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

[fhtagn]

I have a gun.  Actually, I own more than one.  I also own many pocket knives.

No sensible person is calling for a ban on all guns.  What we want are assault weapons bans, better background checks, raising the age from 18 to 21, etc.

Gun control does not mean taking away people's guns.  Guns should be available for purchase, but that doesn't mean it needs to be anywhere near as easy as it is currently to purchase one.  We are pro-2nd amendment.  Military grade weapons shouldn't be available; AR-15's shouldn't be available; background checks should be more extensive; people with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to purchase; an 18 year old high school student shouldn't be allowed to buy one; there should be some kind of training required or some way that you can show you know how to respect, handle, and operate a firearm.  There's more steps you have to go thru in order to legally drive a car.

Seriously, what does your side not understand about this?

Because there are many peaceful, decent, law-abiding people of all backgrounds and walks of life who own AR-15s (and weapons of similar caliber), and they've never used it to kill anyone in the manner that these shooters do.  Why punish them?

For the same reason that tens of thousands of people who safely drive 130 miles an hour on the highway harming anyone car, as you put it, punished by limiting the speed limit to 75 or 80 miles an hour.

About 1.3 million people die in car accidents per year, with speeding being a factor in about 30% of those.

Compare this to about 30,000 people who die from guns per year, the majority actually being from suicide (about 60%). The numbers are much smaller when it comes to murders, and even smaller than that when it comes to mass shootings.

Not to mention there's other factors at play that increase the risks of an accident and death while speeding that can't even be compared to guns.

Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

[fhtagn]

Never touched a gun (beyond a little bit of target shooting in Scouts) and never will. The idea of needing "protection" is just not something that has entered my mind. Possibly one of those brain chemistry differences between conservatives and liberals.

You think the world is a playground of peace, don't you?

The odds that I would ever need a gun to save my life are very, very small. I try to approach life as rationally as mathematically as possible, unlike the emotionals on the pro-gun side.

The odds of dying in a mass shooting are also very, very small but that doesn't stop the emotional anti-gun crowd from trying to ban AR-15s.

[fhtagn]

Wait, did I read this right? 1.3 million people die in car accidents each year?

That means that an average American would have basically a 40% chance of being killed in a car accident over the course of their lives - that's g insane. Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?

My apologies, quoted the wrong figure.
That's worldwide (and may actually be larger since the source was a few years back and in many places, the number of deaths has gone up recently). 

it's just over 40,000 per year in the US (per 2017 statistics).

Which is still significantly more than the statistics of people who die each year from "assault weapons".

[fhtagn]

There's no reason AR-15s shouldn't be banned.

The vast majority of the ones already in the hands of citizens are used for hunting, as well as target practice and competitive shooting. Very, very few are actually used for killing people. So there really is no reason to ban them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a civilian version of a military weapon. They're no more dangerous than modern hunting rifles. In fact, they function exactly the same. I can easily modify my family's hunting rifles to be more "dangerous" than what you think an AR-15 is but you folks wouldn't be calling for banning them because they don't look as scary. Stop pretending that banning a gun that is very rarely used in killing is "common sense", especially when it's really just emotional, childish logic with little to no facts to support it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Just because you don't like it and can't come up with a reasonable argument against it doesn't make it ignorant. 

Stop being childish.

[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.

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

anti-gun people are much worse about this tbh.

[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.

LMAO.
Duck hunting!
That is a completely different gun, altogether! This is not "a perfect example proving that point." It's actually the "worse example proving that point."
LOL.
Just what I thought ...... you know nothing about guns .... and thus all your "arguments are invalidated."
Duck hunting ..... Wow!

Let me refer you back to the point I was arguing against:

If you need an assault (or a semi-auto) weapon to "hunt," then you shouldn't be hunting in the first place.

Here's a handful of popular and often recommended guns for duck hunting:

Browning Auto-5
(semiautomatic shotgun)

Benelli Super Black Eagle
(semiautomatic shotgun)

Beretta A400
(semiautomatic shotgun)

Winchester SX3
(semiautomatic shotgun)

Remington 1100
(semiautomatic shotgun)

[fhtagn]

We'll need to start referring to Atlas member fhtagn as the guy who goes duck hunting with an assault gun.

Conversation over.
You are adding nothing to this thread with your pro-NRA, gun semantics drivel.
We need to get back on topic.
Duck hunting! Good-God. LOL.

1. I'm not a guy.
2. Learn to read.
3. If you think "semiautomatic" makes something an assault weapon, you're a fool and making those on your side look bad.
4. You're adding nothing to this thread considering you haven't backed up a single one of your responses with facts, just emotional rants.
5. It's cute that you think you accomplished anything when you just got pwned in my last response to you


And to further prove your lack of knowledge when it comes to guns and hunting, I've linked several sources to back my response about semiautomatic shotguns used and recommended for duck hunting below.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/shotguns/12-great-wildfowl-shotguns/
https://www.fieldandstream.com/15-best-duck-and-goose-guns-ever
https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2012/07/waterfowl-guns-13-great-duck-and-goose-hunting-shotguns/
http://www.gundogmag.com/gear-accessories/15-best-waterfowl-shotguns-for-2017/
http://www.duckhuntingchat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=796665
https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/affordable-semi-auto-duck-guns/

[fhtagn]

AR-15's are not hunting rifles. They are military grade assault rifles used for war.