General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (paulbibeau) on Tue Dec 15, 2015, 07:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
paulbibeau
(743 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)My daughters couldn't stop laughing!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Thanks a lot. Last night I was doing research on what crazy gun lady was saying, trying to construct a counter-argument. And then it hit me that I was going about it completely wrong.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)... invisible unicorns, there's no argument for that that beats pure, delicious mockery.
randome
(34,845 posts)But what's with the gecko? Is he (I'm assuming) turning 40?
chemenger
(1,593 posts)I had this image come to mind of the heroic all-American mother, dressed in her red, white and blue Wonder Woman outfit, four or five kids clutching to her legs in abject terror as she's fending off five or six (I wondered why not 20 or more ... seems like that would have been a better arguement for the 33-round magazine) brutish looking home invaders with her pink AR-15, complete with a 33-round magazine, in one hand and the Second Amendment in the other.
On the plus side, Lawrence O'Donnell was masterful in the way he tore into her ... I was almost (ALMOST) embarrassed for her. 
catbyte
(39,154 posts)defending his family huddled under the table from the creeping marauders...
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
coldbeer
(306 posts)People defending assault weapons are stupid.
Well, that is close to his one-liner this morning.
I do not watch Morning Joe but the kitchen t.v.
is by the coffee pot.
I was caught because I recognized Lindsey Graham
on talking about the woman defending herself against
more than one crook should not have to worry about
running out of bullets!
What a dumbass ... and people vote for him! They
have to be dumber than he is.
paulbibeau post is just after morning joe began
so he could not have viewed Graham. The timing for
this thread was perfect for me!
paulbibeau
(743 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130112/NEWS/130112001/Intruder-fires-woman-she-fires-2-shots-back
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/neighbor-terrified-after-shot-home-invader-collaps/nTqcp/
by the by... of the 30K murders/suicides committed with guns in the US "Assault weapons" are used in less than 5% of them.
countingbluecars
(4,772 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Not a woman, but why does it need to be. An AR-15 is inherently easier to control than a shotgun or handgun; if that's what someone is comfortable shooting, that's what they should use.
or
&feature=player_embedded
randome
(34,845 posts)countingbluecars
(4,772 posts)didn't shoot back.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)SWTORFanatic
(385 posts)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/george-zimmerman-seeks-push-back-trial-november/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/28/15513847-florida-man-pleads-not-guilty-to-shooting-teen-to-death-over-loud-music?lite
http://www.indystar.com/article/20121210/NEWS/121210037/Police-Man-shoots-kills-mother-after-argument-over-trash
paulbibeau
(743 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Although, to be fair, I probably WOULD shoot someone over a pizza.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I forget. Could you tell me? Which self-defense case involving an assault rifle came out of the fantasy world and actually happened in real life? Because if you want a story about someone using an assault rifle to shoot a whole bunch of people in the REAL WORLD, we could totally fact-check that for you.
You want a school, or a street, or a mall? What kind of scene do you feel like?
And how exactly does a database prevent Lara Croft from defending herself?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)But you know what kind of special case the assault rifle is good for? It's good for when someone wants to walk into a crowded area and kill a large number of civilians, like kids, say, before the authorities can take him down.
And preventing that might be worth some policy changes. That's what we're going to argue anyway.
You keep making the case that planning your Wolverine camp-out is more important.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which is why mass shooters prefer them to assault weapons.
An AR-15 is really just as "good" as any other semi-automatic weapon for self-defense or for killing innocent people.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)by claiming that the finish and grip shape of a weapon have any relevance to its effectiveness.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)I'm always happy to point out all the lunatics in the gun lobby.
Then the other side can point out what legislation doesn't work.
Then we can get somewhere.
Right now, I'm dealing with Red Dawn, so I don't mind making fun.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though Mark Kelly was good too.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)They are not needed for home defense, as was amply demonstrated on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night. If the NRA could document a single case of a woman defending her home with an AR-15, they would be issuing press releases around the clock.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yes, any other gun would have been just as effective, but that's true for criminal uses too. Really, when you get down to it a gun is a gun. But that argument cuts both ways.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)This thread is in regard to the nonsensical assertion that "moms need assault rifles" to protect their babies from 3, 4 or even 5 armed intruders. So try to keep up, won't you?
A gun is a gun? Really?
If a gun is a gun, then there's REALLY no need for assault rifles because I can defend my home just fine with a single-shot, bolt-action .22 long rifle. For that matter, I can defend my home just as well with a black powder musket (they way the founding fathers intended) so the rationale for having an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine is really untenable, don't you think?
The NRA needs to hire some better spokespeople.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Well let's stick with semi-automatics (basically the default technology for the past 100 years or so).
You're right: there is REALLY no need for assault weapons, and also no point in banning them if other semi-automatics are still legal. A home defender or a mass shooter can do exactly the same things, whether he has an assault weapon or a non-assault weapon.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)the only reason I can think of for owning an AR-15, or AK-47 or anything similar is for "sport shooting"...IOW just for the fun of it.
Sort of a strange analogy here....I used to won an Airplane...a Cessna 150...it's a small, two-seat, slow, forgiving trainer...BUT I ALWAYS dreamed (fantasized really) of flying a hot military jet fighter....I think guys who own guns have the same desire to shoot with the "hottest", biggest, baddest thing out there and sport shooting on a range gives them the opportunity.
In the same vein, I suspect that the so-called need for these weapons because of a)second amendment rights, b)protection from a tyrannical government, c) protection of the "women-folk" from multiple invaders and on-and-on-and-on are simple rationalizations for the sport of shooting a really powerful weapon just like the military gets to do.
Now.....
Should sport shooting be banned? I think it would be like trying to ban motorcycles or snowmobiles...but how do you keep the weapon used for sport shooting out of the hands of potential mass-shooters?
Damned if I know...
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Improve the system of criminal background checks to include mental health issues and to forbid the practice in some states of withholding information from the national system.
Full criminal background checks for all firearms purchases -- whether at a bricks-and-mortar sporting goods store, from an individual, or at a gun show.
Ban the sale of firearms and ammunication through the internet.
Ban the manufacture and importation of rifles with a high-capacity fixed magazine or detachable magazines. Note: Ownership and sale of existing weapons is still legal (with background check).
Require owners of designated "assault rifles" to maintain liability insurance coverage for any damages that may be caused by their weapon, either through accidental discharge or criminal use.
Ban the sale, manufacture, importation, and ownership of magazines in excess of 10 rounds.
Require local law enforcement to destroy all firearms siezed at crime scenes and/or from criminals after their existence as evidence is no longer required.
Summary: Make is increasingly difficult for anyone but a law-abiding citizen to purchase or possess a firearm. While we're doing that, the idea is to "drain the swamp" and lower the overall number of firearms in circulation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But why rifles, rather than handguns?
ewagner
(18,967 posts)common sense really...
and it looks like your suggestions wouldn't disallow "assault-rifles" for sport shooting..
maybe a special license for high-powered rifles would be a good idea.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)except that unlike fully-automatic, I would favor still allowing sales with approproate background checks and documentation.
Legitimate shooters should have no problem with a little extra paperwork. At the end of the day, they keep their guns and their rights.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is still no heart-warming story about lives being saved with assault weapons. None.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't feel like digging through more gun sites, because you'll move the goalposts again when I dredge up another story. People who own guns do occasionally defend their homes with them. This isn't really something that can be realistically denied. A guy stopped an armed intruder ("It was a BB gun!!" "And he was supposed to know that how?"
without hurting anybody, using an AR-15. People who own guns also die and kill by accidents, though that's much more often handguns, so we could probably save a lot of lives by getting handgun owners to upgrade to AR-15's instead.
Let me ask you: what makes an AR-15 unsuited for defending your home, as opposed to some other semi-automatic?
randome
(34,845 posts)An AR-15 is 100% unsuited for home defense because it can easily be appropriated by a mass murderer to kill children.
hack89
(39,181 posts)lets not forget Va Tech. Sandy Hook would have had the same result if the shooter had used his pistols instead of his rifle.
Yet the handgun is very well suited for home defense.
That is why the fixation on rifles is so frustrating - handguns are the real killers.
randome
(34,845 posts)Someone might have been able to stop him as he reloaded or even as he shot someone else. An assault weapon, on the other hand, kills a great number of people quickly. With all the back-and-forth on gun issues, the base issue is that we don't want a repeat of Sandy Hook.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And these were adults (well, college students), not 6 year olds.
I hate to keep beating this horse, but if you think the AR-15 fires more bullets more quickly than any other gun made in the past 100 years, this is a factual mistake on your part.
randome
(34,845 posts)We are not trying to 'cure' the carnage, just lessen it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, this is just a question of fact, and you're not right about that.
Any semi-automatic with detachable magazines can be fired just as quickly as any other. Period. There's no way around this.
Cho at Virginia Tech killed more people than Lanza in the same amount of time, using handguns with (a lot of) standard magazines.
randome
(34,845 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The 33 didn't include the 2 he killed two hours before.
randome
(34,845 posts)Then we don't need assault weapons. For any purpose.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I just don't see the point in getting rid of them, either.
randome
(34,845 posts)As I pointed out elsewhere, the magazine might be dropped. It might get caught in the shooter's belt clip or whatever. He may have grabbed the wrong magazine. It might jam. All openings to stop the shooter that would not occur with an AR-15.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you want to say the detachable magazines that get sold should have a legal size limit, I'm with you, but that doesn't have anything to do with the weapons that accept them. They aren't even made by the same manufacturer, generally. But Cho killed 33 people in 10 minutes with standard-sized magazines, too, so that's not really a panacea.
randome
(34,845 posts)And Cho was roaming a dormitory, not in a confined space as Lanza was. The school was found culpable for not issuing warnings timely or with sufficient urgency so there were additional circumstances that allowed Cho to reach his high mark.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Agreed. The AR-15 does not need to be reloaded more or less frequently than other semi-automatics.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Because without him (whose name you invoke like clockwork) you might have to admit that maybe assault rifles could be a public safety issue. But since Cho was kind enough to use handguns, you can always fall back on him.
Half of the twelve deadlines mass shootings in the country's history were carried out using assault rifles. It would be obtuse beyond belief to claim that assault rifles to not pose a serious threat to public safety.
But I know you're going there, anyway.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But the majority is still handguns.
you might have to admit that maybe assault rifles could be a public safety issue
Handguns are definitely a public safety issue. Rifles? No, not really.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)For example, there was the Luby's killer and the Ft. Hood killer. Both used handguns and both reloaded by switching magazines.
A magazine swap with a handgun is faster than a mag swap in an AR or AK.
hack89
(39,181 posts)a handgun has the same rate of fire as a rifle. A handgun holds 15 rounds and can be reloaded in a couple of seconds.
The Sandy Hook shooter reloaded multiple times - he didn't empty every magazine. Nobody stopped him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
randome
(34,845 posts)Of course it's easier to use a fully automatic weapon instead of a semi-automatic. There are all sorts of possibilities that might occur to stop the shooter. He might drop the magazine. He might have grabbed the wrong magazine. It might jam.
To say that a perfectly flawless shooter with a handgun is the same as a mass murderer with a fully automatic weapon who doesn't need to reload is ridiculous.
hack89
(39,181 posts)there were no automatic weapons at Sandy Hook.
randome
(34,845 posts)Like the Bushmaster with a 30 clip magazine.
My point remains: a greater capacity weapon not needing to be reloaded is obviously an advantage when it comes to mass murder.
hack89
(39,181 posts)32 dead with handguns. That were reloaded multiple times. How can you say that handguns are not as deadly as rifles when the facts are staring you right in the face?
Sandy Hook would have had the same result with handguns. I just showed you that he reloaded several times and they found half empty magazines so you can't even argue that 30 round mags were an issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)Needing to reload frequently clearly offers more opportunities to stop the shooter. If an adult was still among the living while Lanza was reloading -or if he dropped his magazine- he or she might have stopped him right then.
In addition, Cho was not in a confined place as Lanza was. And of course the school itself was found culpable for not issuing warnings timely or sufficiently so there are additional circumstances that allowed Cho to kill his victims.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Is a pretty weak argument when it doesn't apply to the two largest school shootings in American history.
Handguns kill many more people in America than rifles. It is pure security theater if you ignore handguns. The number of dead don't lie.
randome
(34,845 posts)Cho was not in a confined place. The university was found culpable for not taking emergency measures in time.
hack89
(39,181 posts)yet no one was able to jump him and stop the slaughter.
Handguns are the real killers. Look at the numbers.
randome
(34,845 posts)But we CAN do something to lessen the chance that high-capacity magazines will be used for mass murder.
And as I already pointed out, the odds of something happening to prevent a shooter from reloading are greater than if he possesses an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine. It may not have occurred at Sandy Hook but you have to admit, the odds are better at stopping a shooter if he needs to reload frequently.
hack89
(39,181 posts)but you need to understand that any such law will not be retroactive so there will be hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines in public hands.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is no perfect solution. But banning assault weapons and high-capacity clips would be my choice for a step in the right direction. I doubt that both can get through Congress. Probably a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Would you feel better about Sandy Hook if the kids had been killed by handguns like at Virginia Tech? Or if they had been killed with an equally-capable ban compliant rifle that became ban compliant by being sold under a different name than "Bushmaster" and having a differently shaped grip?
randome
(34,845 posts)Handguns and even semi-automatics do not kill as great a number of people in as short a time frame so they are 'safer' for everyone, gun owners and thieves who steal them alike.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is simply not true. You are mistaken here. I can understand why you would want to ban the AR-15 if that were true.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)I mean, if a Sig Sauer could do the job equally well, why carry around all that extra weight? Come to think of it, is there any infantry unit that goes into combat armed with only handguns, or do they pretty much all carry assault weapons?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If the military could get a weapon with the form factor of a pistol and the longer-range accuracy of a carbine, they would use it.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Not a woman, but why does it need to be? An AR-15 is inherently easier to control than a shotgun or handgun; if that's what someone is comfortable shooting, that's what they should use.
Also
&feature=player_embedded
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You're Sigourney Weaver PLAYING a fictional character. So you get half credit.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
DebJ
(7,699 posts)Your description sounds just like one! LOL thanks for the laugh.
spedtr90
(720 posts)Maybe Trotter fantasizes about being Uma Thurman...
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I thank you, but my computer screen does not enjoy the coffee all over it!
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"There is nothing wrong with an active fantasy life, but it should not be the basis for law regarding deadly force."
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)It's like a Tourette's thing with me. Every now and again I have the uncontrollable urge to belt out, "Spear and Magic Helmet" in my best Elmer Fudd voice.
My kids think I'm insane.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)but I'm not sure I want to recover.
You're welcome...
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,607 posts)Response to paulbibeau (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #33)
Tommy_Carcetti This message was self-deleted by its author.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Because guns just don't go over that well at the PTA bake sale.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)so if she's such a good shot, with 2 good guns, 20 rounds should be plenty, right?
i hope so!
Paladin
(32,354 posts)Helpful Hint: when a spokesman starts using your own insult phrases to support your position, it's time to get a new spokesman.....
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
sinkingfeeling
(57,835 posts)blog to my Teabagger Representative?
paulbibeau
(743 posts)sinkingfeeling
(57,835 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)AR-15 is inherently easier to control than a shotgun or handgun. If that's what a woman/mother wants to choose, far be it from me to tell her she should use something she's not comfortable with.
here's a boy who used one.
&feature=player_embedded
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"But authorities have said the gunman, her 20-year-old son Adam, used the guns she kept at their home to carry out a massacre that became the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history and has stirred lawmakers to call for gun control laws."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nancy-lanza-newtown-memorial_n_2344910.html
tosh
(4,453 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Learn some netiquette.
Mother Of Four
(1,722 posts)For you: Hope you like it
paulbibeau
(743 posts)