no BOR is needed because the government has NO POWER to restrict the rights of the people, unless explicitly laid out in the Constitution. From elsewhere in Federalist no. 84:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

The people retain everything. So by writing the BOR and the 2A, Hamilton worried that they were creating a "colorable pretext" to restrict or deny the very rights the BOR was supposed to protect. However, the pro-BOR people were more numerous and won out in the end. They argued that future Americans would not be so stupid as to argue to take away their own rights, and the BOR provided protection that made it worth the risk.

However, the Gun Control Advocates in this thread and the world at large are proving Hamilton to be correct. You argue over the wording of the 2A. You argue over what "arms" entails and so on. You are in fact turning the BOR into a "colorable pretext" to RESTRICT the right to keep and bear arms. All the while pretending not to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right regardless of the existence of the Constitution, BOR, or opinion of the Supreme Court and so on.


On a more personal side, I see people in this thread that simply cannot see the need or reason to carry a gun. You see carrying a gun as something exceptional. "Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? What are you scared of? What do you think is going to happen? Why do you carry a gun to _____ place?" And then you never seem to be satisfied with the answer. The problem is that you see the gun as something exceptional.

When I wake up and get ready to leave the house, I put on underwear, pants, a shirt, a belt. I brush my teeth. I put on socks and shoes. I make sure I have my keys, wallet, and phone. I put on my holster, with a gun in it. I leave the house.

I do not agonize over or debate over or justify the "need" to wear my gun to a particular place or time any more than I do in regards to my shoes or belt. I simply do it. It effects nothing and no-one. When I get back home and settle in, the holster comes back off just like the shoes. So if someone asked me why I felt a need to wear a belt when I went to the library, I would not really know how to answer them. I would just think they were kind of weird and needed to mind their own bees wax. Same with the gun.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #588 on: April 04, 2016, 08:38:43 AM »

That said American gun values are currently dictated by a sales lobby and personally I would like to see a little more focus on the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. ( sorry for the can of worms, I probably won't reply :) )

Me too, but that phrase likely doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yes, that poster is misinterpreting the "well regulated" part.

Just like many of the Founders worried, people are using the wording of the 2A to push for restricting the very right it is supposed to protect. It is sad. The problem with America is that the people who founded it gave too much credit to future generations. They assumed that people 200+ years down the road would be at least as intelligent and concerned about liberty as they were. They didn't think to say in the Constitution "Congress shall not force people to purchase products and services (i.e. Health Insurance)" because they could not imagine people in the future would argue for such a thing without being laughed out of the room.

They left plenty of room for Government to grow and change as society and technology grew and changed. They did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #589 on: April 04, 2016, 09:04:46 AM »
the Founders...did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

I know this statement was meant as a condemnation towards those Americans who actually dare to believe that the founders might be horrified at the present state of deadly gun proliferation in the United States, but it can be equally used to describe those Americans who are so obtuse that they can't step outside the door without strapping on a gun as a security blanket and twist the truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #590 on: April 04, 2016, 09:23:22 AM »
the Founders...did however fail to predict how ignorant, disingenuous, and apathetic towards liberty future Americans would become. It is really quite sad. The Constitution gave us the framework to build a society as close to perfect as humans could create. But most Americans today are too obtuse and/or concerned with twisting truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors to execute that form of government responsibly.

I know this statement was meant as a condemnation towards those Americans who actually dare to believe that the founders might be horrified at the present state of deadly gun proliferation in the United States, but it can be equally used to describe those Americans who are so obtuse that they can't step outside the door without strapping on a gun as a security blanket and twist the truth to push their own agendas down the throats of their neighbors.

First of all, there was more "gun proliferation" in their day than ours. Most families had at least one firearms in colonial America, especially in rural areas.

Second, even if we take your statement as fact. Our Founders were much more concerned with liberty than with security or safety. The tree of Liberty should be watered with the blood of Tyrants every Generation. Give me Liberty or give me Death. Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. On, and on, and on. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine, etc etc. I can quote these things to you all day long. The point is, they saw regular violence as an acceptable cost to pay for liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms is a corner stone to their idea of liberty. These were people who staged a violent rebellion over small taxes and restrictions that we would not bat an eye at. They murdered tax collectors (who were really just doing their job).  So you are extra wrong.

Third of all, me wearing a gun doesn't shove anything down your throat. The same way you choosing not to doesn't shove anything down mine. I respect your choice not to carry a gun. I would ask you to respect mine.

I really don't get it. I have the right to keep and bear arms. The law in my state correctly acknowledges that. This is as it should be. Lets say you live in my state. Lets also say you vote/donate/protest/whatever to change the law so that I would be punished for utilizing my right. You would be doing something wrong. It is wrong to try to criminalize the basic rights of your fellows. It would be the wrong thing to do.

Do you not see that? Trying to punish people for exercising their human rights is a bad thing. This is basic stuff.

If I were to come around and try to get a law passed that made it illegal to write bad things about gun owners on the internet, that would also be bad. I wouldn't do it because I am en ethical person and I respect the rights of others. Our Founders assumed all people in 2016 would be like this. They were wrong and you are living proof.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 09:26:43 AM by winkeyman »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #591 on: April 04, 2016, 09:31:50 AM »
First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #592 on: April 04, 2016, 09:53:52 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #593 on: April 04, 2016, 10:05:12 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #594 on: April 04, 2016, 10:22:02 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #595 on: April 04, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #596 on: April 04, 2016, 11:57:58 AM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

GuitarStv:

I don't know that you are following me. I see that you are Canadian, so we might not be on exactly the same page. You say that "natural rights arguments don't hold up to scrutiny."

I was not advancing an argument for natural rights. The statements I made about the inherent human rights people have by nature of being people are not arguments. They are truisms. They simply are. How do we know this to be true? Well, technically we don't. However, the United States was founded upon the idea that these natural rights exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-Declaration of Independence

So as you can see, I am not making an argument for natural rights. I don't need to. American government and society exist conditionally upon the existence of natural rights. If you dismiss natural rights, American society loses any legitimacy and these conversations are effectively meaningless.

And yes, you are setting up straw men. This thread and my comments have to do with keeping firearms in the home and carrying one for self defense. You are talking about nuclear weapons, embargos, land mines, ad absurdum.

Let's try this a different way.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I keep and a Glock 19 and bear it on a regular basis. It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so. Do you have some rational argument against these particular facts?

If you do not accept these basic things to be true, I have no interest in debating the innumerable complexities of the legal and ethical issues that may arise as a result of the Glock 19 I carry. I will reserve the time and effort those require for gun boards where people have a genuine interest in those conversations are don't try to use them to push a gun control agenda.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 12:00:21 PM by winkeyman »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #597 on: April 04, 2016, 12:13:08 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort. Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up. If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.  If you are actually concerned about gun violence or the average citizen of the USA being involved in it, even cursory research will tell you that it is a very low probability event (and dropping by the year) and that the cause of the few incidences that do occur is not the right of average citizens to carry weapons for personal protection, and therefore not an optimum use of effort.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 12:18:15 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #598 on: April 04, 2016, 12:20:35 PM »

First, everyone in the world is born with the inherent human right to life, liberty, and property.

Therefor, everyone in the world has the right to defend their life, liberty, and property from attack by whoever (individuals, groups, or governments). Human beings also have a self-evident right to use tools to help meet their goals. Self evident because the use of tools is part of what makes us human. Firearms are, in our era, arguably the best but certainly a legitimate and viable tool suited to a person protecting their life, liberty, and property.

In conclusion, human beings have a basic and inherent human right to keep and bear firearms in order to protect their life, liberty, and property.

So, following your first two points . . . sanctions against the North Korean government or trade embargoes against Iran because of nuclear weapons tests are a bad idea?  All weapons should be available to all people for defense of life liberty and from other governments.

We are talking about the relevance of keeping firearms in the home and/or carrying them for protection. We are talking about the historical legal, moral, and practical reasons and implications of doing so. You apparently didn't get that memo.

As Per Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.


This is not a straw man.  I'm not saying that you were advocating for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I'm pointing out that your logic can be used to advocate for North Korea/Iran to have nuclear weapons.  This was in attempt to show the errors you made with it.

Showing a flaw or unaccounted for problem with an argument is typically viewed as a reasonable debate tactic.

Out of curiosity, what is your argument that a person generally does not have the right to defend themselves from personal attack?

My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

GuitarStv:

I don't know that you are following me. I see that you are Canadian, so we might not be on exactly the same page. You say that "natural rights arguments don't hold up to scrutiny."

I was not advancing an argument for natural rights. The statements I made about the inherent human rights people have by nature of being people are not arguments. They are truisms. They simply are. How do we know this to be true? Well, technically we don't. However, the United States was founded upon the idea that these natural rights exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-Declaration of Independence

So as you can see, I am not making an argument for natural rights. I don't need to. American government and society exist conditionally upon the existence of natural rights. If you dismiss natural rights, American society loses any legitimacy and these conversations are effectively meaningless.

And yes, you are setting up straw men. This thread and my comments have to do with keeping firearms in the home and carrying one for self defense. You are talking about nuclear weapons, embargos, land mines, ad absurdum.

Let's try this a different way.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I keep and a Glock 19 and bear it on a regular basis. It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so. Do you have some rational argument against these particular facts?

If you do not accept these basic things to be true, I have no interest in debating the innumerable complexities of the legal and ethical issues that may arise as a result of the Glock 19 I carry. I will reserve the time and effort those require for gun boards where people have a genuine interest in those conversations are don't try to use them to push a gun control agenda.


You advanced an argument based entirely on the acceptance of 'natural rights'.  I just pointed out that it's not reasonable to expect someone to accept that as an argument.  At it's heart, your reasoning is badly flawed.

 'Natural rights' are not a truism.  That's what I was demonstrating.  I even demonstrated specific cases where Americans voluntarily restrict their natural rights in order to reap the great benefits that come from being in a society (like agreeing to limits on certain weapons, agreeing to a police force to provide order, etc.).  Since natural rights are not a truism, and some weapons are already restricted in the US, the logical question to ask in this thread is 'Should gun rights be restricted?'.


Quote
I have the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope.

You have the right to keep and bear some types of handguns, shotguns, and rifles depending on the regulations of your state.  You don't have the right to nuclear arms, biological arms, hell . . . in some states you're not even allowed to carry a switchblade or bowie knife.

The right to bear arms is not universal.  It is heavily restricted.


Quote
It is legally correct and (under the existing structure of human rights that does today exist in the United States) morally acceptable for me to do so.

'Morally acceptable' is a debatable claim (and probably one of the fundamental issues being discussed in this thread).  You are half right though, it's currently legal to own (and I presume in the state you live) carry your handgun around.

That right is subject to future modification though.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #599 on: April 04, 2016, 12:22:51 PM »
My argument is that the whole 'natural rights' argument is just feel good and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's not well thought out.  Generally, sure . . . if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.  There are many, many instances and cases though where it's not reasonable for that right to stand.

- It's not reasonable to line your property with landmines, no matter how much safer it would make you feel.

- It's not reasonable to defend your person through mutually assured destruction by way of a backpack nuke that you wear everywhere.

- If a police officer with an arrest order forcefully detains you when you've been caught raping little kids it's not reasonable to defend yourself with a handgun (and it would be reasonable for the police officer to kill you for attempting to do so).

- It's not reasonable to attack someone, squat on their land in their home, and then defend yourself from attack when they inevitably come back.

There are also grey areas.  Is it reasonable to defend yourself with a firearm from an assailant if you're in a crowd, surrounded by people who would be wounded or injured in the case of you making a miss?  This one is very situation and variable dependent, and one that is a constant concern for police and military personnel who are confronted with this type of scenario.


Arguments like the 'natural rights' one are simple to jot down in point form, but are ultimately unsupportable when analyzed.  Because you live in a society, you have to accept certain limits upon your rights.  Arguing about where the line should be drawn is perfectly acceptable.  Arguing that there is no line is puerile.

Wow... that's a whole field of strawmen...  Didn't know they grew that high 'round these parts. :D  I won't even bother knocking them down one at a time because they're not relevant to the discussion at all. North Korea having nukes is both a red herring and a straw man and a discussion in international politics; non of which are pertinent to the thread, at all. Raping babies (what kind of person even thinks of that?) is another off topic discussion - no one is arguing for that right.  Logical fallacies like these is why it's so hard to have a productive debate - people with an irrational fear of guns get so twisted around the small numbers and impossibly unlikely scenarios they disregard reason and statistics and everything else to get the scary guns away.

If one agrees that a person has a general right to defend themselves when attacked, as you implied by the 'drawing the line' obfuscation, then it would be illogical to deny that right for the most general circumstances. I.e., if a person has a general right to self-defense, it is irrational to deny that right in general (when out in public going about their normal business).

If you disagree, and believe that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from outside attacks, under any circumstances, then I could understand your aversion to average people having weapons of any sort. Again, no one is advocating for landmines or nuclear backpack weapons or mustard gas or helicopter gunships or flamethrowers or any of the strawmen you are setting up. If you wish for honest debate, then you need to distance yourself from hyperbole and outrage.  If you are actually concerned about gun violence or the average citizen of the USA being involved in it, even cursory research will tell you that it is a very low probability event (and dropping by the year) and that the cause of the few incidences that do occur is not the right of average citizens to carry weapons for personal protection.

I am on board with you here MetricMouse. However, when I pointed out that GuitarSTV was using a text book straw man, while quoting the definition of a straw man, GuitarSTV responded by saying "I am not using a straw man." And that was, apparently, the end of that. So I wouldn't expect too much here.

"I am not using a Straw Man! I am simply replacing your proposition with a different proposition that I made up and pointing out the problems with the proposition that I made up!"