Sutherland shooting

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Xouper should start a campaign on another forum, to force courts to accept concealed weapons in courts so citizens can protect themselves in case a court officer "goes postal". :D
That is one of several concessions I am willing to make.

In courthouses, they usually have armed law enforcement officers (or guards) who have legally taken on the responsibility of providing for my defense (if necessary).

In that circumstance, I am willing to temporarily cede my right to defend myself with a gun.

But when a gun free zone is not willing and able to be responsible for my defense, which is the case for most gun free zones, then I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with a gun.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:17 am

xouper wrote: But when a gun free zone is not willing and able to be responsible for my defense, which is the case for most gun free zones, then I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with a gun.
So if a festival or concert or restaurant or piano recital or skeptic meeting, on private land or property, bans all guns and has no armed security guards.......you wont go? That's good news.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14216
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.
I just posted a Wordpress blog about that: Perfectly Moronic. Perfect!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:18 am

JO 753 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.
I just posted a Wordpress blog about that: Perfectly Moronic. Perfect!
In New York City recently, when Mr Saipov used a rental truck to kill eight people and injure almost a dozen more, was it about trucks? Do we say that something needs to be done to make it harder for everyone to own or use trucks? Do we ban trucks?

Of course not.

The absurdity of saying it's about trucks is readily apparent to almost everyone.

By that same logic, when someone uses a gun illegally to kill several people, it is not logical to blame the gun.

The responsibility for causing those deaths lies with the person doing the killing, not the object he chose to kill with.

Here's another way to expose the hypocrisy of blaming guns:

Image

Add trucks to the above illustration: "You ran him over with a truck? What's the matter with you?"

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: But when a gun free zone is not willing and able to be responsible for my defense, which is the case for most gun free zones, then I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with a gun.
So if a festival or concert or restaurant or piano recital or skeptic meeting, on private land or property, bans all guns and has no armed security guards.......you wont go? That's good news.
Why is that good news?

Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14216
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:30 am

xouper wrote: By that same logic,...
Thats where your mistake iz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:42 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:By that same logic,...
Thats where your mistake iz.
Why?

The general form of the argument is this:

If homicides are committed by the illegal use of "object X", then the rational conclusion is hold the perpetrator responsible, not "object X".

Please explain why you say this general principle does not apply when "object X" is a gun.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:48 am

xouper wrote: But when a gun free zone is not willing and able to be responsible for my defense, which is the case for most gun free zones, then I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with a gun.
Matthew Ellard wrote:So if a festival or concert or restaurant or piano recital or skeptic meeting, on private land or property, bans all guns and has no armed security guards.......you wont go? That's good news.
xouper wrote: Why is that good news?
You wont be going.
xouper wrote: Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
We would call the normal police, as you are invading private property, infringing on private rights to ban guns on private land and showing your hypocrisy regarding people's rights.

Are you going to shoot lots of people to get your point across?
:D

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:51 am

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:By that same logic,...
Thats where your mistake iz.
Why?

The general form of the argument is this:

If homicides are committed by the illegal use of "object X", then the rational conclusion is hold the perpetrator responsible, not "object X".

Please explain why you say this general principle does not apply when "object X" is a gun.
An object isn't responsible - stop this silly strawman.
The system that let a perpetrator have the object is responsible, even if at the time the perpetrator was considered harmless: getting a gun is necessary step in shooting people with a gun. That is why a society has an obligation to vet the people it empowers with objects that multiply their potential destructive power. And it works well in the US with almost anything but guns.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:10 am

xouper wrote:Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
When was the last time you actually went to a concert?
CivicTheatre-Security-checklist.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
When was the last time you actually went to a concert? CivicTheatre-Security-checklist.jpg
It's been a few years. The concerts I went to never did anything like that. Every concert I've been to I could have carried concealed and no one would have known.

But I accept your point.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:48 am

xouper wrote: But when a gun free zone is not willing and able to be responsible for my defense, which is the case for most gun free zones, then I am not willing to give up my right to defend myself with a gun.
Matthew Ellard wrote:So if a festival or concert or restaurant or piano recital or skeptic meeting, on private land or property, bans all guns and has no armed security guards.......you wont go? That's good news.
xouper wrote: Why is that good news?
Matthew Ellard wrote:You wont be going.
Assuming I don't go, why would that be good news? Why does it matter to you whether I go or not?

xouper wrote: Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
Matthew Ellard wrote:We would call the normal police, as you are invading private property, infringing on private rights to ban guns on private land and showing your hypocrisy regarding people's rights.


I hadn't considered that point about private property. I accept your argument as valid and I shall adjust my position accordingly.

I have always agreed that private property rights supersede certain personal rights. Thanks for reminding me of that.

However, that argument does not apply to public venues such as public schools, universities, hospitals, etc.

You are correct that if I did not respect private property rights, I would be a hypocrite. But since I do  respect private property rights, the question of hypocrisy becomes meaningless.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Are you going to shoot lots of people to get your point across? :D
Of course not. Don't be silly.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:06 am

xouper wrote:But I accept your point.
I previously ran the business side of very large outdoor concerts and the insurers set the minimum security plans. Entering a concert on private property is a contract to obey stipulated conditions. .
xouper wrote:Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
xouper wrote:Why does it matter to you whether I go or not?
You said you would sneak in a gun. If we have 29,999 other paying customers, it is best to ban the person saying they will sneak in a gun.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:07 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:By that same logic,...
Thats where your mistake iz.
Why?

The general form of the argument is this:

If homicides are committed by the illegal use of "object X", then the rational conclusion is hold the perpetrator responsible, not "object X".

Please explain why you say this general principle does not apply when "object X" is a gun.
An object isn't responsible - stop this silly strawman.
So you agree, guns don't kill people.

And yet there are people who say they the gun is to blame, which means I have not invented a straw man. For example, several people on this forum have argued that the availability of guns is the cause of gun murders. They place the blame squarely on the guns. Get rid of them, they say. The same argument is often made in the news and also by many politicians. I did not invent that argument, they did, so ergo, not a straw man.

ElectricMonk wrote:The system that let a perpetrator have the object is responsible, even if at the time the perpetrator was considered harmless: getting a gun is necessary step in shooting people with a gun. That is why a society has an obligation to vet the people it empowers with objects that multiply their potential destructive power. And it works well in the US with almost anything but guns.
That's just a fancy way of blaming the gun. You are doing exactly what is shown in this illustration:

Image

That clearly exposes the hypocrisy of your position.
ElectricMonk wrote:. . . getting a gun is necessary step in shooting people with a gun.
Getting a car is necessary step in a drunk driver killing people with a car. Your logic on this issue is inconsistent.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:17 am

xouper wrote:For example, several people on this forum have argued that the availability of guns is the cause of gun murders. They place the blame squarely on the guns. Get rid of them, they say. The same argument is often made in the news and also by many politicians. I did not invent that argument, they did, so ergo, not a straw man.
For example, several people on this forum have argued that the availability of certain types of guns is the cause of gun murders. They place the blame squarely on the certain types of guns. Get rid of them, they say. I did not invent that argument, they did, so ergo, not a straw man.

Certain types of gun : Automatics, Bump stops, Semi automatic. Large magazines. None of which make any difference in self defense unless you are taking on the Russian army.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:But I accept your point.
I previously ran the business side of very large outdoor concerts and the insurers set the minimum security plans. Entering a concert on private property is a contract to obey stipulated conditions. .
I agree. I already said that.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
xouper wrote:Why does it matter to you whether I go or not?
You said you would sneak in a gun. If we have 29,999 other paying customers, it is best to ban the person saying they will sneak in a gun.
No, I said it was an option, not a certainty.

If I go without carrying a gun, then that would be good news too, yes?

Keep in mind, I agree with your point about private property rights.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:30 am

xouper wrote:No, I said it was an option, not a certainty.
It's not your choice. It's private property.
xouper wrote: If I go without carrying a gun, then that would be good news too, yes?
Yes. The conditions of entry are made clear to all punters on the ticket or sales voucher.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:For example, several people on this forum have argued that the availability of guns is the cause of gun murders. They place the blame squarely on the guns. Get rid of them, they say. The same argument is often made in the news and also by many politicians. I did not invent that argument, they did, so ergo, not a straw man.
For example, several people on this forum have argued that the availability of certain types of guns is the cause of gun murders. They place the blame squarely on the certain types of guns. Get rid of them, they say. I did not invent that argument, they did, so ergo, not a straw man.

Certain types of gun : Automatics, Bump stops, Semi automatic. Large magazines. None of which make any difference in self defense unless you are taking on the Russian army.
Some people have called for a ban on all guns in the US. Or did you forget that fact?

Secondly, an AR-15 rifle was a good choice of weapon for stopping the bad guy in Sutherland from killing any more people than he already had.

Your assertion that such a rifle has no valid use is refuted by the evidence of the effectiveness of such a rifle for self defense.

Just a friendly reminder: It's not "bump stop", it's "bump fire stock", or "bump stock" for short. Using the jargon incorrectly (as you keep doing, despite being corrected more than once) could lead some people to suppose you are insufficiently informed to make a valid argument.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:43 am

xouper wrote: Some people have called for a ban on all guns in the US. Or did you forget that fact?
No. I haven't forgotten. Other people have called for the ban of certain types of guns. That's why fully automatic assault rifles are successfully banned

Do you want to bring them back?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:44 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:No, I said it was an option, not a certainty.
It's not your choice. It's private property.
I already agreed it was not my choice.

Nice deflection from your false accusation about me.

I was refuting your claim that I said I "will" sneak a gun in. Your accusation is incorrect, I merely allowed that I "might" do so, not that I "will" do so. It's probably best if you try to avoid putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

In any case, you reminded me that we are talking about private property and at that point I agreed with you. We agree on the issue of private property rights. So why are you still making this into a problem?

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: If I go without carrying a gun, then that would be good news too, yes?
Yes.
OK, then that's settled.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:50 am

xouper wrote:Perhaps I would go and carry concealed anyway, in violation of the gun free rule. How are you going to stop me?
xouper wrote:I was refuting your claim that I said I "will" sneak a gun in. Your accusation is incorrect, I merely allowed that I "might" do so, not that I "will" do so.
The concert is on private property. I can stipulate any condition I want including right of refusal.

If some bloke outside the venue says "Perhaps I would so and carry concealed in anyway" I would ban that person on the spot, go to the CCTV room, download their photos and contact the police.
SeeSaySomething.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:02 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Some people have called for a ban on all guns in the US. Or did you forget that fact?
No. I haven't forgotten.
Then you agree, it is not a straw man to argue against a ban on all guns. Thanks for clearing that up.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Other people have called for the ban of certain types of guns.
I agree some people have called for a ban of only certain guns, not all guns. That does not refute my argument against those who call for a total ban of all guns.

Matthew Ellard wrote: That's why fully automatic assault rifles are successfully banned

Do you want to bring them back?
Yes and no. I have mixed feelings about fully automatic rifles or handguns.

The original 1934 ban on fully automatic rifles (so-called machine guns) was a knee-jerk emotional response to "do something" about the mob using them for gang violence during the prohibition era.

See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Val ... y_Massacre

It is still legal in the US to own a fully automatic rifle if it's made before 1986. There are thousands of them in private hands in the US. And yet when was the last time there was a mass shooting with such a weapon? I can't recall any.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The concert is on private property. I can stipulate any condition I want including right of refusal.
I agree.

I already said I agree with that. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Matthew Ellard wrote:If some bloke outside the venue says "Perhaps I would so and carry concealed in anyway" I would ban that person on the spot, go to the CCTV room, download their photos and contact the police. SeeSaySomething.jpg
Why do I have to say this again: Once you reminded me we were talking about private property I agreed with you about private property rights and I revised my position and would not be carrying a gun into a private venue if they prohibited it.

Why do you keep pounding on an issue that I have already agreed with you?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14216
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:40 am

xouper wrote: If homicides are committed by the illegal use of "object X", then the rational conclusion is hold the perpetrator responsible, not "object X".
A gun haz no other purpose. Legal or not, uzing it properly for its purpose will rezult in deth or damaj.

----------------------------------------------

I notised a bystander (probably a relativ uv a victim at the church) wearing a T-shirt with 'zombie' printed on it.

Therez an element uv being prepared for the zombie apocalypse involved in gun ownership. I think peepl hav sum % uv beleef that it coud actually happen. Definitely a variable thats low in most, like 1% - 5% but a few outlyerz whov been watching to many moviez, The Walking Dead, playing zombie shooter gamez and hav a natural predilection for a worst case senario perspectiv on life are 90+% sure, so they need to stock up on ammo and sleep with the emergensy broadcast radio on.

The larjer the % uv the population that iz ready for sivilization to end, the less rezistens there iz to letting it end. The effect iz that the level uv sivilization iz lowered, rezulting in insidents such az this bekuming more common. It iz effectively at 0 at the time & location uv such events.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29845
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:41 am

xouper wrote: Then you agree, it is not a straw man to argue against a ban on all guns.
The police, armed forces, some farmers and some security guards need them. However that's for Australia. What the USA does is their own business and really only for American citizens to sort out.

After Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people with a AR-15 in Tasmania, in 1996, we collectively as a nation got rid of assault rifles. That was the end of that problem. Now we are getting rid of hand guns for civilians.

Let's get gun casualties down to zero!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:08 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:After Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people with a AR-15 in Tasmania, in 1996, we collectively as a nation got rid of assault rifles. That was the end of that problem.
Well, perhaps that was not quite the end of that problem.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... s-amnesty/

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:17 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:If homicides are committed by the illegal use of "object X", then the rational conclusion is hold the perpetrator responsible, not "object X".
A gun haz no other purpose. Legal or not, uzing it properly for its purpose will rezult in deth or damaj.
We have had this conversation before, JO. I have cited irrefutable evidence that contradicts your claim. If you like I can cite it again.

1. Guns do indeed have legitimate purposes that do not result in people getting killed or injured.

2. The lethalality of a gun is what makes it so effective for self defense, which is another legitimate use of a gun. Furthermore, successful uses of a gun for self defense do not always end in someone getting killed. There is no better tool for self defense than a gun for stopping an attacker who poses an immediate threat.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:37 am

xouper wrote: 1. Guns do indeed have legitimate purposes that do not result in people getting killed or injured.
.
No they don't. People train to hit center-mass because that maximizes the chance of a hit. The result is a deadly injury.
Only experts will reliably hit non-lethal spots.

To argue that a gun can be employed non-lethally is to argue that a power drill can be used for punching holes in my notes to put them in a three-ringed binder: likely to cause a mess unless you are very skilled.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:56 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:1. Guns do indeed have legitimate purposes that do not result in people getting killed or injured.
No they don't.
Yes, they do.

Some examples: Hunting, varmint control, sport shooting (including Olympic competitions), recreational shooting, collecting, etc, none of which involve human targets.

Although you do have a point about self defense, where a victim shoots an attacker. Most people are taught to shoot to kill, not to maim. The point is to stop the attack by whatever means deemed necessary, even if that means the attacker dies as a result. I have no sympathy for criminals who try to harm others.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Certain types of gun : Automatics, Bump stops, Semi automatic. Large magazines. None of which make any difference in self defense unless you are taking on the Russian army.
I just came across an interesting editorial that addresses that very point.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/second-a ... ment-ar-15
Seth Connell wrote:John Oliver sometimes has some legitimate criticisms of American politics, but when it comes to the right to bear arms he usually spouts off typical talking points about why “no one needs” certain kinds of weapons.

The talk show host has been in the United State since 2006, since coming over from the United Kingdom, and in that time he has simply not been able to wrap his mind around America’s gun culture. According to the New York Daily News, he especially cannot understand why citizens want to own AR-15s.

“The kind of firearms that are increasingly involved in these mass shootings remains inexplicable to me,” he said at Madison Square Garden’s Stand Up for Heroes veterans benefit. “I have not heard a good case for AR-15s in private hands. So that’s the part of it that remains baffling to me.”

Well, John Oliver has asked for a reason for civilians to own these firearms. I’ll up him and give three.
Recall that AR-15s were used in the Sutherland shooting, both by the bad guy and by the neighbor who shot the bad guy.

Point #2 was relevant to your assertion about semi-automatic rifles:
Seth Connell wrote:Second, the AR-15 is the perfect defensive firearm.

The AR (Armalite Rifle) is a reliable design that is easy to learn how to shoot, has many different options for the user to customize to his/her preference. It fires a cartridge that is best for personal protection in the home at close, medium, and long range.

A rifle is much easier to shoot than a handgun. A handgun has a short barrel, and a very small amount of material that can absorb the recoil from rounds fired. The smaller the gun gets, the more harsh the recoil will be.

Additionally, because the AR-15 is a long gun, a user can shoot it more accurately because there are more points of contact. With more points of contact, a user is able to hold the rifle more steadily than a pistol, and he/she can fire rounds more accurately, reducing the risk of unnecessary collateral damage and harm to innocent bystanders.

As a final point on this subject, one of the most common objections to AR-15s is the claim that they are “high-powered” rifles. Actually, the standard AR-15 cartridge is really not all that powerful. Sure, the bullet will leave the gun with a muzzle velocity of around 3000 fps, but the bullet that leaves the barrel is actually a very small caliber.

The .223 Remington round (or 5.56×45 NATO) round is in the .22 caliber category. That’s a very small cartridge, especially when compared to most hunting rounds like the .308, 30-30, .270 Winchester, and 7MM Remington Mag. But it’s small size combined with its high speed is why it is a perfect defensive firearm. The bullet, when it hits its target, will disintegrate much faster than a shotgun shell or slug, and even faster than a pistol round.

With people living in apartments or in places where houses are close together, a defender wants any fired bullet to fall apart on contact to stop over-penetration. The AR-15 cartridge will do the job when it hits its target, but will do less collateral damage if a user misses their target.
I think that pretty much answers your (implied) question about the appropriateness of an AR-15 for self defense.

Here's more:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... gs-shooter
David French wrote:. . . Stephen Willeford, engaged the Sutherland Springs shooter with his own AR:
He armed himself with an AR assault rifle and engaged the suspect. They engaged in gunfire here at the church. We know that the suspect was shot, when he dropped his assault rifle and jumped in his Ford Expedition and fled the scene.
Given what we know from other reports, this makes a great deal of sense. After all, Willeford apparently fired with a great deal of precision. Here’s an account from CNN, taken from an interview of his cousin:
And what he did, according to his cousin, is exchange fire with the gunman, hitting him in the side and twice in the neck. “He saw that the guy was wearing body armor, and there was a velcro strap, from the back to the front,” detailed Leonard, speaking live on Monday. “He knew from that … that the vulnerable spot was going to be in the side. And so that’s where he shot him.”
. . . We keep hearing that AR’s are useless for self-defense, that they’re simply “weapons of war,” useful only for mass killing. This is simply not true. Earlier this year, an Oklahoma man used an AR-15 to kill three home intruders, and multiple self-defense experts have long pegged AR-style rifles as their “home defense weapon of choice.”
Do you still want to maintain that AR-15 style rifles are not useful for self defense? They are in fact one of the most popular rifles in the US.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10968
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:20 am

Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.

And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22953
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:27 am

TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.

And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
Our "Minute Men" were equipped with the guns they used to put food on the table.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10968
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:48 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.

And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
Our "Minute Men" were equipped with the guns they used to put food on the table.
For which the current day equivalent is the wallet, not an assault weapon.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:48 am

TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.
TJ, you know the solution to deaths from drunk drivers in the US is to turn the US into a car free zone. Why can't you acknowledge that? Don't be obtuse.

TJrandom wrote:And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
That factually incorrect. The right to own and carry guns existed before the Us was even founded.

It does not matter that the technology has changed since then. The right is still the same.

Otherwise, by your logic, there should be no freedom of speech on TV or the internet, since those things did not exist when the Constitution was written.

I reject your argument as invalid.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:50 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.

And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
Our "Minute Men" were equipped with the guns they used to put food on the table.
For which the current day equivalent is the wallet, not an assault weapon.
All of which is totally irrelevant to the Second Amendment, which isn't going to be repealed any time soon. Especially not while I still have a vote.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22953
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:53 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.

And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
Our "Minute Men" were equipped with the guns they used to put food on the table.
For which the current day equivalent is the wallet, not an assault weapon.
Unless one just likes killing things, of course. Those are the people I would trust with all the guns they wanted. :roll:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10968
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:56 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Xouper, you know the solution to gun deaths in the US is to turn the US into a gun free zone. Why can`t you acknowledge that? Don`t be obtuse.
TJ, you know the solution to deaths from drunk drivers in the US is to turn the US into a car free zone. Why can't you acknowledge that? Don't be obtuse.

TJrandom wrote:And No – people did not have a right to assault weapons before the US was formed. Simply ridiculous. That right is the result of the NRA and gun lobby.
That factually incorrect. The right to own and carry guns existed before the Us was even founded.

It does not matter that the technology has changed since then. The right is still the same.

Otherwise, by your logic, there should be no freedom of speech on TV or the internet, since those things did not exist when the Constitution was written.

I reject your argument as invalid.
Erm... Lots of laws on drinking and driving, and while not a perfect solution, they have vastly reduced the carnage. And freedom of speech isn`t murdering people, nor is the internet. But assault weapons are.

No - there did not exist a right to carry guns before the US created that right. That some people did so, did not make it a right.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:16 pm

TJrandom wrote:No - there did not exist a right to carry guns before the US created that right. That some people did so, did not make it a right.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do most legal historians. And their opinion counts for far more than your ignorant blatherings.

The US Constitution does not create any rights. It merely protects pre-existing rights from being infringed by the government.

If you don't understand this distinction, then I recommend you get yourself some more education and remedy your ignorance on the matter.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:20 pm

The Opening Arguments Podcast has a couple of excellent shows about the 2nd Amendment and its history (starting with Episodes 21 and 26).
In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.

http://openargs.com

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:26 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:In short, Scalia went completely against all precedent to establish a federal right to bear arms, something that up until that point was completely up to the individual states.
That is factually incorrect.

Neither the states nor the federal government created any rights.