If not now, when? If not us, then who?

Yes the evidence is refutable, I listed several sources that did refute it.

Responsible gun owners, including those in the NRA and own Semi-automatic rifles are just as much part of the conversation. Them disagreeing and providing counter evidence much like the sources and arguments I presented earlier are not necessarily wrong. They are participating in the conversation, and then people don't like what they say and are told they don't care or should go away. They aren't going away.

Lastly, I have repeatedly expressed the reason to owning a semi-automatic rifle. I even posted a series of events were everyday people used rifles to defend their homes, family and self. The very thing you asked for. A part of the reason you don't see the reason is because you don't want to see the reason or acknowledge a reason, making any attempt mute. Responsible gun owners can own a semi-automatic rifle, it is not the rifle that makes one responsible but the person themselves. A person can own it and be responsible, defending that does not make irresponsible. Them owning one simply because you don't like the object does not lessen their credibility or character.

MadHatter wrote: I've answered this but ill do it again. This was my last bus home late from work. The only other stops were deeper into the problem area. At the end they kick off all passengers and go the garage. My best option was to get off at a stop that was about a block and a half from where I wanted.

My apologies, I didn't read through all of the posts following your initial post in this thread.

A gun is not an every day tool its a worst case situational tool. As for you question of crime vs legal uses far more guns are used legally for various reasons in the US daily then in crime.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked how often does the use of a gun come down to actual self defense and how often are those guns used in crimes. But it's ok, I can look up statistics myself if I want to.

I am alive not once but twice thanks to owning firearms.

Good for you...how many people have died in the past year due to others owning firearms not just in America, but in the world at large?

You think you are going to make gangs unnessicery? We have had gangs of some sort since the first code of law was written.

You have some evidence for the existence of ancient street gangs? Please point me to a source as this is not something I'm familiar with.

Evil men will not go anywhere. Evil government won't ever stop poping up. Tools in the hands of free men to defend against such thing are the last line of defense.

Perhaps, but, as far as I'm aware, the ancient Spartans didn't go around murdering each other in the streets for walking into the wrong neighborhood. Nor did the ancient Athenians, or the Persians, or the Cretans...etc. etc. etc.

This whole "guns are tools" thing is getting old, too. Guns are not tools. They are weapons. A knife is a tool. A hatchet is a tool. A screwdriver is a tool. A gun is made specifically for the purpose of killing or maiming living creatures/people. Guns are weapons, period. To put it another way, guns are no more a tool than spears were "tools" in the ancient or medieval world. They were weapons, period. Even if you're using a gun for hunting, it is still a weapon.

If you're going to say a gun is a "tool" then you have to concede that the shooter in Las Vegas (or Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or [insert location of a mass shooting]) was using a "tool" and not a deadly weapon and that, frankly, is bull****.

Lykios the is genie is out of the bottle you wont get rid of them bikers are making submachine guns is Australia in hidden factories. If a criminal wants one they will get them ( http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/) All you will do is make it so that ordinary people have no effective tool to fight back.

The FBI defines a gang as" A gang is defined by the US Department of Justice as: (1) an association of three or more individuals; (2) whose members collectively. identify themselves by adopting a group identity, which they use to create an. atmosphere of fear or intimidation "
There have been groups like that since time began.

Knives and hatchets have been tools of war for a long time. In fact, the ax was a very sought after anti-armor weapon.

Definition of tool

1 a :a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task
b (1) :the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) :a machine for shaping metal :machine tool
2 a :something (such as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession a scholar's books are his tools
b :an element of a computer program (such as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function a drawing tool
c :a means to an end a book's cover can be a marketing tool

Guns are tools just as much as an ax. Oh and did the knife attackers in London "just use tools"? Did the truck attackers in various places "just use a vehical"?Don't be disingenuous it does not help your stance.

MadHatter wrote: Lykios the is genie is out of the bottle you wont get rid of them bikers are making submachine guns is Australia in hidden factories. If a criminal wants one they will get them ( http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/04/australian-motorcycle-gang-diy-firearms-surface/) All you will do is make it so that ordinary people have no effective tool to fight back.

I'm not saying we can get rid of guns in the hands of criminals. I'm saying that we can potentially make it harder for them to get a hold of firearms.

"Ordinary people" fighting back against violent criminals is not appealing to me (except in clear cases of self-defense, of course). We have police to track down and defend us against gangs and other violent criminals, don't we?

I'm not saying a gun cannot be an effective self-defense weapon, here. I'm saying that firearms are used in violent crimes throughout America (and the world).

The FBI defines a gang as" A gang is defined by the US Department of Justice as: (1) an association of three or more individuals; (2) whose members collectively. identify themselves by adopting a group identity, which they use to create an. atmosphere of fear or intimidation "
There have been groups like that since time began.

:laugh: By that definition the U.S. army (or any army, for that matter) is a gang...depending on your perspective, of course. If you're going to use such a broad (and basically useless) definition of the word then let's drop the subject entirely.

Knives and hatchets have been tools of war for a long time. In fact, the ax was a very sought after anti-armor weapon.

"Tools of war" is, to me, a nonsensical phrase...they're weapons. Sure, but they can be used as a tool in situations that do not include killing or murdering another human being or animal. That was what I was getting at. A gun serves no other purpose than to kill or cause serious injury to either an animal or another human being, that's a weapon, not a tool.

Definition of tool

1 a :a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task
b (1) :the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) :a machine for shaping metal :machine tool
2 a :something (such as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession a scholar's books are his tools
b :an element of a computer program (such as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function a drawing tool
c :a means to an end a book's cover can be a marketing tool

Dictionary definitions...yea, because those totally tell the whole story.

dictionary.com wrote: weapon
[wep-uh n]
noun
1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim:
the deadly weapon of satire.

Ok, so a weapon, by those broad definitions, can also be a "tool." However, I disagree with your assertion that a firearm qualifies as a "tool." If we're going to go strictly by the dictionary definition of a tool then yes, a gun is a "handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task." However, the dictionary doesn't record connotation. The connotations of the word "tool" are vastly different from the connotations of the word "weapon."

Guns are tools just as much as an ax. Oh and did the knife attackers in London "just use tools"? Did the truck attackers in various places "just use a vehical"?

No, they aren't. Name one use of a firearm that specifically identifies it as a tool instead of as a weapon. And don't give me some crap about guns used for hunting being tools. If it's meant to kill or maim something it is a weapon (even if it's being used specifically for defense).

Also, a knife can be a weapon (obviously), that doesn't negate the fact that it can be used as a tool. A vehicle can be a weapon, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is also a mode of transportation. The point is that a gun cannot be used as a "tool" except by using the very broadest possible definition of the word.

Don't be disingenuous it does not help your stance.

Disingenuous? How was I being disingenuous?

jag1993 wrote: Yes the evidence is refutable, I listed several sources that did refute it.

Responsible gun owners, including those in the NRA and own Semi-automatic rifles are just as much part of the conversation. Them disagreeing and providing counter evidence much like the sources and arguments I presented earlier are not necessarily wrong. They are participating in the conversation, and then people don't like what they say and are told they don't care or should go away. They aren't going away.

Lastly, I have repeatedly expressed the reason to owning a semi-automatic rifle. I even posted a series of events were everyday people used rifles to defend their homes, family and self. The very thing you asked for. A part of the reason you don't see the reason is because you don't want to see the reason or acknowledge a reason, making any attempt mute. Responsible gun owners can own a semi-automatic rifle, it is not the rifle that makes one responsible but the person themselves. A person can own it and be responsible, defending that does not make irresponsible. Them owning one simply because you don't like the object does not lessen their credibility or character.

You are absolutely correct that the NRA and gun owners should be part of the conversation, but your not having the same conversation. This is one about needed changes to prevent further gun violence. Your conversation is about shifting the blame away from an organization who repeatedly pours millions of dollars into preventing such measures from being taken. Can you tell me who spent 90 million dollars lobbying congresspeople on the other side of this argument?

And your reasons provided are reasons to own guns, not semi-automatic rifles. Every example you gave could have been achieved with another weapon. A shotgun or semi-automatic pistol with a ten round magazine is capable of achieving every single defensive measure needed for an individual in their home. Even concealed carry of a handgun in public is better than a semi-automatic rifle. Your argument is like saying "I need to get to work, so I should drive an formula one race car down the freeway at 180 miles per hour." It isn't necessary and it is extremely dangerous.

Responsible or not, you don't ever need a semi-automatic rifle, and if this shooter didn't have them, he wouldn't have killed 59 people. You can't argue that fact. I can be a responsible grizzly bear owner, but it still isn't allowed. Just because you think you can own a semi-automatic rifle responsibly does not undo the thousands of deaths caused by others with these guns, and I'm sorry, but my right to not die at a concert outweighs your right to own a gun you don't need. I don't care about your character. I care about the character of the people killing innocent Americans. If the NRA is so big on responsible gun ownership, why aren't they condemning these shooters every time this happens and demanding action? Instead we get the typical silence...

Is my survival appealing to you? Because my fighting back sure helped me. The police are always minutes away when seconds count. I have no desire for cops to be there to put a tag on my toe or take my witness statement in the er. I have a right to preserve my life full stop period.

The military is a gang. Most military members will say we are the biggest gang out there. Gang is not inherently negative just like Cult is not. ( See the IP ) if you are actually using the words properly.

A weapon is a subclass of tool it's that simple. An Olympic sport shooters gun is designed for and only ever used for sports. Not to hurt anything. So even by your definition, a gun can be a tool just like a knife can be a weapon. So clearly its the USE of the item that makes it a weapon not the inherent properties of it.

Maybe sarcastic is a better term. You tried to make me out to be a bad guy with your statement of oh you have to say this shooter was "just using a tool" Then by your logic the terrorists that ran people over were "just going for a drive".

Senan wrote: A shotgun

Will hit it's target.....And through the target....and the wall behind it....and the people inside the room behind the wall....and likely through the other wall on the other side.....among other fantastical damage. Not to mention the recoil....Whooo!!! Talk about a lovely bruised shoulder Such a beautiful Kiss.....

semi-automatic pistol with a ten round magazine

Is highly Inaccurate in aim and stability thanks to recoil and will require an amateur many shots to land one or two. I train often with my Taurus and miss my target just as often (And Im considered an okay shot in our group) .....and that is a stabilized non moving target.

So no.....The Shotgun and semi-automatic pistol is NOT

capable of achieving every single defensive measure needed for an individual in their home.

Responsible or not, you don't ever need a semi-automatic rifle

I do however. From both research and practice/training I have determined the Semi Automatic Rifle to be a much more practical and safer home defense option.


Now I will grant you. The Mag's our Vegas Killer had/used were crazy crazy and un-necessary for your average joe.

MadHatter wrote: Is my survival appealing to you? Because my fighting back sure helped me. The police are always minutes away when seconds count. I have no desire for cops to be there to put a tag on my toe or take my witness statement in the er. I have a right to preserve my life full stop period.

Of course you do, and I never said otherwise. However, not all situations are like the one you put forth. In many cases it is a perfectly reasonable option to call the police or to run away.

The military is a gang. Most military members will say we are the biggest gang out there. Gang is not inherently negative just like Cult is not. ( See the IP ) if you are actually using the words properly.

Well excuse me for using the colloquial definition of "gang" referring to a street gang.

Also, I know what the word cult actually means, I'm a Greek polytheist.

A weapon is a subclass of tool it's that simple. An Olympic sport shooters gun is designed for and only ever used for sports. Not to hurt anything. So even by your definition, a gun can be a tool just like a knife can be a weapon. So clearly its the USE of the item that makes it a weapon not the inherent properties of it.

Hmm, you make a fair point. However, Olympic sport rifles aren't generally used in criminal acts of violence...
The firearms used by this mass shooter (and all other mass shooters) were not sport rifles, they were (clearly) rifles designed for the specific purpose of taking a life/lives. THAT is what I was getting at in my initial argument. The vast majority of guns are designed and built for this purpose.

Also, I still wouldn't call a sport rifle a "tool." Sport shooting is a useless, wasteful activity...tools are generally used to accomplish some useful task.

Now, on the point of weapons being a subset of tools, that's a rather persuasive argument.

Maybe sarcastic is a better term. You tried to make me out to be a bad guy with your statement of oh you have to say this shoot was "just using a tool" Then by your logic the terrorists that ran people over were "just going for a drive".

I didn't say "just using a tool" I said "using a tool." And I wasn't trying to make you out to be a bad guy, I was using your own definition of a gun being a tool against you...there is a subtle, but important, difference.
No, that isn't the logical conclusion of my argument...the logical conclusion of my argument would be that people who use a vehicle as a weapon are using a mode of transportation as a weapon. Note that I specified that, by your own definition, the shooter was using a tool as opposed to a deadly weapon.

Senan wrote:

jag1993 wrote: Yes the evidence is refutable, I listed several sources that did refute it.

Responsible gun owners, including those in the NRA and own Semi-automatic rifles are just as much part of the conversation. Them disagreeing and providing counter evidence much like the sources and arguments I presented earlier are not necessarily wrong. They are participating in the conversation, and then people don't like what they say and are told they don't care or should go away. They aren't going away.

Lastly, I have repeatedly expressed the reason to owning a semi-automatic rifle. I even posted a series of events were everyday people used rifles to defend their homes, family and self. The very thing you asked for. A part of the reason you don't see the reason is because you don't want to see the reason or acknowledge a reason, making any attempt mute. Responsible gun owners can own a semi-automatic rifle, it is not the rifle that makes one responsible but the person themselves. A person can own it and be responsible, defending that does not make irresponsible. Them owning one simply because you don't like the object does not lessen their credibility or character.

You are absolutely correct that the NRA and gun owners should be part of the conversation, but your not having the same conversation. This is one about needed changes to prevent further gun violence. Your conversation is about shifting the blame away from an organization who repeatedly pours millions of dollars into preventing such measures from being taken. Can you tell me who spent 90 million dollars lobbying congresspeople on the other side of this argument?

And your reasons provided are reasons to own guns, not semi-automatic rifles. Every example you gave could have been achieved with another weapon. A shotgun or semi-automatic pistol with a ten round magazine is capable of achieving every single defensive measure needed for an individual in their home. Even concealed carry of a handgun in public is better than a semi-automatic rifle. Your argument is like saying "I need to get to work, so I should drive an formula one race car down the freeway at 180 miles per hour." It isn't necessary and it is extremely dangerous.

Responsible or not, you don't ever need a semi-automatic rifle, and if this shooter didn't have them, he wouldn't have killed 59 people. You can't argue that fact. I can be a responsible grizzly bear owner, but it still isn't allowed. Just because you think you can own a semi-automatic rifle responsibly does not undo the thousands of deaths caused by others with these guns, and I'm sorry, but my right to not die at a concert outweighs your right to own a gun you don't need. I don't care about your character. I care about the character of the people killing innocent Americans. If the NRA is so big on responsible gun ownership, why aren't they condemning these shooters every time this happens and demanding action? Instead we get the typical silence...

The NRA spent approx. 3 million dollars, many other industries and groups spent many times that number (see source several posts back). No, my argument does not shift blame away from the NRA it criticizes the proposed legislation and ideas that come about after these events. You're rights don't out weigh another person's rights, either. People have the right to own guns, that includes Semi-automatic rifles. Again, if you don't recognize any response as valid then there's no point in me listing a response (which I have done numerous times). The people who used those guns to defend themselves may not have had any other option.

Taken from the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Scalia on the Heller Case:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home .... it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." source

This means that the semi-automatic rifle and one's ownership of it is protected by 2nd amendment rights. The point being made is that the firearm itself regardless of designation being assigned to it can be own and used in meaningful ways. That includes self defense and you cannot judge a person on what they choose to defend themselves with or how they use that firearm in a safe manner.

That same article ended, "But generally speaking, experts told us, semiautomatic rifles are a legal weapon that fall under the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

I cannot satisfy your answer to why one needs it because no answer I give you will accept. Legally, as expressed in the Supreme Court, a person has a right to own even a semi-automatic firearm and that person does not need to validate it to anyone.


The NRA and countless other organizations in the gun community always condemn these acts but they do not subject themselves to supporting populist opinions because of the emotional responses after these events. They wait for information to come to light of the event in question and then examine potential legislation to protect the rights of individuals as well as ensure meaningful legislation that can protect society.

Trisskar wrote:

Atticus wrote: I don't accept the premise that there has to be some mandatory waiting period on debate after yet another incident like what happened in Las Vegas (Orlando, San Bernadino, Newtown, pick one). Believe it or not, we can do both.

I believe that everything has a time and place. In a thread who's topic and premise is largely one of grief.....we should (in my own opinion) honor that grief and offer respectful condolences and support.

That doesn't mean you can't take two second's to turn around, start a new thread, and debate the crap out of the political stances right after.

I notice Jedi tend to forget that they can multi task several threads at once Its really quite easy!! Just say'in....

Thank you, that is exactly what I did with this thread. Rather than hijack the one Steve began to express his reactions to what his friends and co-workers experienced, I started this thread to refute the BS argument that we are not allowed to talk about gun violence after a horrific incident of gun violence.