How do some liberals/Democrats protect themselves without a gun?

[fhtagn]

Assault weapons are designed to kill people (soldiers) in mass.
They are designed for the military.
Citizens don't need to own this style of weapon. You can not excuse "good" people wanting them for "fun," when wackos have easy access to them and go out and ..... well ..... kill (innocent) citizens in mass.
We need to draw the line somewhere, is this is the line.

Please explain how they function any differently than modern semiautomatic hunting rifles.

It is also worth noting that it's statistically very unlikely for the average person to die in a mass shooting. And despite how the media and politicians like to spin it, these tragedies are actually incredibly rare when you look at how many of these guns are already in circulation, and how many gun deaths actually involve these guns.

[ProudModerate2]

Assault weapons are designed to kill people (soldiers) in mass.
They are designed for the military.
Citizens don't need to own this style of weapon. You can not excuse "good" people wanting them for "fun," when wackos have easy access to them and go out and ..... well ..... kill (innocent) citizens in mass.
We need to draw the line somewhere, is this is the line.

Please explain how they function any differently than modern semiautomatic hunting rifles.

It is also worth noting that it's statistically very unlikely for the average person to die in a mass shooting. And despite how the media and politicians like to spin it, these tragedies are actually incredibly rare when you look at how many of these guns are already in circulation, and how many gun deaths actually involve these guns.

If you need an assault (or a semi-auto) weapon to "hunt," then you shouldn't be hunting in the first place.
There is no sport in hunting with an assault weapon. That is for pansies.

It makes no difference that it is "statistically very unlikely for the average person to die in a mass shooting." That is no defense for a weapon of that caliber to be allowed in general society.
I mentioned before that I knew a friend who went out to a very remote place (somewhere in the California dessert area) with a bunch of gun enthusiasts, and one of them shot a modern-style rocket launcher at an old car (to blow-up) "for fun."
People should not have access to weapons like this. If we allowed rocket launchers, I'm sure that it would also be "statistically very unlikely," that you would die (be blown-up) from them, so does that mean we should also allow rocket launchers? I'm sure there would be plenty of people that would say we need them "for fun," and that the vast majority of rocket-launcher-owners are good people, not wanting to harm anyone.

The line needs to be drawn, and any style of weapon that is (or near) "military grade," should be that line. Period.

[fhtagn]

Assault weapons are designed to kill people (soldiers) in mass.
They are designed for the military.
Citizens don't need to own this style of weapon. You can not excuse "good" people wanting them for "fun," when wackos have easy access to them and go out and ..... well ..... kill (innocent) citizens in mass.
We need to draw the line somewhere, is this is the line.

Please explain how they function any differently than modern semiautomatic hunting rifles.

It is also worth noting that it's statistically very unlikely for the average person to die in a mass shooting. And despite how the media and politicians like to spin it, these tragedies are actually incredibly rare when you look at how many of these guns are already in circulation, and how many gun deaths actually involve these guns.

If you need an assault (or a semi-auto) weapon to "hunt," then you shouldn't be hunting in the first place.
There is no sport in hunting with an assault weapon. That is for pansies.

It makes no difference that it is "statistically very unlikely for the average person to die in a mass shooting." That is no defense for a weapon of that caliber to be allowed in general society.
I mentioned before that I knew a friend who went out to a very remote place (somewhere in the California dessert area) with a bunch of gun enthusiasts, and one of them shot a modern-style rocket launcher at an old car (to blow-up) "for fun."
People should not have access to weapons like this. If we allowed rocket launchers, I'm sure that it would also be "statistically very unlikely," that you would die (be blown-up) from them, so does that mean we should also allow rocket launchers? I'm sure there would be plenty of people that would say we need them "for fun," and that the vast majority of rocket-launcher-owners are good people, not wanting to harm anyone.

The line needs to be drawn, and any style of weapon that is (or near) "military grade," should be that line. Period.

You ignored my request, so I'll say it again (worded slightly differently):
Please explain how "assault weapons" function any differently than modern semiautomatic hunting rifles.

Also, do you even know what semiautomatic means? Because if you did, I highly doubt you'd be making the argument that you just posted.

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

[OregonProgressive]

I've never felt in enough danger to feel the need to use a firearm.  This despite not necessarily living in the nicest neighborhoods and taking long walks at night.  I've never felt the need to protect myself.

Also, speaking as a person who suffers from bouts of depression I am glad I did not have a gun around at the time otherwise I might not be here.  That is the part that is most overlooked in the gun debate is the number of people who have committed suicide with a gun.  If you have a gun available it is a lot quicker and easier to make that choice than if you have to actively seek out the resources needed to kill oneself.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

[James Monroe]

I'll just bring out the chainsaw in the closest to protect myself from intruders entering.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I'll just bring out the chainsaw in the closest to protect myself from intruders entering.

You don't even need that. A few years ago at my university somebody defended themselves from a burglar by slicing off his arm with a katana.

[fhtagn]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

[ProudModerate2]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

I have done some whitetail deer hunting in my past.
You take one shot, and one shot only.
You don't sit there and unload your entire clip while it's running, as if you are in some kind of Call Of Duty video game.

[fhtagn]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

I have done some whitetail deer hunting in my past.
You take one shot, and one shot only.
You don't sit there and unload your entire clip while it's running, as if you are in some kind of Call Of Duty video game.

And that response doesn't help your argument at all, and just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since you seem to not understand what semiautomatic means: you pull the trigger, and the shot fires. That's it. It's not some Call of Duty rapid fire scenario you think it is. There is nothing super dangerous about them that warrants keeping them out of the hands of civilians, especially when the number of them used in crimes is insanely small.

But hey, if you think "I have no basic understanding about this topic but I don't like these guns for no real reason, so they should be banned" is an acceptable argument, go for it. Just be prepared for when someone points out why your argument is bad.

Also, whitetail deer hunting isn't the only kind of hunting done in the US, and the methods aren't the same for all types of hunting, so some actually do require more than one shot.

[ProudModerate2]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

I have done some whitetail deer hunting in my past.
You take one shot, and one shot only.
You don't sit there and unload your entire clip while it's running, as if you are in some kind of Call Of Duty video game.

And that response doesn't help your argument at all, and just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since you seem to not understand what semiautomatic means: you pull the trigger, and the shot fires. That's it. It's not some Call of Duty rapid fire scenario you think it is. There is nothing super dangerous about them that warrants keeping them out of the hands of civilians, especially when the number of them used in crimes is insanely small.

But hey, if you think "I have no basic understanding about this topic but I don't like these guns for no real reason, so they should be banned" is an acceptable argument, go for it. Just be prepared for when someone points out why your argument is bad.

Also, whitetail deer hunting isn't the only kind of hunting done in the US, and the methods aren't the same for all types of hunting, so some actually do require more than one shot.

You're just being a fool.
You try and use "gun/weapon semantics" as a defense for ownership of devices that were specifically designed for killing people in mass, and you just cant get passed that as FACT.
You going on, and on, and on with "I'm a gun expert, and you are not," is going no where.
So get off your high horse.
And once again, your "crimes are insanely small" argument is bogus garbage.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

smh cannot believe that liberals believe they can protect themselves without icbm's.

[fhtagn]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

I have done some whitetail deer hunting in my past.
You take one shot, and one shot only.
You don't sit there and unload your entire clip while it's running, as if you are in some kind of Call Of Duty video game.

And that response doesn't help your argument at all, and just proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since you seem to not understand what semiautomatic means: you pull the trigger, and the shot fires. That's it. It's not some Call of Duty rapid fire scenario you think it is. There is nothing super dangerous about them that warrants keeping them out of the hands of civilians, especially when the number of them used in crimes is insanely small.

But hey, if you think "I have no basic understanding about this topic but I don't like these guns for no real reason, so they should be banned" is an acceptable argument, go for it. Just be prepared for when someone points out why your argument is bad.

Also, whitetail deer hunting isn't the only kind of hunting done in the US, and the methods aren't the same for all types of hunting, so some actually do require more than one shot.

You're just being a fool.
You try and use "gun/weapon semantics" as a defense for ownership of devices that were specifically designed for killing people in mass, and you just cant get passed that as FACT.
You going on, and on, and on with "I'm a gun expert, and you are not," is going no where.
So get off your high horse.
And once again, your "crimes are insanely small" argument is bogus garbage.

You're literally posting an argument that is "muhhh guns r scary plz ban them" and offering not a single legitimate reason for why that should be the case.

You keep saying that the use of these guns is similar to a Call of Duty game and that they're being used to kill people in large numbers when they aren't even being used for the purpose you think they are, nor do they function the way you think they do. You have proven you have no idea what "semiautomatic" means, and you can't even explain what you think the difference is between "assault weapons" and hunting rifles as far as how they actually operate.

At no point have I claimed to be a gun expert, nor do I personally consider myself one.  But it doesn't take an expert to see that you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to every aspect of this issue, at least in this thread.

[ProudModerate2]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

[libertpaulian]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but you're arguing on pure emotion, and not fact.

[Perlen vor den Schweinen]

Frankly, the answer to bronz's question is simple. I would just become a conservative/Republican that would protect myself without a gun. You can't shoot an idea, folks!

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

It's an opinion lmao. You don't need to be an expert (or even have experience) on something to have an opinion, good lord.

[ProudModerate2]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but you're arguing on pure emotion, and not fact.

Let me repeat the FACTS: "Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings)."

[ProudModerate2]

Also, whitetail deer hunting isn't the only kind of hunting done in the US, and the methods aren't the same for all types of hunting, so some actually do require more than one shot.

What examples of animal hunting are you referring to?

[fhtagn]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but you're arguing on pure emotion, and not fact.

Let me repeat the FACTS: "Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings)."

iirc I think I said something earlier in this thread something about emotional anti-gun folks.

Congratulations, you're proving that point.

[krazen1211]

I don't own a home so this isn't really applicable to me, but I have never once thought wow I really wish I had a gun right now. Obviously all it takes is once, but I've been to the south side of Chicago and basically everywhere in Seattle. As long as you're not travelling down alleys, walking late at night, or carrying expensive things in plain sight, you're not likely to be in any danger. Besides, almost no one is saying to ban all guns. They're just saying that there was never a home invasion or any other self defense situation which would've been improved by a law abiding citizen holding an AR-15 rifle as opposed to, say, a shotgun.

There's no reason AR-15s shouldn't be banned. There's no reason not to ensure that only adults can buy a firearm. There's no reason why the mentally I'll should be able to buy a gun.

This isn't governmental 'control' or overreach. It's common sense. You can be a libertarian and believe that government still has some place in keeping military grade weapons out of civilian life.

The ar15 is easier to aim than a shotgun and it's generally lighter too. Much better for the novice shooter. The larger magazine is beneficial since you can miss a few times and still shoot the bad guy.

Alternatively I suppose the womenfolk can simply vomit, urinate, or fart on the rapists. Some colorado college suggested that.

[fhtagn]

And lastly, please tell us what experience you have with hunting that makes you qualified to make such a statement.

I'm not going to stick my foot into the pile of poop of an argument that is this thread, but I will point out that this is a horrible and lazy debate tactic you are using.

I have much more of a training and experience in wildlife biology and ecology than you have. I'm not going to shout down your opinions on conservation (which I am confident are grossly distorted) because you don't have a college degree in biology. So stop trying to invalidate people's opinions on gun control because they don't own a gun.

that was mostly in response to him saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

If they are gonna make a statement like that, they should certainly have some hunting knowledge/experience to back it. Otherwise it is completely justified to invalidate his argument.

It's an opinion lmao. You don't need to be an expert (or even have experience) on something to have an opinion, good lord.

Try reading what I said again. I never said he can't have an opinion. I clearly said that if he lacks the knowledge/experience, it is completely justifiable to invalidate his argument.

[ProudModerate2]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but you're arguing on pure emotion, and not fact.

Let me repeat the FACTS: "Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings)."

iirc I think I said something earlier in this thread something about emotional anti-gun folks.
Congratulations, you're proving that point.

iirc I think I said something earlier in this thread about NRA gun freaks who defend their cause on ignorant gun/weapon semantics.
Congratulations, you're proving that point.

[7,052,770]

I'm not playing your NRA game of semantics.
That's all you gun freaks do.
Just understand that you, and your freaky kind, are in the minority and will be more and more so, as time passes (and unfortunately, as more and more people are slaughtered in horrible mass shootings).
Call your "style of acceptable" guns what you want, you can refer and classify them as pea-shooters for all I care, it makes no difference.

Sorry, but you're arguing on pure emotion, and not fact.

Sorry, but the entire MO of the NRA and other hardcore gun nuts is emotion, not fact.

[fhtagn]

Also, whitetail deer hunting isn't the only kind of hunting done in the US, and the methods aren't the same for all types of hunting, so some actually do require more than one shot.

What examples of animal hunting are you referring to?

Duck hunting is a perfect example proving that point.

Other examples where these guns are very useful for hunters are hog, rabbits, seal, etc.

Plus, not all people are experienced hunters, people have to learn somehow, and their first kill may not always go down on the first shot. And if you're hunting larger, more aggressive game, it makes it a heck of a lot safer for the hunter.