I find myself in a debate with a bunch of liberals over guns on a forum for alumni of the MA program I attended. I am not considered a liberal there. They are all writers, and their arguments are mostly emotion-based. They post charts of crimes and photos of victims, which are moving but not logical arguments.

The issues are whether AR-15s and other "military" weapons should be banned, and whether we have "too many" guns in America. I'm trying to think of some non-obvious/non-commonly-used arguments or facts to throw at them. If anyone has ideas, help would be appreciated.

I don't know how much longer the debate will continue, as the mods there are very sensitive about feelings. I've already been accused of being "insulting" for suggesting there is a rural/urban divide in how guns are perceived and used. I don't get it.

Jim

What just happened in Israel? Did the cops come during the BLM/ANTIFA riots to protect the people? What’s the LEO to citizen ratio and your chance the help you over their own if things get crazy? If the Government treats us like they do now how will they treat us if we are unarmed? The ones that have lowered the social bar over the decades are the ones that want your guns.

Guns are what gave them their freedom but that argument falls on deaf ears. Americans have become complacent so it's a tough sell.
Guns are an inanimate object until picked up by a person with a cruel heart.
Good luck.

I got nothing but I have owned a 22 single shot for over 40 years and it has never harmed a soul. The rifle is a tool incapable of doing damage. It is the twisted human mind that causes the carnage.

Lol, this is rich...If those people don't see you as liberal, they are so far left they will never accept any valid arguments.

Exercise in futility right there, but it's your time.

every of age male in Switzerland is in possession of a military style firearm


link
murder in Switzerland

Should anybody have to suffer a beating? People are not equivalent in size, strength or intelligence. The need for a military type gun argument is often brought up by those who know nothing about guns or what it takes to be accurate with their use. Going to a range and shooting for enjoyment is much different than realizing a threat and operating through the body’s response to fear. A woman placing shopping items in the trunk of her car would need such a weapon should she come under attack from a small group of individuals desirous of harm to her even if she is well trained. Not every individual is going to cower at the sight or even the firing of a firearm as the debaters would.

Thinking like an honest, compassionate person is not a reason to not be familiar or have access to a firearm.

I can only give you the rural reason I need a few different guns and a few boxes of ammo. I'm not too worried about crime, bears, or the revolution. They are just tools like my hammer.

A great start would be to tell them to just read the Constitution, especially the 2A. It mentions words like "Shall Not Be Infringed"........

The right to keep and bear arms was given to fight an oppressive government. The founding fathers gave us the right to be able to defend our rights and citizenry from such a government. To be able to defend us against that government we need equal footing. (for me) Yes, I even go so far as to state we need F-35, Abrams tanks etc.

Might be a social experiment or research project but I'm game.

This won't go far but if you showed them a "military rifle" on a wood stock the works are the same but looks are not.

Everything you give up you will never get that back, the reasons they give will be lies and every tool they get will be used as a weapon at a later date like always.

Every rule, every law, and every restriction is a loss of our freedoms. We have been allowing it for far too long.

You could mention spoons kill more people than guns so they should be banned first, along with fast food restaurants.

I don't like leftists. End of rant.

The confused Gen-Zer's latest post on X now shifts the blame of gun violence from 'it's the gun' to 'it's white women in the suburbs':

"We will never end gun violence until white woman in the suburbs stop voting for the republicans who are endangering our schools and communities by flooding them with guns."


I guess they want to ban white women too................................

If we're talking blood by volume, there will be less of it in the streets if you give up your desire to disarm people. Look at it as a lifesaving measure. Perfectly valid argument.

I posted this on FB and they proved just how liberal scum they are.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, its relative, the M-16, is a military weapon. Explain the difference between full auto and semi-auto. They both can have high capacity magazines, but so can the perceived "non-military" semi-automatic weapons.

This

So, you are complaining about liberals who are more liberal than you (scary to me that could be possible).
With your voting habits, and liberal stances, you are essentially enabling the very liberals which are causing you strife.
I have no words to offer you. They cannot be reached with reason, login, nor facts. You, and folks like you are culpable for rewarding their behavior. Their ideology has metastasized and has spread unchecked.
The good news is, they don't like guns. We do.

Thanks for all the help, guys. Some arguments I hadn't thought of. It's hard to maintain an informative, cogent discussion with people who aren't equipped for it.

The debate seems to have concluded for the day, and I got in the last word. lol. I think they may have become alarmed at my "insulting" words and ran away. I suppose I've ruined my reputation there, but I've done it before elsewhere. Like maybe here...lol

I like the Hitler meme, but using it to argue that gun control is evil wouldn't be logical. 1. Hitler was evil; 2. Hitler approved of gun control; 3. Therefore, gun control is evil. Doesn't work.

So far, I've made these arguments:

1. Guns are just tools. They can be misused by bad or careless people, but my guns aren't able to escape from my safe to commit murder on their own. Response: None. They just want to ban "those killing machines."

2. The real problem is the psychopaths that use these tools to kill, not the tools. Better mental health screening and treatment would work better than banning the guns currently popular with killers. Card never should have been able to buy an AR-15. Response: One lady said that we don't spend enough money on health care. She and I agree...sort of.

3. If ARs are banned, killers will begin using shotguns and hunting rifles. If we ban those too, killers will drive automobiles into crowds. Response: I was accused of making a slippery slope argument.

4. AR-15s are not military weapons, explaining the difference between auto and semi-auto pretty much as Paul recommends. Response: I was accused of trying to baffle them with technical info they don't care about.

5. The Supreme Court now treats the Second Amendment the same as the First Amendment (which writers care about) for purpose of Constitutional analysis. The Court says we have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms in common use, subject to historically traditional regulations, like prohibiting firearms in public buildings. Response: The current make-up of the Court is deplorable, and the Constitution's framers never intended the Second Amendment to be interpreted so broadly. Diagnosis: denial of reality.

6. How many guns are "too many"? I collect single-shot rifles, and own six currently. Is that too many? Response: None. "Too many" remains undefined.

7. One woman argued the AR-15 is a specially deadly weapon because it fires bullets at high velocity. I pointed out that the .223 Rem. is not a very powerful round, and was near the top of ballistics charts. Response: Again, I was accused of trying to baffle them with technical info.

Law Dog, Hobby Trapper, YukonJeff, I haven't tried those arguments yet. I like them.

I'm interested in seeing how anti-gunners think and process information. The debate has been enlightening. They really don't have logical arguments, just emotion to support their views. I began thinking I might change a few minds, but that no longer seems likely. It's very hard to change someone's mind, especially on things they care about.

Jim

You will never change their minds. They are closed minded. That feelings stuff is simply a ruse to make you feel guilty. The " don't confuse me with facts" act is also a stunt to make you feel stupid. Those who want to disarm us Tully "know not what they do". They will not like the results if they ever get their wish. Look at Australia. They used to be a free people. Not so since they were disarmed and the crime rate rivals America. They want to ban all semiautomatic weapons of all weapons that holds more than a certain number of rounds. All semiautomatic Rifles , shotguns and pistols meeting that criteria makeup about 90 percent of all firearms sold or owned in America. They aren't after the AR15 they are after all of them. We are not like any other country on earth, yet! America was built by those who got tired of being bullied around. And OBTW dementia Joey is wrong when he threatens us with f16s and nukes.

Will your mind ever be changed about Trump and him being a very very good President?

Some things just can't be fixed.

every federal gun law ever passed violates the 2nd and 10th amendments. every state gun law ever passed violates the SC decision of marberry vs. madison. There are no constitutional gun laws, those are facts.

I do wonder what the amount of "mass" shootings were before and after the advocacy of gun free zones.

didn't read the whole thread, but I'd answer with the following:

it is already against the law to shoot anyone, except under VERY strict, legal conditions.

criminals (by definition) do not obey laws. they will not be inclined to follow MORE laws that are designed to impede their criminal activities.

why would an automobile manufacturer produce a vehicle capable of exceeding the speed limit by even ONE mile per hour? (semiauto, high cap detachable)

in the countryside ("flyover country"); firearm ownership is ubiquitous; yet murder rates are low. in the major cities (with VERY restrictive gun laws), the murder rate is comparatively high.

the Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the police's responsibility to protect individual lives. Their job is to protect "society", which at times involves saving lives. But they are NOT held responsible for every individual's safety.

Very good statement White Marlin

If the Hitler argument falls on deaf ears, have them watch Schindler's List, then get back with us.

If deaths are the concern........what about the 300 deaths per day from illegal drugs like fentanyl? Dead id dead........they don't think about it or hear about it because these victims don't all die ii the same place and go out with a whimper instead of a bang, but are dead just the same. They OK with that? If not, who is responsible? The same people they vote for? Yes.

On our current course, we will see an assault weapon ban after the 2024 elections. Maybe the Court will strike it down, maybe not. I have my doubts. Regardless, you can lose a lot of rights waiting on the Court.

Magazines and ammo restrictions too.

This is a civil rights issue for me. I'm male. I'm white. I have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right is no different than my or anyone's 1st Amendment rights. It is no different than anyone's 14th Amendment rights.

Once you take one right, it gets easier to take the next one. This is especially true if the people are disarmed.

White, male gun owners will know what it feels like to be profiled and harassed. To be criminalized. We can already feel the uneasiness of our 2A rights being threatened. Once guaranteed, the rights just disappear even though you committed no crime. First and Fourth Amendments will be next.

This will not end well. Armed people with resources and numbers will resist.

P.S. Everyone should remember this when advocating to take a right from a person or group in this country--even if not important to you or one with which you disagree.

Spousal unit was watching Bill Maher yesterday, and towards end of program, he went on a rant and tirade about all the problems on the streets of San Francisco. All the utterly stupid policies. What must have sailed over his head is he will 100% always support the same people responsible for it. So he is directly responsible for the same policies he claims are stupid. Irony is a dish best served cold.

in order to be introspective, one needs a certain level of self-awareness.

liberals lack this trait.

AR-15s are not military weapons, as others have stated. However, things like glocks, Sigs, 1911s, berettas, remington 870s and mossberg 500s. and remingtom 700 rifles are all currently used by the US military.

All that being said, though, the best argument against gun control is a simple-"you want em, come and try to take em", and then walk away from the argument, It's not worth your time. Leftists run on emotion and can't be convinced. If they all decided the sky is green and grass is blue, you could walk outside and show them, and they'd still argue their point.

civil war is likely

Next, argue abortion and religion. These are all topics that each side is going to have their opinions on that will not change. Pointless discussions that are beat to death by people opposing each other. The other side’s argument is as factual to them as your’s is to you.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, its either a fact or its not, feelings are not facts!

Does anyone know how many AR style rifles are in private hands today? I've read upwards of twenty million. The number seems to be vague but it's likely a good ballpark figure. Google how many AR style rifles have been used in mass shootings and you might come up with ten.

That's literally less than one in one million. Restricting the 999,999 for the 1 seems a tad excessive. Big government types and their enablers want a passive, obedient population with no means of challenging them. Exactly opposite of what our forebears intended.

I think Danny is right. Push is likely going to come to shove.

I think it is worth looking at where these guns come from. Research the history of "sporterising" weapons. The basic idea is that throughout history in this country, after a war, the weapons become "sporterised" for use by civilians. There are many reasons for this. One is that the men who used them are familiar with them. Another is that there are many surplus weapons available and it is cheaper to convert one for civilian use than to buy a new weapon. This has been going on for the entire history of our country.

there were 7 million when Obama was elected to term 1, 14 million at re-election, way more now my guess is 30-40 million with all the newer companies climbing on the black rifle bandwagon.

if they don't perceive Jim as a leftist, it mis be a North Korean site is my guess.

Liberals don’t care about facts, logic or the end results they care about a single focused “this is what I feel and want and I want it right now no matter what.” I’d ask those other writers what they think of the new waves of attacks on the first amendment when loons are being put in charge of what’s the “truth” today by a government standard.

Maybe if they understand that view of how the first is being attacked often they could apply that to the second then.

Attacking "liberals" is not how you win the debate. Simply insulting an opponent is, in fact, the quickest way to lose a debate.

They think, feel, whatever that they are using facts and reason too (not all are facts and not all positions are based on reason).

Fact: Blaine County has never killed anyone using an AR-15/AR-10.

Fact: The psycho in Maine killed 18 people using an AR-10.

Both are equally true facts.

We need a better way of discussing the issue but it's hard because criminals/psychos keep shooting up schools, restaurants, concerts, parades, etc. This gives the gun grabbers more "facts."

We are however likely past persuading anyone and at this point it's about slowing down the inevitable by winning elections. Once the inevitable happens, I expect a conflict.

140,000 alcohol related deaths per year in the US ( far more than gun related deaths) - ask them if they support bringing back prohibition in the interest of savings lives. Liberals like their alcohol like everyone else and they hate the question. Then ask why they aren' t prepared to give up their beer and wine (even though they are responsible drinkers) to possibly keep some idiot from getting behind the wheel drunk and killing someone or drinking themselves to death.
Several parallel arguments to their gun rants...

its pointless to argue with people whose fear prevents them from embracing freedoms

What side will bring up the fact that the military and law enforcement both were notified of this guy and did nothing what new law will fix that? Asking for a friend. It’s not the facts used often it’s the ones being left out that make it a problem. If you can’t see this your part of the problem maybe what world do you live in?

I had trouble following your post, but as for your first question: both sides will bring it up. The gun grabbers will use it to support red flag laws and to say that something more than red flag laws (e.g. a ban) is needed. The 2A side will use it to demonstrate the guy was crazy and not representative of 99.9% of gun owners. True. Be careful though, it's potentially a red flag trap.

The issue with red flag laws is there is no real mental health system out there most people are back out in 72 hours with so many broken systems that don’t work gun control will fix nothing we know the current laws are not being followed as it is.

Your opponents argue that an AR-15 is a "military style weapon?"

Perhaps ask them to give an example or two of nations that arm their military with AR-15's...?

But do not delude yourself into thinking that FACTS have anything to do with this argument!

Pete

If their a feminist or BLM type their extremely easy to argue against lol

why does it work when liberals attack conservatives???

I’ve never seen a mugshot of just the gun, nor do I know of any gun convicted and spending time in jail or prison.

Osky

Statistics from the PEW research center

PEW research gun statistics

Here's a summation;

Of the 48,830 gun related deaths in 2021

3% are listed as other (accidental, police involved)
54% are suicides (26,328)
43% are murders (20,958)
of those 20,958 only 3% (838) involved "long guns" rifles, shotguns, AR's.
handguns account for nearly 95% (19,910)

Have those attacks persuaded you? I bet not.

Cutting down, name calling, etc. is not how you win a debate. Or an election.

'What Freeman didn’t bring up was the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the
government’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Nearly two decades ago the Department of Justice funded a study to analyze this very topic, and it concluded that the assault weapon prohibition had “mixed” results.

Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

In other words, there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned.

While gun violence overall fell in the US during this period—just like many other countries around the world—the decline continued even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004. Authors of the government-funded study plainly stated “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely “to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the impulse to use collective force to “do something” in the wake of a tragedy or crisis has created far more problems than it has solved.

“When [crises occur] … governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs,” wrote Higgs. “For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society, the prospect is deeply disheartening.”"

Source: Fee.org

These are useful statistics for the debate.

Suicide is tragic, but if they didn't have a firearm they would use a rope.

the goal should NOT be to convince an "anti" to become a "pro activist" (i.e. ardent gunowner); but rather to sway the "undecided" in the middle; who are watching the debate.

and, you are wrong about not winning elections with negative tactics. Those expensive commercials are so prevalent because they DO work!

hey, I WISH "reason" and "logic" worked with the general public. but as my dad used to say "[crap] in one hand and wish on the other, and see which hand gets fuller."

James i'd say with social media nowdays its impossible to get thru to someone with their nose glued to their phone inundated with "Todays" crisis Consider the Abortion war of 2022 voting public didn't care that the Supreme court just moved it from federal to the state level and that was the deciding factor in a lot of voting especially with a catchy phrase to howl out

Not sure how pointing out liberal thinking is name calling it’s a fact they lack forward thinking? BC you’re on the flip side of the coin every time and you don’t seem to get it either.

well James I will give you my logic

we have around a billion guns in this country , the 450 million number is just background checks since 1997

with 1 billion guns and 330 million people now the estimate is 47-49% own a gun or live in a household with one.

the CDC has made the break down a bit harder to see these days
last time I saw it published the breakdown was quite clear we have a suicide issue and a drug & gang violence issue

here are the more recent numbers 2021

all firearms deaths 48,830
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

we know however and the CDC is still reporting as of 2021 firearms suicides
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

total suicide 48,183
26,328 firearms suicides for 2021 which sounds low compared to earlier stats
by the way suffocation 12,431 and 5,568 poisoning I would assume the remaining 3,856 are jumps and cutting or other.

to give these deaths some context 106,699 drug overdose deaths for 2021

and 660,000 self harm trips to the ER

accidental poisoning is 101,000

Cars are getting almost safe to ride in at just 45K traffic fatalities.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
all homicide 26,031
firearms homicide 20,958

all firearms death 48,830
firearms suicide 26328 + all firearms homicides 20,958 = 47,286

48,830 total - 47,286 intentional = 1544 possibly unintentional but subtract the 874 Judicial intervention (shot by police) deaths = 670 actual probable accidents 59.9% handgun (402) , 8.7% rifle (59) 6.7% shotgun (45) 24.6% not specified (164)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/pdfs/ss7205a1-h.pdf

yes violent crime in the drug and gang related has gone up a bunch in the last few years however understand that drugs and the gangs that run them are illegal and they bring in actual TONS (>300 tons were seized ) of drugs a few guns along for the ride wouldn't be hard at all it happens in nearly every country no matter how few guns in private hands drug dealers and suppliers have guns.

I hate to pick on one demographic but the people who own statistically the fewest guns are responsible for the most firearms homicides and they are up 39% which is why the firearms homicide number is way up

what does this mean for Joe avg citizen in suburban not hole heck of a lot as long as he isn't involved in drugs, drug trade or gangs.

do the have a drug issue and a homicide issue that stems largely from the drug and gang issues , yes we do

so accident/ND vs non accident 2 in a million accidental or unintentional negligent discharge firearms deaths approximately.

we also have a few reporting issues but when the answer isn't what they want it to be they make sure to take poor stats on it.

another thing to look at. Mental illness, those with mental illness can pass the NICS check! why? because their mental illness cannot be passed to the ATF due to the HIPPA laws in place. Every mass shooter in the past has had mental issues, most were known to law enforcement so is this intensional to get the body count up to sway public opinion on gun control?
My AR must be defective, it hasn't killed anyone in 30 years

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....ables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Point out that you are almost twice as likely to be killed by your friends' hands or feet as someone's AR 15.

Bingo!

You moved to a good area White Marlin, most all here think like you do....with the exception of your neighbor. (college brainwashed and were teaching in our education system unfortunately)

A gun is an inanimate object that does nothing until an evil hand guides it.

If you don't think the Hitler reference isn't logical I think you are laking in logical thought. His gun laws enabled him to carry out his evilness to the max.

Many examples of civilizations being disarmed then murdered by the millions it’s been going on forever just not going to happen to me.

Hi James,

Your private message mail box is maxed out.

So, for so important information I hope you watch this Youtube video,

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+tim+kenndy+no+help+is+coming&rlz=1C1AVNC_enUS602US608&oq=youtube+tim+kenndy+no+help+is+coming&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyDAgDECEYChgWGB0YHtIBCTEwNzg3ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:65af735c,vid:iVonYGu-pg4,st:0

Anyone else who hasn't watched or know who Tim Kennedy is should also watch.

Title of the video is No Help Is Coming.

Maybe you can get some ammo for your debate from this. I hope so.

Here's another one about the Maine shooting from a few days ago.
https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+videos+mike+glover+lewiston%2C+maine&sca_esv=577883791&rlz=1C1AVNC_enUS602US608&ei=M_k_ZdyJM9jdptQPy_-qmAE&ved=0ahUKEwic75zCtp6CAxXYrokEHcu_ChMQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=youtube+videos+mike+glover+lewiston%2C+maine&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKnlvdXR1YmUgdmlkZW9zIG1pa2UgZ2xvdmVyIGxld2lzdG9uLCBtYWluZTIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRirAkjLQlD3CFjIPXABeACQAQCYAX-gAdkNqgEENi4xMbgBA8gBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQIRgWGB4YHeIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:ed832c6a,vid:f7OdbVlaowo,st:0

Looks like no way to turn off the BS commercials before the video plays.

The one above with Tim Kennedy and this one with Mike Glover both contain important information.

"I've already been accused of being "insulting" for suggesting there is a rural/urban divide in how guns are perceived and used. I don't get it."

What was the insult? I don't get it either? Generally guns in rural areas are used to kill animals. In urban areas guns appear to be used primarily for personal protection and to commit crimes. I think this would affect peoples' perceptions?

Not sure of the motive, but I think James is playing ya'll with this imaginary debate.

if he is, he's a feminine hygiene product

James look up the FBI homicide tables, there are in the neighborhood of 300+ people killed by all rifles on average in the U.S. yearly. If you dig deep you'll find that about 1/3 of these (or about 100) are committed with assault "style" weapons and none with actual automatic true assault weapons. So here's the question, 3500 people are killed texting while driving as a yearly average in the U.S. according to the "national highway traffic safety administration", so about 35 times as many. Both murder and texting while driving are already illegal, so what's the bigger problem? just to put a different perspective on this. I think this has already been pointed out at least once.

Hey, I've got an ally. Someone just posted this:

"I think discussing a gun ban is a cathartic waste of time. It will never pass. It does not solve the issue of the millions of guns already in circulation. It does nothing about the root causes of criminal violence (as Jim pointed out many times). Furthermore it deprives many law-abiding citizens of the only equalizing factor they would have in a self defense scenario. People who are elderly, disabled, physically weak or ill, etc. would pretty much be defenseless against the typical male attacker.

"We had break-ins when I was a kid, and one that always sticks with me was when two guys had broken into my mom’s car in the garage, and threatened her to go back inside. She did, and returned with a shotgun. In the real world, the police are not going to teleport to you when you fall victim to a crime. It will be up to you to defend yourself or your family. Legal, responsible firearm ownership is in my opinion the best way to ensure that every citizen has a realistic chance to do that."

Keep us updated on the responses, James!

This is how the debate yesterday ended up. Notice one guy only posts articles about victims. Names are disguised to protect privacy--it's a private forum.

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 5:52 PM
First we were talking about ARs, now Liz says, "There are many kinds of guns that are a problem and we have way too many of them in this country." From the type of rifle favored by killers to all guns. How many are too many? I have six single-shot rifles. Is that too many? I collect these. None of them are going to leave the safe where they're stored (I have grandkids that come around) and go kill people.

[5:55 PM]
How many of you live in or near large urban areas? There's a real urban/rural divide over the need for guns.


Ms X— Yesterday at 6:00 PM
I live in a village of 125 people. I work in a town of 2000. Rural. Farmers. Hunters. My school has a trap shooting team. City or rural, doesn't matter: mass shootings can happen anywhere here in America. (edited)


Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 6:01 PM
It's an American problem, but the perception of what if anything to do about it varies, generally by geographic location in part,

@Jim Sarafin
How many of you live in or near large urban areas? There's a real urban/rural divide over the need for guns.


Ms. Y — Yesterday at 6:08 PM
Jim, with all due respect, you're making a gross assumption here that's insulting to the people on this discord. I live in Texas and have grown up around guns my entire life. I also have children in elementary school. My youngest daughter's school went on lockdown the same morning as the shooting in Lewiston. My nephew goes to college in Lewiston. This is not an abstract issue. It's real people with real lives that are being lost. It's teachers and students having to live in fear in a way that you or I had no conception of growing up.
💯
4

Mr. X — Yesterday at 6:10 PM
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/29/1209...jWsokh3heI8b99vvkB-waC_y8UF10v_Fg_PoAfbo


[6:10 PM]
Image


Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 6:20 PM
I don't see how you can interpret my words as insulting. Sorry if you did, but I did say "generally" and "in part." It's a fact most rural inhabitants feel differently than the prevailing opinions expressed here. Their view is partly determined by the needs specific to their locations. Someone I think envisioned guns as a hobby. I was just curious how many here live in urban areas. Guns aren't just a hobby to folks in rural areas.


Ms. Z— Yesterday at 6:28 PM
Sure, take the word "hobby" and unpack it. The point I was making was there is a huge human cost to making access to guns almost unlimited. Seems way too high.

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 6:48 PM
I agree, Liz, which is why I said we need better screening for people buying guns, especially ARs. Right now in most of the US I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun (even an AR) within thirty minutes. I like the convenience, but I'd be willing to bear more of an administrative burden if it would stop one mass shooting. Card, with his history, shouldn't have been able to buy an AR. He shouldn't have been allowed near a gun store.


Jim

in Milwaukee the statistic is something like 97% Felon on Felon homicide
that is also the vast majority of all firearms homicides in WI

so you would think why would you even step foot in MKE while they do sometimes happen around the city you can almost predict what set of streets will have the shooting.

everyone got mad when former Chief of police Flynn gave his 4 rules for not getting shot in MKE , people hated on him for it but he wasn't wrong
https://www.cbs58.com/news/milwauke...imple-rules-to-not-get-shot-in-milwaukee

The first two were simple; don't belong to a gang and don't be a drug dealer.

"The third rule of thumb is don't illegally carry a gun," continued Chief Flynn.

"And the fourth one is if you are in an argument, with a stranger, ask them how often they've been arrested. And if they've been arrested more often than you've been arrested, concede the point."

he was stressing that people who get shot in MKE are by in large "criminally involved"

you have a very small fraction of the population committing the vast majority of the problem criminals are going to be criminals and do criminal things and only 2 things makes them stop most of the time death and still being in prison.
empty the prisons and crime goes back up
heck sometimes the same day you let them out of jail they take a car and run down a Christmas parade killing several and injuring a lot more.
but by all means keep practicing catch and release with criminals so you can catch them again and again and again.

That ain't like Jim at all!!!!!!

For those who haven't read enough, here's another chunk of the debate yesterday:


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:08 PM
We should decide whether we're talking about banning certain guns or regulating them. I'd be willing to have more regulations, particularly regs targeted at AR purchases.


[3:08 PM]
Does the article mention what I said about hunting rounds?

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:10 PM
Here's the next section in the interactive story " Any bullet can kill, and instantly, when it hits a vital organ. The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person’s chances of survival."

“As that bullet slows down,” said trauma surgeon Babak Sarani, an authority on casualties from mass killings, “that energy is so massive it has to go someplace, and your body will literally tear apart.”


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:11 PM
LOL, the .223 is among the slowest I shoot.

[3:11 PM]
I'll show you a chart

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:12 PM
It's about the blast effect

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:13 PM
What counts isn't velocity, but the energy the bullet carries and transmits to the body


Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:13 PM
There have been huge debates about whether crime scene photos should be released. Some bodies can only be identified by DNA.

[3:15 PM]
I could send you a dozen stories from publications with the highest standards focusing on the damage bullets from these guns do to bodies.


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:15 PM
https://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ammo_charts/vitalshok-chart.html

[3:16 PM]
The .223 is the first cartridge listed because it's the lightest
[3:17 PM]
No doubt, at close range, multiple shots from an AR can make quite a mess.
[3:18 PM]
But don't talk about slippery slope arguments, when already an argument against the AR is the damage it causes to humans--less than my hunting rifles would cause.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:26 PM
So, it can be pretty frustrating to get a response like this, because one of the ways the NRA and its allies shut down opposition is by claiming “you don’t know anything about guns”

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:26 PM
Well, you don't, from the sound of it,

Mr . B — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
Yes, it’s important for the people creating gun policies to know what they’re talking about, but it misses the point that gun advocates don’t want any regulation at all

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
I do

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
They flip out and start waving the 2nd Amendment when we so much as claim that convicted domestic abusers shouldn’t be armed

[3:28 PM]
So what I’d ask of you, Jim, as a person with common sense who believes in regulations and also knows about guns, is: what would you suggest?

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:28 PM
Gotta go. All I'll close with is that many sources I've read, that have the highest standards for verification, have focused on the damage this gun does to the human body. Is it because the bullet is light and fired in a particular way? Or because it breaks in the body? Don't have time to research it at this moment. There's a consensus, though.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:29 PM
Because that strikes me as a better place to focus your intelligence than splitting hairs about the difference between velocity and force

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:40 PM
The NRA wouldn't like it, but I quit my membership years ago anyway. We need better screening of purchasers. The form you now sign affirms you're not a felon, a drug user, a fugitive, under a domestic violence order, or mentally incompetent. Who's going to admit to any of that? "Uh, yup, I'm a fugitive, yup!" Once you fill out the form, the seller sends it to the FBI, which checks to make sure you're not on one of their lists. If not, they tell the seller you're good to go. It takes at most a half hour from the time you say you want the gun until you're walking out of the store with it.


[3:40 PM]
Ah, but misstatements ought to be corrected, Sam.


[3:41 PM]
It's misleading to point to the damage a .223 can do to a human body, without mentioning that most common hunting rounds would do worse.

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:45 PM
True, but there's a unique dynamic at play. Gun nuts (not saying you are one, but referring to the most extremist of gun advocates) will claim that expertise about guns is necessary to have a sufficiently informed ideological stance on guns, but who is more likely to know more about guns, an avid defender of them or someone who doesn't care for them? It paints the gun control crowd as uninformed before the debate even starts, but fundamentally, I believe that if we're talking about fine practical details like bump stocks (whatever the ---- those are) rather than what to do with all these killing machines?, then the conversation is already on the wrong foot.
👆🏻
1
Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:47 PM
Alex, doesn't that all suggest that people ought to do their homework before taking a firm stance on an issue?

@Jim Sarafin
Ah, but misstatements ought to be corrected, Sam.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:48 PM
I don't disagree on principle, I'm just questioning the most effective use of our energy. People aren't dying because the general public is not correct about the exact size and use case for a .223. They're dying because it's way too easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get them.

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:49 PM
Social sciences are also science. It's more (at least, as) important to know the statistics behind guns owned in a home re. accidental discharge deaths. I don't know much about how guns work, because I don't particularly care, nor has it ever seemed relevant. I know a lot about the statistics surrounding gun deaths in America because living in 2023 has given me no choice. (edited)
💯
1

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:49 PM
Really do need to go, but found one of the many articles that gets into the damage caused by military-style rifles. This is from a 2018 NYTs article. I'll attach the link after I post this, in case anyone has an account and wants to look it up. "At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.

A radiologist at the hospital that treated victims of the Parkland attack wrote in The Atlantic about a surgeon there who “opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit.”

What follows are the recollections of five trauma surgeons. Three of them served in the military, and they emphasized that their opinions are their own and do not represent those of the armed forces. One has treated civilian victims of such weapons in American cities. And a pediatric surgeon treated victims of a Texas church shooting last year.
[3:51 PM]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html
The New York Times
By Gina Kolata and C. J. Chivers
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Publis...
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Publis...

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:52 PM
And more often than not, discussions about the engineering of guns sidelines more important societal discussions. Like, most of the complaints I've heard from gun nuts center around liberals not understanding stuff like the previously mentioned bump stocks. But honestly, I don't think we should have to. I don't need to understand car engines to know that we should require licensing and registration.
💯
3
👆
1

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:55 PM
Guns aren't cars though. Where is the Constitutional right to drive to be found?
[3:55 PM]
I disagree with licensing and registration
[3:56 PM]
I'm not sure what a bump stock is either, lol

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:58 PM
If the Founding Fathers had cars, there might have been a Constitutional right to drive. As it is, we'll have to settle for accepting that the Constitution is supposed to evolve

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
And that's a totally legitimate disagreement to have; I personally don't think the Constitution should be held as reverently as it is. But the underlying point is that a discussion on that point is about that, whereas a discussion about the engineering of guns generally just serves to make the pro-gun control person look uninformed without actually having much bearing on the ideological discussion in question.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
The Constitution says a black person is 3/5 of a human being. I don't say that to draw a false equivalency, just to point out that our beliefs are meant to shape and change the foundations of this country, not be held hostage to them

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
A license is a grant of permission. A right does not require permission. We don't need a license to publish our words, and shouldn't need a license to exercise our Second Amendment rights either.

[4:00 PM]
The Founding Fathers had horses and buggies, but never enacted a right to drive.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 4:01 PM
Like I said above, the evidence is clear. Stronger laws mean fewer deaths. https://www.thetrace.org/newsletter/states-gun-laws-domestic-violence-homicides-study/
The Trace
Bulletin: States With Tougher Restrictions on Gun Ownership Experie...
Women in America are shot to death by their current or former romantic partners with alarming regularity — once every 16 hours, as my colleague Jennifer Mascia has written. New research published today in the American Journal of Epidemiology offers some clues into state laws that may help reduce those killings. The study found that states that p...
Bulletin: States With Tougher Restrictions on Gun Ownership Experie...

[4:01 PM]
Every second we spend arguing about clip size and velocity instead of doing the thing that we know saves human lives is a second wasted on a sideshow. And yes, we may not be legislators, but conversations like these influence how people vote and advocate


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:02 PM
Sam, the Constitution was amended later. Black people were acknowledged as full citizens when the 14th Amendment passed.


Mr. B — 10/28/2023 4:03 PM
I'm aware of this, and it's part of my argument. The Constitution has a provision for being amended. Now, because of our current political environment, amending it is impossible at present. Does that mean we shouldn't even discuss ways in which it could change?
[4:03 PM]
If we're only allowed to talk about things as they're politically expedient, we'll never move the Overton Window enough to solve any of our persistent problems

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:03 PM
Liz, I agree with most of what your last post says, especially this: "Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. "


[4:05 PM]
Sam: Of course we're free to discuss possible Constitutional amendments. A very difficult process, as you note.

Ms. D — 10/28/2023 4:06 PM
I am jumping in here briefly -- I think we need much stronger licensing requirements (gimme though 40 hours of range practice before you're allowed to take a gun home) and I think you should have to renew your gun license with a test regularly, like they do in many other countries.


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:07 PM
I don't think requiring a license would be constitutional.


Ms. D — 10/28/2023 4:07 PM
I've got family in Idaho that hunts, my mom hunted for sustanence as a kid growing up poor, and honestly the regard for guns as an object of like identity vs something used for a purpose that you need to use appropriatly is ridiculous


[4:07 PM]
I mean, these days you have to have a license to vote! and we have a constitutional right to that too

[4:08 PM]
so like, I don't find that to be a useful reason not to require licensing and testing

[4:08 PM]
this is something that only happens here, the CONSTANT overwhelming violence against civilians by people who purchase guns last minute and then go out on murder sprees


[4:09 PM]
I have regular conversations with my partner about whether we think it is even safe to have children in this country because of the school shootings like


[4:11 PM]
and as much as I'd like to ban AR-15s, I think that starting at point of sale would make more of an immediate difference, and also reduces the risk of people going after guns used for hunting. Most folks I know who hunt are using ranges regularly so having time-use requirements won't harm them but would stop most of the recent mass shooting purchasers


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:29 PM
Dyani, believe it or not, there is no right to vote per se in the US Constitution. Regulation of voting was reserved to the states. Later amendments, after the 14th, prohibited denial of voting rights based on race or sex.


[4:29 PM]
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/

Democracy Docket
What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?
Read the latest by Democracy Docket.
What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?

October 29, 2023

Mr. B — Yesterday at 8:13 AM
Jim — if you have one and don’t have any use for it, it sounds like you’d be the perfect participant for a buyback. And there must be more people like you
[8:14 AM]
The more I think about the buyback idea, the more it feels worth trying to me. It doesn’t “take anyone’s guns,” and if nobody uses it, at least the government has barely lost any money
[8:15 AM]
I hate having to tiptoe around the feelings of the kind of person who makes guns their entire identity, but they’re voters too

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 3:44 PM
Sam, I'd comply with a mandatory buy-back--especially if penalties for not doing so included loss of right to own the firearms I do care about. Felons can't own or possess guns unless their civil rights have been restored by a court. I'm not going to become a felon over a rifle I don't care about. But a lot of AR-15 owners swear they would not comply, judging from posts left on guns/hunting/reloading forums. Maybe most of it is bluster, but I'd guess at least ten percent is not. That leaves at least two million ARs in circulation or possession by two million owners. If law enforcement could catch them all, the courts would be tied up for years.


[3:50 PM]
Incidentally, "AR" is an acronym for "Armalite Rifle," not "assault rifle." Armalite was the original company that designed the military version of the AR-15, the M-16. The M-16 is the full-automatic version, in other words a type of machine gun. The civilian version, the AR-15, has a semi-automatic action, that is it fires once every time you press the trigger. Not a machine gun.
💯
1

Ms. A — Yesterday at 4:18 PM
Did anyone argue that AR stood for assault rifle?


Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 4:43 PM
A couple other thoughts. It makes more sense to me to target legislation at the individuals perpetrating these horrible shootings than at the tools, i.e., firearms, they're using. Because if we could eliminate all AR-15s with a wave of a wand, the psychopaths will then turn to semi-auto hunting shotguns and rifles. A shotgun loaded with steel or lead buckshot could do serious damage to a crowd. Not the hydrostatic shock damage Liz was talking about, but the low-velocity pellets will punch holes in everything they encounter. Do away with all firearms, and they will drive motor vehicles into crowds. Preventing guys like Card from acquiring these rifles makes more sense to me.
👍
1

[4:44 PM]
No Liz, I was just babbling. Forgive me.

Ms. A — Yesterday at 5:01 PM
My two-high school district now spends over a million yearly to pay for security guards. In 2018, they spent $0. Additionally, they've spent tens of millions on building changes meant to improve security. I sent us down a rabbit hole when I focused on assault rifles. There are many kinds of guns that are a problem and we have way too many of them in this country. They're too easy for everyone to get. Supporting the most expansive reading of the Second Amendment in the history of our country is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It makes ordinary people scared to do the simplest things. Protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits and making research into gun violence almost impossible to conduct exacerbates this problem. I just don't understand how this expansive reading of this amendment is in the common good. It protects the rights of hobbyists to have every gun that has ever been sold to a consumer in this country, and as many of them as they want forever and ever, without consideration of the very real costs of blood, tears, and gold. As a high school teacher, I should not need to know the safest and fastest way to break a window and secure a door. Yet each year there are new horrifying layers to my mandated active shooter training. I just can't understand how anyone could imagine that this is what the framers had in mind.

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 5:12 PM
And you said I was making a slippery slope argument...

Ms. A — Yesterday at 5:43 PM
Where's the slope? Omit "forever and ever" if you like. I thought you were unwilling to part with any gun models. I may have mis

Ms. E — Yesterday at 5:45 PM
Being able to argue theoretical if/ands is a luxury only affordable for those who don't have an active stake in the situation. I don't think anyone who lives in/near Lewistown is on here arguing theory. I don't think anyone who has school age children is here arguing for these guns that any idiot can wield with no training and with such massively terrible consequences. The fact is 18 human beings are dead because they were hit with high powered, high speed bullets. Could people be murdered other ways? Of course. Is this a super popular, highly efficent way to murder lots of human beings really fast with very little effort on part of the murderer? Yes. A quick search says 510 people have died from mass shootings this year. But sometimes, the bigger thr number of something, the harder it is to comprehend. So, here's one person:
Image

Ms. D— Yesterday at 5:45 PM
Yeah nothing in Liz’s comment looked like a slippery slope

Ms. E— Yesterday at 5:48 PM
He died in Lewiston. He was 14. He'd still be alive in a sane world, a world that put compassion for human beings first. I could argue theory. But i don't have that luxury. I'm going to turn off my phone and go discuss situational awareness with my own 14 year old son in the hopes that situational awareness might be enough armour against these American weapons. (edited)
❤️
3


Jim

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto > Quotes > Quotable Quote


(?)
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
― Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Peace through strength.

Protection of my family against feral hogs as well as my domesticated animals.

since you failed to point out the OBVIOUSLY biased "facts" quoted from thetrace.org article, I'd conclude you weren't much of a lawyer.

talking ballistics to differentiate an "okay" gun from all the other ones to such an emotional group would be counter-productive; and you'd think you'd be smart enough to not go there.

I'm fairly convinced that trapdog1 is correct.

Cold, dead hands. I'm not interested in debating or negotiating with people I don't like. That would be the disloyal opposition.

Why would one debate a right? If you do not believe in The Constitution, you are living in the wrong country. Freedom isn't for sissies. Move to Australia if you want to live somewhere help is only minutes away when seconds matter.

Please don’t. That’s not a debate, those individuals do not think logically and they won’t start. If they were zebras, they would be the reason the rest of the herd stopped running.

just one of James' writing exercises...

James, one question. Why?

One doesn't need a license to vote, one needs an ID. Or for that matter a utility bill and other means of "identification". You could give the argument that the forms of ID required to buy a gun are more stringent that to vote.

Also if the .223 is so "powerful" why isn't it a legal cartridge to use for big game hunting in some states. It's only been recent that a 223 has been a legal caliber to hunt whitetails here in MN>

At the time of the writing of the constitution ,a musket was a military weapon.

And at that time, who would have the advantage at, say, 30 yards; the fella with the musket or the one with a war axe? How about today, say, 20 yards. I have a 12 ga. pump with 00 buck and you have an AR-15. I'm feeling pretty good about my odds.

never heard of a lawyer asking non-lawyers for advice on winning ANY argument/discussion...

Did the Founders speak in terms of, "Everyone can and should be armed, except that they cannot bear any arms as effective as what KIng George's British soldiers had?"
The answer would be no.
The same goes for domestic enemies of the State. The Democrats are under the delusion that they are the collective "King" of this nation.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect The People from them as well.

People are blind to think we are immune to armed foreign attacks. Our 2nd ammendment may be the best deterrent from that. Most of the time the mass shooters target the gun free zones, I wonder why that could be?

So, James is for more regulation. Got it.

Thanks for the read

Violent or criminal gun owners would not comply with a ban or buyback.
Licensing or training requirements could be met by someone with mental problems or bad intentions.
Someone who is too dangerous to possess a firearm is dangerous without one. If someone out on bond cannot be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be out on bond. If a convicted domestic abuser kills someone, they weren't rehabilitated. The justice system failed, not the gun laws.

You must be joking. Do you not remember the last election? If there was no fraud, as you claim, how did Joe Biden win? Trump was a racist to win the black/hispanic vote. A meanie to get the soccer moms. Russian collusion for academia and the media. You name it, there was a demographic being targeted by the negativity.

In 2019, 13922 people died of homicide. Of that number, 1591 people were killed by hammers, poison, fire, etc (non knives or firearms), 600 homicides were committed by hands feet or fists, and 364 were killed with rifles - not just assualt rifles - but all rifles combined - from .22 single shots to .50 BMG.

https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/

There are currently about 25,000,000 “assault rifles” - or as I call them - anti assault rifles. I call them anti assault rifles because that is the reason why probably 99.999% of AR style rifles were purchased. Most people purchase weapons for self defense - not to assault someone. If we consider that half the rifle homicides - or about 180 deaths were caused by anti assault rifles - if each of those homicides were a single killing - the likelihood of an anti assault rifle being used in a homicide is less than one thousandths of one percent.

That is almost no chance - but the chance is there - no matter how slight. Should we stop everyone from drinking alcohol because 10,000 people die a year in alcohol related deaths? Maybe we should stop the sale of all drugs - legal or not to save the 100,000 people each year who die of drug overdoses. Oh, wait - many illicit drugs are already illegal - how is that working out? And even a few pure nut case states are legalizing these highly dangerous drugs.

Even if you banned the sale today of anti assault weapons - there are already 25 MILLION in present ownership - not to mention an immediate illegal market that would commence overnight. What are they going to do - go door to door - and ask everyone to voluntarily give up their anti assault rifle. I have bought a number of that style weapon - both FFL registered and through private sales. I have also lost or sold through private sales all I have owned - with the exception of one - a blem PSA that I would grudgingly turn over. Just because you dont have a legally registered anti assault weapon in your possession does not mean you dont legally own one. So do you knock on every door in the US and ask politely?

It would be one thing if the US only had a very small number of anti assault weapons in private ownership like canada, england, or france - but we are waaaaay passed that. Do we punish millions of legal owners to try to stop something that is most likely to happen anyway? Recent mass killers have proven they will kill their own family to carry out their dastardly deed. It is unlikely a ban on the sale is going to stop someone with already so many of these rifles in circulation.

As far as the weapon style itself - it lends itself very well to being the perfect sporting arm in many cases. My 6’3” tall son can use the same rifle as his 7 yr old daughter because of the adjustability of things like stocks, forearms, and handgrips. Uppers of different calibers can be exchanged in seconds - to adjust from hunting prairie dogs to black bears with the same lower. Parts are interchangeable between different manufacturers. Aftermarket parts are largely interchangeable. You dont have to go buy a scope rail for a rem 700 -because all the AR style rings fit the different manufacturers of those rifles. You can select a five rd mag for target practice or a 50 rd mag for hunting large groups of hogs. The legitimate reasons to own an AR are wide and varied.

My dog bit the UPS delivery man once. A deputy came to my house to fill out the paperwork for the dog bite. While he was there, I noticed an AR 15 in his service vehicle and we discussed that weapon for a few minutes - upon which he told me he was finished with his investigation. His final comment to me was:

“Our office is 45 minutes from your house. If something happens, and you call our office, it will all be over with by the time I arrive.” He said “If I lived out here, I would want a dog just like yours and a rifle just like mine”.

I’d just post a picture of a loaded gun sitting on a table. The gun itself will sit there and do no harm until someone with malintent chooses to use it in the wrong way.

The folks Jim is debating with are all upper income people. They have always lived in safe areas. Always lived where the police are enough to satisfy their need for law enforcement. They have no experience with needing self protection.
They are also liberals. They are satisfied with government control of their lives. Jim is much the same way. Unless forced into a deadly situation they will never understand the need for a firearm.
The present background d check and red flag laws aren't working because the government isn't getting and using the information they should be. Yet even James thi KS more laws are needed.
Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

I just think there should be better or more screening on merchant firearms sales that the current affidavit, the falsification of which is almost never punished.

Jim

Let’s see some screenshots of your fellow alumni’s posts, James. I’m just curious of your intent…are you phishing for the opposition’s thought process to the pro gun argument? Please put some credibility to your intentions.

I'm not willing to show screenshots, especially with people's names. It's a private forum.

I already copied and pasted much of the debate.

Jim

Your copy and paste can easily be typed up and presented as facts. If you indeed duplicated the conversations via copy/paste, did you protect people’s names in your duplication?

Didn't you read even part of it? I changed the names to Mr. X and so forth.

Like I have nothing better to do than type up a long imaginary debate.

If you don't believe it, such is life.

Jim

I thought you might have multiple personalities and like to hear other’s criticism of your own debate with yourself. Actual screenshots would help clear this up.

There's nothing to clear up. If you think the debate is imaginary, don't read the thread.

Jim

Good night, James/Jim/Minka. I’ve got traps to tend in the morning!

Good luck with the traps.

Jim

There are no guns in prison so there must be zero murders there.

Killers will fabricate a tool to kill with.

It has already been pointed out that the debaters you are engaged with have never experienced having to defend themselves physically. Debate with them after being in a room with me for 10 mins with no consequences. lol

the screening is fine, its the lack of folks doing their job feeding the NICS system. the kid who shot up the school in broward county had the cops at his house 36 times, but do to a program that paid money to the cops to keep kids from going from graduation to jail, he was not arrested, so he was able to buy 5 guns immediately after turning 18.
then you have things like this
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/obama-background-check/
NICS will not work if the information is not there!

Hunter Biden.....

Crackhead lies on background check form, throws gun in dumpster for anyone to find and its covered up instead of being prosicuted.

Even after its brought to light, they're still covering it up. Need more laws to be ignored? Nah.

How would even more inconvenience (IE background checks) reduce gun crime? If 97% of gun crime murder is felon on felon isnt that pretty good evidence its a complete infringement with no benefit?

danny,

logic has no place in that discussion.

the Government said it would make you safe , really just a way to collect a tax an data for later it never had any hope of protecting people.

just a false promise from day 1

the background checks while letting your mass shooters through for mental problems apparently are a deterrent for street level criminals or breaking into gun shops wouldn't be so common

steal a car drive it through the doors , gang rushes in and steals as many guns as they can grab

gun shops have been armoring up for a while here one in Janesville built a walk in vault they keep all their guns in , they have been broken into 3 times attempting to get into that vault

they get some non gun stuff or cash and leave , they almost always drive stolen cars up form IL then leave

When asked about assault weapons, Nancy Pelosi said these weapons are the same weapons soldiers use in war. Sorry Nancy, not even close.