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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

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!

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

You do know fhtagn is a girl, right?

No. My error.
OK, then we need to start referring to her as the girl who goes duck hunting with an assault gun.