-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Greg the Grouper
Active Member
See?
Gotta love him.
Gotta love him.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
The fact that competition guns are designed/intended for competition does not mean that they can't (be used to) kill, anymore than a vehicle for racing can't/does't transport people/goods from A to B.
And, how many of those who have/buy handguns for self-defence also have done first aid training?
In explaining the reasons behind telescopic stocks, I was pointing out that there's no reason to ban them, as they are through assault weapon bans.
I've often wondered why someone from the POTG doesn't actually explain the raison d'etre for the various parts of the modern sporting rifle, instead of focussing on the 2A all the time - this would be a better approach. People who live in cities tend not to hunt and/or see no need for the AR.
Again, approaching this from a health perspective - to prevent hearing loss - would be a better method to justifying their use and need.
[The image of some maniac In orange, rushing out of cover, as he charges a buck with fixed bayonet, comes to mind.]
In Intelligence, it's not what people will do but what people can do that matters.
The fact that neither bayonets or launchers have been used yet - as you say in the second thread of this name - does not preclude the fact that it allows for either to happen. Why give a ne'er-do-well the opportunity?
Kindest regards,
James
Again, this doesn't disprove what I was saying about a gun's purpose.
The fact that competition guns are designed/intended for competition does not mean that they can't (be used to) kill, anymore than a vehicle for racing can't/does't transport people/goods from A to B.
At least according to Ellifritz's 2011 data, there's a 20-35% chance of dying if hit in the torso or head through handguns, depending on calibre. For long guns, it's ~66%. Others' data may differ.
And, how many of those who have/buy handguns for self-defence also have done first aid training?
My mistake - I meant telescopic stocks.
In explaining the reasons behind telescopic stocks, I was pointing out that there's no reason to ban them, as they are through assault weapon bans.
I've often wondered why someone from the POTG doesn't actually explain the raison d'etre for the various parts of the modern sporting rifle, instead of focussing on the 2A all the time - this would be a better approach. People who live in cities tend not to hunt and/or see no need for the AR.
Suppressors are viewed as being an aid to murdering people quietly - hit-man-style.
Again, approaching this from a health perspective - to prevent hearing loss - would be a better method to justifying their use and need.
They are intended for the theatre of war - charging the enemy with fixed bayonets, for example. I cannot see a need for such a mount on rifles in a civilian environment.
[The image of some maniac In orange, rushing out of cover, as he charges a buck with fixed bayonet, comes to mind.]
In Intelligence, it's not what people will do but what people can do that matters.
The fact that neither bayonets or launchers have been used yet - as you say in the second thread of this name - does not preclude the fact that it allows for either to happen. Why give a ne'er-do-well the opportunity?
Since Europe has a older tradition, this is the context of the phrase as it's used. The fact that it's been reinterpreted due to the recent shift in the gun lobby - particularly with the NRA since the '70s - does not change it's meaning. If you want to wander the streets with a gun, you need the community's permission - just like law enforcement. On this basis, I disagree with - so-called - "constitutional carry".
It's not the system that would be tabled - the transfer would be held up until the issue was resolved. This comes back to what I said about addressing issues with NICS: if people ignore them, nothing will change.
As I noted earlier, a police shooting would be investigated, during which time, the officer in question would be restricted to desk-duty. I assume something similar happened with the ATF agent at the time - whether the weapon was recovered or not, I don't know. Only if an incident is considered serious enough, then the individual might be "let go" - as with any employee.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
Akamia
Member
Honestly, whatever one thinks of so-called suppressors or the guns that people use them with, the film industry – and, to an extent, the video game industry, perhaps others as well – certainly isn't helping to give the public an accurate idea of what these things are for, or even how they actually work...
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Wasn't the argument that guns are designed to kill? That wouldn't be the case for firearms DESIGNED to be used in competition which completely trounces the argument.
Ex:
Competition Handgun ~4000 dollars us.
Issued Handgun ~600 dollars U.S.
2011 statistics..... 20-25% is MAJORITY? First aid also refers to EMTs Ambulances.
Depends which city and if they are educated on firearms. Of course the ignorant aren't going to levy good argument for or against.
Suppressors are easily made if using a K baffle system and have access to a mill. I could make a suppressor right now. Other methods that doesn't require a mill could also be used if you had access to certain items but not necessarily high dollar manufacturing machines. We tried deregulating them for the use of hearing loss and the Democrats weren't buying it. I don't see how a 200 dollar tax has an aim to reduce crime and isn't an undue burden.
Why not? Why would it be illegal to charge someone presenting a threat of serious bodily harm in the U.S.? We can use lethal force why wouldn't you be able to use lethal force in this case a knife mounted on a rifle to do this?
Because The U.S. is founded on individual freedoms and not the collective. The basis of due process the very fact that you I have a right to own something like a firearm to be used against people legally under certain circumstances negates the the need and justification for prohibiting as something as pointless as a bayonet ban. This isn't even done in other countries as people do own military surplus rifles and yes they have bayonets on them and those countries don't experience mass knifings mounted on rifles.
We also have the right to speak what we like. We don't need permission from the government to speak. That is also enshrined in the U.S. constitution. They are BOTH enumerated rights Americans are supposedly guaranteed under the founding documents. If they are rights then regulate them as rights they are rights not privileges.
Yes the politicians charged with fixing them have failed repeatedly therefore I went around the NICS even though I have no prohibitive status that would deny transfer. If the system is ridiculous and doesn't work then why would you tolerate it given they haven't fixed it in the 3 decades its been used? Would you sit at a red light indefinitely until it was fixed or would you get fed up with it say fuck it and then simply go when you judged when it was safe or not?
Well the Biden administration is trying to assign this fuck up a leadership role and an gun grabber role in an agency supposed to be impartial in enforcing firearms, explosives and alcohol. What you are saying implies Chipman should be fired and I would have to agree.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Mine (page 9) was: "A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to fire a projectile with enough force to destroy its target."
Whether you take either or both combined to mean "designed to kill", they're certainly intended to be more effective at hitting their target than other ranged weapons - ideally with the intent to kill, in the case of hunting, and war. The fact that in a civilian setting - at least in the US - one is only allowed to shoot to stop the threat, is by-the-by as to its capability.
And a gun for competition is simply optimised for accuracy, in the same way that a racing car is optimised for performance (handling, speed).
This doesn't mean they can't be used for their basic purpose: to shoot a projectile at a target or carry occupants from A to B, respectively.
You're clearly not suggesting that the competition gun can't be used for DGU and/or to shoot someone, are you?
However, they also note that - overall - 1 in 6 shootings are fatal.
It was my initial impression that being shot centre-mass was likely to be fatal - certainly that being shot above the pelvis would be.
However, I'm willing to concede this impression given the above study.
DGUs tend to be "stand your ground", if not after retreating - as you did when confronted by that individual wielding a knife.
Advancing or pursuing someone with any weapon makes you the aggressor/assailant.
And putting a bayonet on a gun before charging them ... really doesn't look good in the eyes of the law, much less a jury.
Kindest regards,
James
The OP's argument was: "Guns have only one purpose and that is to kill human beings."
Mine (page 9) was: "A gun is a weapon. It's purpose is to fire a projectile with enough force to destroy its target."
Whether you take either or both combined to mean "designed to kill", they're certainly intended to be more effective at hitting their target than other ranged weapons - ideally with the intent to kill, in the case of hunting, and war. The fact that in a civilian setting - at least in the US - one is only allowed to shoot to stop the threat, is by-the-by as to its capability.
And a gun for competition is simply optimised for accuracy, in the same way that a racing car is optimised for performance (handling, speed).
This doesn't mean they can't be used for their basic purpose: to shoot a projectile at a target or carry occupants from A to B, respectively.
You're clearly not suggesting that the competition gun can't be used for DGU and/or to shoot someone, are you?
I found a JAMA (2018) study of a police department's gunshot figures in criminal cases between 2010 and 2014, which showed that, out of 511 incidents, 220 were fatal, whilst 290 were not - a somewhat higher fatality rate, statistically - and that, although calibre plays a role in the likelihood of fatality, whether someone dies or not is mainly due to chance.
However, they also note that - overall - 1 in 6 shootings are fatal.
It was my initial impression that being shot centre-mass was likely to be fatal - certainly that being shot above the pelvis would be.
However, I'm willing to concede this impression given the above study.
Granted - but wouldn't it be a better approach to explain the AR as an evolution of the traditional hunting rifle to the "modern sporting rifle", instead of the POTG banging on about "2A rights"?
As Akamia noted earlier, Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
Because advancing on/pursuing someone would make you the aggressor/assailant, which completely changes how the law would look at you.
DGUs tend to be "stand your ground", if not after retreating - as you did when confronted by that individual wielding a knife.
Advancing or pursuing someone with any weapon makes you the aggressor/assailant.
And putting a bayonet on a gun before charging them ... really doesn't look good in the eyes of the law, much less a jury.
But then they don't have a need to defend thtemselves from assailants by the use of guns, never mind needing to charge an assailant with a fixed bayonet.
Granted - but there's a difference between handing out guns and driving off due to a stuck light.
Given he wasn't sacked at the time he lost his weapon, it's a bit late now.
Kindest regards,
James
Last edited:
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Ok then the argument is trounced by the condition "only one purpose".
I already proved they have multiple purposes. In fact you argue this same point later so why defend it at all?
This seems vague. Not sure how to answer.
Not true. You can take ground against anyone presenting a threat to serious bodily harm. How do you think you employ a firearm against them? How do you gain line of sight and clear your backstop of innocents? You have to move and adjust your position accordingly.
If they then choose to not present a threat and flee then yes likely you would be prosecuted and lose. They do have to do both however. Trying to flee while using a firearm against you still proves they are threat to serious bodily harm as a minimum.
I own a few firearms with bayonets' on them. They are fixed to the gun. There is no way to quickly remove them or quickly attach them. If anyone is in my house and the conditions of Castle Doctrine are satisfied I the law assumes lethal threat on the part of the invader regardless if they have the means to actually commit harm. They are not allowed to be there and with simple fact of them breaking and entering I can use whatever means to force them to leave of force them to stop what they are doing in my home.
In the condition of you are inside your home no that is false.
The only clear distinction of force you are not allowed to use in this setting are trap guns.
It would be interesting to see a court case of a knife on gun being used outside the home in order to know with certainty if you would be charged or not so I don't have a clue. I don't see how you couldn't because of the use of defensive knives being carried in the U.S..
The concept is the same people will ignore things if they are perceived as useless.
People speed constantly here doing routinely 80 mph when the posted limit is 65 commonly. The entire freeway myself included still travel in excess of 80 mph. Law enforcement does not issue speeding tickets as they once did so why comply with this assuming you have following distance and it is safe to travel at 80 mph?
People don't comply with gun laws on occasion because they view them as ridiculous and totally unenforceable. Case in point Sherriff departments refusing to enforce federal gun control laws because they make no sense mentioned at the start of the thread. There is NO relative decrease in gun crime if they are enforced as they have nothing to do with guns typically used in crime.
Not true he can still be criminally prosecuted due to the fact in which state he lost his issued firearm. He can still be fired for violation of policy as he works as the same agency.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
What I'm not defending is the OP's argument - that the only purpose was "to kill human beings".
This approach would make a lot more sense in terms of bringing the antis and those who are on the fence to realising that their fears of the AR are unfounded
You don't tend to close on the attacker.
Doing so tends to change how the law views you.
However, if you go to your garage, and find a trespasser there, you're not allowed shoot under Castle Doctrine - I saw a report of such a case a number of years ago. (I'll see if I can find it. You might like to check yourself through LEA, etc., in your state as to whether that's the case or not.)
Kindest regards,
James
Guns have many uses but they all share the same purpose: to fire a projectile to hit a target, whether to kill or not, depends on the circumstances.
What I'm not defending is the OP's argument - that the only purpose was "to kill human beings".
My point was, and is, that the POTG keep banging on about their 2A rights when challenged about guns - and particularly the need for the AR - rather than explaining the AR as a obvious evolution of the traditional hunting rifle into the "modern sporting rifle".
This approach would make a lot more sense in terms of bringing the antis and those who are on the fence to realising that their fears of the AR are unfounded
Generally, you move backward and/or sideways to increase distance between you and the assailant, to make it more difficult for them to harm you, and to find cover from which to return fire - if necessary.
You don't tend to close on the attacker.
Doing so tends to change how the law views you.
I agree that one is allowed to assume an intruder - when you're in your home - intends harm to life or limb, whether yours or anyone else in your home, and under those circumstances, are allowed shoot the intruder to stop the threat.
However, if you go to your garage, and find a trespasser there, you're not allowed shoot under Castle Doctrine - I saw a report of such a case a number of years ago. (I'll see if I can find it. You might like to check yourself through LEA, etc., in your state as to whether that's the case or not.)
I understand - it's just that there's a qualitative difference between the two that could have serious consequences.
Interesting. We don't know if the firearm was recovered - if it was, I'd understand why he wasn't sacked. If it wasn't...?
Kindest regards,
James
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Arguing of the basis of 2a rights negates the need for separate arguments. If it is a right then it goes under less scrutiny as you can argue people have a right to firearms and not get drawn into battles attempting to justify need of individual firearms types. The simple argument similar to Jim Jeffries: "Fuck off I like guns" is simpler and people seem to like and understand that argument better than they would technical definitions. In effect a justification not to need justification.
Depends on the composition of the setting. If the attacker is threatening others then you also can use your firearm in order to effect the halting of the crime. Forcible felony is just cause in the eyes of the law in order for you to intervene with lethal force. Someone continually offering serious bodily harm or threat of to someone else is legal justification and depending on where the victim, attacker and the defender is you might need to change angles considering backstop (where your bullets are heading) line of sight (hitting obstacles between you and the criminal) and/or attempting to get to a point where you have cover and/or concealment. Obviously if you can get to an area unnoticed by the criminal and shoot him under surprise (for example his attention is on a different group of people or committing to a robbery lets say) that would be preferred to making an overt move and tipping the attacker off in an attempt to counter you making the shot far more precise and ending the confrontation without a bystander being hit and therefore you being arrested and/or sued civilly.
Depends. Continual threat to bodily harm/forcible felony/death the law covers you in a majority of states with stand your ground laws. Even if not stand your ground and only a neutral neither having a duty to retreat or stand your ground and you could still a compelling argument to your peers. The problem would come with states with duty to retreat due to obvious reasons.
That highly depends if your garage is attached to your home. Living quarters specifically or being attached to living quarters still enables the standard of castle doctrine. If the intruder breaks and enters then at that point worst case scenario is assumed intent on the intruder and qualifies you to use lethal force against them.
Driving in general has serious consequences as does interacting or being in proximity with firearms. Both are inherently dangerous. I don't see the point you are making.
No it was never recovered it was stolen. It was stolen against policy of the ATF being left in his private vehicle while off duty. That is a no no to store a government issued firearm unsecured in a private vehicle. The policy is stored secured on someone's person while on duty or off or secured in government vehicle or at private residence.
He was also partly responsible for the WACO disaster as he was the tactical commander for the entry teams there.
The guy clearly shouldn't be the administrator and arguably should be arrested himself. He is dangerous and has an inherent bias against firearms. Him attempting to make citizens instant felons for commonly owned firearms without compensation without even having the legislative branch involved to create law is the reason people call him a tyrant - he is a tyrant.
Hunter Biden not being prosecuted for lying on a form 4473 is also disturbing and shows that Biden basically granted his son a stay of felony charges and a 1/4 million dollar fine by having the secret service confiscate that record.
It is no wonder so many firearms are sold and it is no wonder why people don't trust the government when shady things like this fuels distrust. We have no reason to allow further encroachment. Even background checks don't work as intended.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
All of the other random Chinese crap they house.
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
At an FFL or privately? Also which state?
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
With much effort and discomfort.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
As I said, taking the time to explain the AR as an obvious evolution of the traditional hunting rifle to the modern sporting rifle, thus addressing the anti-gunners' fears, is - in my view - a better approach.
In a proverbial "mass-shooter" scenario, where a armed citizen approached the sound of gunfire intending to protect other citizens - even though there's no onus so to do - then that's different.
I'd argue that selling guns carries more responsibility than selling cars.
Kindest regards,
James
Which all makes the individual look like the proverbial "gun-nut".
As I said, taking the time to explain the AR as an obvious evolution of the traditional hunting rifle to the modern sporting rifle, thus addressing the anti-gunners' fears, is - in my view - a better approach.
I was talking more in the context of a one-on-one scenario when I spoke about advancing on the assailant not looking good in the eyes of the law.
In a proverbial "mass-shooter" scenario, where a armed citizen approached the sound of gunfire intending to protect other citizens - even though there's no onus so to do - then that's different.
One would obviously need to know one's state's laws regarding Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine lest one end up in prison.
Again, we're back to intended purpose and usage: a gun can be used to shoot lots of people at various ranges in all directions; a car can generally only be used to kill people in front or behind (if reversing) at close proximity.
I'd argue that selling guns carries more responsibility than selling cars.
It's generally better not to have a proverbial fox guarding the chickens, as in someone who's favourable to guns when he's supposed to be monitoring them.
I agree - it's unfortunate that President Biden did this. It's difficult for anyone to stand back and let their loved ones - particularly our children - face consequences, particularly legal. However, in this, he's behaving no differently than any other father, regardless of whether he's a politician or just Joe Public.
They are here to stay (in America), so it's best to try to iron-out the issues so that it works as optimally as possible.
Kindest regards,
James
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Gun controls in the U.S. are being deregulated regardless even when this argument is commonplace in most states. 21 states that require no process in order to obtain a carry permit because they have removed the requirement to get a carry permit to carry a handgun legally concealed or open. It may be mal lined but it effective nonetheless.
I think it is better to simply argue that hunting rifles are or can be semi automatic even if you discounted the AR-15 platform entirely. The Browning Automatic Rifle is by default and inception for hunting and modified to be used in combat as a light automatic rifle.
Even still forcing someone else on the defensive and asking them why the gun is more lethal is far more effective and makes gun grabbers look stupid. Other people can plainly tell so more simple arguments are more effective. Explaining to them the history of the AR doesn't really do much in terms of conciseness.
Situationally dependent.
If you use force against someone threatening you with serious bodily harm, a forcibly felony and/or death then you are covered legally to use lethal force against said person. The problem comes with incidentals: 1) Hitting a bystander. 2) Confusing serious bodily harm with general harm. 3) Pursuing when that threat is no longer being displayed.
Regardless the recorded worst mass shooting in history in the U.S. had less wounded and less killed comparatively and even still it was 23 firearms involved compared to 1 van.
Both are involved in crime. It is far more likely that a vehicle is used in a crime than a gun even in the U.S. considering vehicles are used to escape or evade. Firearms on the other hand overwhelmingly are still used for lawful purpose considering the ratio of number of firearms to firearms used in a crime. Even still you don't go through the same process to buy a car than you do a gun from a dealer.
Being favorable to firearms doesn't mean I am going to sell to anyone. I think if there is evidence of foul play then that is different however. I have been on camera denying people transfers of firearms. Why? They stink like they are under the influence of substances. They say specific things that lead to SUSPICION of a crime. They can't get their story straight on the form etc. I lose a sale but I do so regardless even though it is inherently a negative for me.
Contrast that to say: A potential director of the ATF that is linked with a gun grabber institution attempting to regulate pistol braces and suggesting firearms bans and it is totally different in scope and severity. Even his perceived competence is at fault and issue here. In commanding tactical squads he is a failure and still he is suggested to carry out ATF work. He is a failure in personal firearms handling so whatever he argues in terms of gun handling also irrelevant. He is a literal incompetent.
If he was any other father he'd be arrested. He is the president so he is immune.
Finally you are the first left person that actually agrees that Hunter should be prosecuted. Also I think Biden should be arrested for his obvious act of corruption.
They've been 30+ years at it (NICS) and have made no improvement to the system overall. The total amount of firearms regulations have declined and yet firearms homicides have declined compared to the peak during the 1980s and 1990s. Mass shootings have increased but yet the number of firearms homicides is less. Violent crime is increased and decreased seemingly at random.
They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause. They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.
Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?
To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
Implication 1: "First Left Person"Implication 2: "Hunter should be prosecuted"
Implication 3: "Biden Arrested"
You are rolling your eyes and it doesn't look good. According to the implications. Thought you should be aware.
This isn't my only citation. I suppose you just didn't look at the very first page of each thread I have started. Plenty of citations/original sources in order to go off of.
EX:
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Again, sure pal. Next, you are going to tell me what the real definition of is is.
The only citation you provided to me when I requested it. I guess context only matters when you are speaking.
Last edited:
BoganUSAFFLClerk
Active Member
What do you think a screencap of a law I am disputing is?
