About America And Guns.

[Skwim]

Consider, if you will, the following:

"Just 3% of Americans own 50% of the country’s guns

According to the latest Harvard-Northeastern survey, about 19% of American adults own 50% of the country’s firearms while the other half is concentrated in the hands of only 3% of the population. On average, these extremely enthusiastic patriots each own 17 guns. Again, that’s on average!
source​

Then consider

"Here are the statistics on erect penis lengths for white college men, in quarter-inch lengths measured by The Alfred C. Kinsey Institute for Sex Research (from the point where the penis meets the body along the top to its tip):"

"So the average penis length is 6.16 inches."
source Modified for emphasis.


​

3% and 3.2% a coincidence? Hardly

 

[BSM1]

Patrol your neighborhood? What? The whole point of the thread is that 'a man and his gun defending the weak' is a fantasy. I think we can think of more creative ways to address crime than building every house a bunker and a gun safe. (Not that I'm knocking gun safes, considering how many toddlers have shot themselves and each other this year. Jesus.)

I think you have missed the point.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think you have missed the point.

If you say so.

 

[BSM1]

You say that you have 'done homes', which suggests that you were installing either bolts, bars, chains, locks or special glazing, or alarms, or camera systems, or safes, or ant-vehicle rails.
What was your speciality?
No catch intended.


OK, you can go back on 'alert' now
Why would your customers need to be shooting to kill intruders if you had done an effective security job? Just askin'


My goodness!
Law Officer: Why did you shoot this person five times Sir?
Householder: Because I felt he might hurt me.

That's pathetic. That householder should have had time to shout loud and clear that he weas armed, prepared to shoot, and would shoot if the intrusion attempt might succeed.
Lord, Sir, what was your security work supposed to be doing but giving time for the warnings to be given?


So that's all you were doing...... installing alarms?
Where was the proper security carried out on these million dollar places?


Well, you were asking somebody else, but I would suggest that US citizens vote for all assault rifles to be very very tightly controlled, which would almost amount to an outright ban because nobody seems to have a reason for keeping one.

Electronic security systems. I would always tell my customers that no security system would keep one person out of your house if that was their intent. Security systems were made to keep honest people honest ( and give you early warning so you could take preventative measures).

 

[BSM1]

Most people who die by the gun do so by shooting themselves. So your argument falls on it's butt, right there. We don't need to protect ourselves from violent intruders. We need to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Also, FAR more of us are shot by a family member, relative, neighbor, or friend in a drunken or drugged up altercation than are ever shot by some violent stranger breaking into their home. So your argument falls on it's butt, there, too.

Also, massive magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide by gun, and is a detriment to the drunken altercation death by gun because the fewer the bullets, the better chance the drunken gunman will miss whomever it is they're shooting at, and won't hit someone else while trying.

And in both of these scenarios (both far more likely that an armed intruder), it's very likely that no one would be shot at all if the gun was not readily accessible, and easy to use, at that moment of despair, rage, confusion, or drunken stupidity.
Not at all. I have no problem with responsible citizens owning or carrying guns, so long as they have been well trained, well educated, thoroughly tested and vetted before they are given the license and responsibility to do so.

I have a problem with drunks, drug addicts, stalkers, bar-fighters, ragers, wife-beaters, convicted criminals, emotionally unstable, psychotic, physically unable and intellectually retarded people owning and carrying guns. And I think we should do everything we can to make sure none of these people get hold of them.

Don't you?

Nope. That's the comfort in being well armed.

 

[BSM1]

If you say so.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[Scrooge]

Nope. That's the comfort in being well armed.

Do you go to the range and practice real life scenarios?
Ever shot at anyone or been shot at?
Most armed in the face of it with no practical experience will die with their weapon in hand.

 

[Revoltingest]

The strawmanning is strong with this one.

Do you know what "straw man" means?
I ask questions to try to fully understand your position.
But I can understand that addressing its inconsistencies would inspire deflection.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where were you???? !!!!
After the Sandy Hook (?) shootings the 'arm teachers' proposal was written again and again, on RF posts.
I also saw reference to it on tell programs.

Have a link to any responsible proposal to arm all teachers & school bus drivers?
But if the internet is fair game, I can cite gun control types
who want all guns banned, & NRA members executed.
You wouldn't want to be hit with Nancy Sinatra, would you?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you know what "straw man" means?
I ask questions to try to fully understand your position.
But I can understand that addressing its inconsistencies would inspire deflection.

You don't ask me questions. You say 'ah so you think this thing unrelated to what you said' and revise it slightly with each clarification. Basically you invent inconsistencies to try and stick to. Strawmanning.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't ask me questions. You say 'ah so you think this thing unrelated to what you said' and revise it slightly with each clarification. Basically you invent inconsistencies to try and stick to. Strawmanning.

The question marks at the end of sentences should be a clue to query.
With all the duck'n & dodge'n, I really don't know where you stand on
gun control (or the utility of guns), other than wanting more of it.
It's like playing whack-a-mole....but with no moles.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The question marks at the end of sentences should be a clue to query.
With all the duck'n & dodge'n, I really don't know where you stand on
gun control (or the utility of guns), other than wanting more of it.

Ah so strawman can never be in question form? (Hint, that's an example.)
If you really want to know I would appreciate questions that go more like 'what do you believe' rather than 'ah so you think this?'
I'd answer that question but gun control/utility of guns is a pretty broad set of policies and subjects, imo.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah so strawman can never be in question form? (Hint, that's an example.)
If you really want to know I would appreciate questions that go more like 'what do you believe' rather than 'ah so you think this?'
I'd answer that question but gun control/utility of guns is a pretty broad set of policies and subjects, imo.

This all started because I responded to another poster's straw man.
Then you posted support for his, but it was mistaken.
I called you on it.
This has not even a whiff of straw coming from my stall.
But I do smell desperation fueled deflection wafting this way.
And I suspect that it will continue after this post.

Sometimes, tis best to quit a losing attempt to save face,
& just let it die unnoticed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This all started because I responded to another poster's straw man.
Then you posted support for his, but it was mistaken.
I called you on it.
This has not even a whiff of straw coming from my stall.
But I do smell desperation fueled deflection wafting this way.
And I suspect that it will continue after this post.

Sometimes, tis best to quit a losing attempt to save face,
& just let it die unnoticed.

You should probably take your own advise then.

 

[Revoltingest]

You should probably take your own advise then.

Always!

Btw, you meant "advice".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Always!

Btw, you meant "advice".

Yep.

 

[BSM1]

Do you go to the range and practice real life scenarios?
Ever shot at anyone or been shot at?
Most armed in the face of it with no practical experience will die with their weapon in hand.

Nope.

Yep.

I'll take my chances, thank you. How dare you deny me my right to defend myself with such silly "what ifs".

 

[esmith]

Of course they can, and a great many do. There are plenty of loopholes that make it easy enough.

I have told myself that it is impossible to reason with someone who's mind is made up. However, when someone, like you, make a statement that is misleading or entirely false I have to challenge that person's statement. In the above statement you are responding to @Mindmaster statement "No one can buy assault weapons as of 1986, so this conversation is moot.".
Now his statement is not entirely correct. What he should have said is "if a fully automatic weapon was made after May 19th, 1986 you may not own it (unless you are a dealer), Now if it was manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986 you can if you follow the following laws.
To buy a machine gun under the 1934 NFA, an individual needs to submit the following (the procedure remains unchanged even today):

• Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
• Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government BATF Form 4
  
• Submit photographs
• Submit passport photos
• Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application exception to this requirement is as follows
  BATF allows Corporations to own automatic weapons, silencers and short barreled rifles without having to complete the law enforcement certification portion of the application.
  If you are the owner or officer of a corporation, the corporation may purchase these items and you, as an officer, may keep them in your home, almost the same as if the items were issued to you as an individual.
  You just have to remember that if the company dissolves for any reason, the weapons must be transferred out of the company to another individual, company, or firearms dealer.
  
• Wait for the results of your background check to come back

Also, there are three types of machine guns that determine the gun’s legal status:

Transferable: Guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986 that are able to be owned by everyone. There are only 182,619 transferable machine guns according to the ATF
Pre-Samples: Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians. Dealers can however buy them and keep them after they give up their licenses. As a general rule, pre-samples cost about half that of a transferable.
Post-Samples: Machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date. These are only for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police. A manufacturer who pays $500 a year is permitted by the federal government to manufacture these. A dealer (who is not a manufacturer) may acquire these if a police agency provides a “demo letter”. A demo letter is simply a letter from a PD asking you to acquire a sample gun for them to test and evaluate for potential purchase. Unfortunately dealers must sell or destroy post samples when they give up their license.
In addition this is only the Federal Law, individual states have their own requirements or restrictions

Now you tell me were the "loopholes are" that make it easy to purchase a fully automatic firearm.
Oh by the way A violation of the national firearms act results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison, a $100,000 fine, and forfeiture of the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future

 

[oldbadger]

Electronic security systems. I would always tell my customers that no security system would keep one person out of your house if that was their intent. Security systems were made to keep honest people honest ( and give you early warning so you could take preventative measures).

Yep, a later para in your post suggested that it might have been electronics that you were installing. But as you know there is much much more to securing a property than those.

The concept of a person who puts a dog in the yard, sets an alarm and goes to bed with a gun is really very very strange to us in the UK. Some US gunners insist that villains can get guns anyway, despite controls, but with regard to home security the UK can show that this is just not true. Maybe the difference is that we look at security differently here.

I could double-triple-quadruple security at that multi million dollar property (after the electronics, dog etc are in place) for about $30, so just imagine what could be achieved for $5000 or $50,000. After all, it is a multi-million residence.

It appears to me as if some US folks just cling on to a gun and a dog.

Over here we watch a telly program about the Texas SPCA and again and again we see the investigators finding big dogs that have been chained up in yards for so long that the chains have become embedded inside their necks.

 

[oldbadger]

Have a link to any responsible proposal to arm all teachers & school bus drivers?

Ahhh...... responsible, lovely touch that.
Of the many goons and nuts that spoke about and wrote about arming Miss Wells in the 2nd year (or whatever) do you honestly think any of them could possibly be classed as sane, let alone responsible?
There was a post in the last month on RF that referred to such tactics, I seem to remember, but if you can't remember such crazy suggestions, then you can't.
Why don't you have a look about on google or something?

But if the internet is fair game, I can cite gun control types who want all guns banned, & NRA members executed.
You wouldn't want to be hit with Nancy Sinatra, would you?

Yeah....... go on then, cite responsible gun control types who demand the death sentence for NRA members. Just for being members, mind you.
Yeah..... I would like to see that.

Of course, the difference between those gun-control-nuts and gun-nuts is that....... at least they can't shoot anybody. Much safer nuts.