Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Gallstones]

I can bear a rocket launcher.

In Canada?
You can't even legally hunt with handguns in Canada.

[Jason]

Yeah, but it doesn't stop many people from doing it. Game wardens are rare game around here.

What I was saying was that 'bearable arms' is restricted in the United States - it's the other end of the spectrum from the 'muskets only argument'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can launch rocket bears.

[klr]

For "data points" to be worthy of the description, we'd need thousands of them. A story supporting your POV isn't a "data point" unless it's part of a much, much bigger package. Even then it should not be taken at face value. Correlation =/= causation and all that.

Each data point is part of a much bigger picture, and there are thousands more of them. Hundreds of thousands to millions. That's what you can't accept.

Let's see the evidence then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More bar tales comin'.

[orpheus]

[Gallstones]

Yeah, but it doesn't stop many people from doing it. Game wardens are rare game around here.

What I was saying was that 'bearable arms' is restricted in the United States - it's the other end of the spectrum from the 'muskets only argument'.

I don't understand what difference it makes what arm one kills something with.
Handguns are not less "sporting" than a rifle (if that's the concern).
Handguns suitable for hunting large game are lighter and less cumbersome to tote than a rifle. One has to get closer, that should make them more "sporting".

[Jason]

I meant that the courts rule modern small arms to be all prima facial, but draw the line at things like RPGs which are 'bearable arms'.

[Gallstones]

Prima facial?
Facials make for good foreplay.

I think that grenade launchers are under the NFA regulations.
They aren't something I'd want to own, but I'd love to get to shoot one.

This guy has this to say about that.

I could respond with "no one is talking about legalizing rocket launchers, this is an argument you're only having with yourself." Except that I AM trying to reduce the restrictions on rocket launchers and machine guns. I'll be honest. However, your statement shows you really don't know much about machine guns. In fact, I'd venture to guess TV provides most of your information about them.

Point of fact, I have a Browning 1919A4 conversion. It weighs 33 lbs. It's tripod mounted. I can fire 400 rounds in a minute, but it will cost me $200 in ammo to do so. No one is using these for crime, nor will they ever.

A friend of mine brought his full auto Uzi to our last shoot. Under current law, that gun cost $6000, a $200 tax stamp, requires written permission of the federal government to be taken out of state, and a 32 round magazine ($12) lasts about 3 seconds. Unless you're a trained professional, the best hit rate is likely to be THREE of those 32 rounds, at 15 yards. You won't find any records of anyone committing "mass murder" with these because anyone with the training to do so would find a better way to do it. Automatic weapons serve specific niches. "Mass murder" and "robbing banks" aren't two of those.

[Seth]

Seth

No one has denied that occasionally a crime is stopped by a citizen with a gun. So what? For every such situation, there are 4 to 5 (from my earlier reference) when a citizen with a gun does the reverse, and causes a gun crime.

Um, what do you mean by "citizen?" I think you are conflating "criminal" with "law-abiding citizen," and I suspect you're doing it deliberately. And it doesn't matter how many crimes are committed by criminals, if even the "occasional" (or one single crime for that matter) crime is stopped by a law-abiding citizen with a gun, then allowing all law-abiding citizens to carry guns if they choose to do so is fully and completely justified and reasonable. If even ONE law-abiding citizen's life is saved or they are protected by their lawful use of a firearm, that single event justifies laws which allow every other law-abiding citizen to be similarly armed. This is because the right to self defense and personal safety from violent crime is not a statistical matter, it's an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that accrues equally to each and every individual, and no one, not even the government, may infringe upon one (or everyone's) right to keep and bear arms merely because criminals use guns for evil purposes. Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

There are, doubtless, dozens of anecdotes on the internet of the former, and many more dozens of the latter. Quoting anecdotes and trying to draw generalisations from them is pure 100% garbage.

The data points provided are not comprehensive, nor are they meant to be. They are merely current illustrations of the falsity of your claims.

I have already offered four separate reasons why the charlaton Lott's 2.5 million per year is total and absolute horse shit. You have not offered a single rational argument why we should accept it.

I'll let Lott and Kleck speak for themselves, which they've done in debunking your bogus Harvard study. As to your "analysis" I've deconstructed your illogic several times, and I'm not going to bother any longer because you're too narrow-minded to understand it.

[Jason]

[JimC]

Is that Seth worried by Marxist Gorillas?

[rainbow]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

[JimC]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

To be fair to Seth, there is a huge difference between a society that is saturated with guns, and loaded with all the bizarre cultural history of the American love affair with the gun, and the civilised world, with its few guns and strict controls.

It is, perhaps, impossible to "de-gun" the US, so the rest of the world need only use it as an example of a road not to go down...

[Reeve]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS??! O_O