A gun in every house is a must

[Kernen]

Especially since the AR can do both.

AR can't shoot buckshot

It can if you get creative with the terms "shoot" and "buckshot".

[The Chuck]

AR can't shoot buckshot

It can if you get creative with the terms "shoot" and "buckshot".

An AR-15 platform can definitely shoot buckshot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81WB3zdFYSs

[Kernen]

It can if you get creative with the terms "shoot" and "buckshot".

An AR-15 platform can definitely shoot buckshot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81WB3zdFYSs

Slap .300 BLK into a 5.56mm mag and you'll definitely throw many pieces of small metal in a scattering formation. Once.

[Galloism]

It's not really theoretical.

If you're trying to discuss a specific case, then describing it to me and expecting me to give an opinion is just a waste of everybody's time.

I'm not going to incentivize young children to carry weapons because of "stranger danger". That's just insane. Depending on her age, it's quite likely she's not legally responsible. She should simply have not had a gun, because people who are not legally competent to be held responsible are not responsible.

I mean, there's lots of reasons she shouldn't have gone there and shouldn't have been illegally armed with a handgun.

But you have to ask yourself - in that moment, do you want the victim's mode of thought to be "well, should I allow myself to be raped or should I go to prison?"

That's not a choice we want to force people to make, but that's what making self defense a crime would do.

[Greater Cesnica]

But you have to ask yourself - in that moment, do you want the victim's mode of thought to be "well, should I allow myself to be raped or should I go to prison?"

That's not a choice we want to force people to make, but that's what making self defense a crime would do.

Anyone who favors the former option of allowing one to be victimized in that manner... I can't even begin to comprehend that stance.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Considering that we as a society feel perfectly comfortable asking people to choose between crime and deprivation, I don’t see how that’s much more of a problem.

To reiterate my earlier opinion, self-defence shouldn’t cover illegal actions taken while not under imminent threat to person or property. Someone defending herself with an illegally acquired weapon should be charged for possession unless said acquisition occurred during the crime being committed against her.

[Galloism]

Considering that we as a society feel perfectly comfortable asking people to choose between crime and deprivation, I don’t see how that’s much more of a problem.

To reiterate my earlier opinion, self-defence shouldn’t cover illegal actions taken while not under imminent threat to person or property. Someone defending herself with an illegally acquired weapon should be charged for possession unless said acquisition occurred during the crime being committed against her.

Agreed on that. It shouldn't be a retroactive get out of jail free card.

But people should be charged for the crimes they committed, not for crimes other people committed against them that they had to defend themselves from.

[Babalabuska]

"A gun in every house is a must. Let me use my shotgun or bust."-This popped into my head and i felt the need to post it.

---

Ignoring the quote, I just think that anyone who can pass a background check and is in perfect health to own a gun should be allowed to purchase one to be used in their home.

[WikiPlay]

And if I have 5 big problems at once then you kill people due extreme aggression and stay scared at home for the restof your life. I know a murderer and no work, isolated from social contacts. That's what happened with him in R/L.

[Christian Confederation]

It can if you get creative with the terms "shoot" and "buckshot".

An AR-15 platform can definitely shoot buckshot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81WB3zdFYSs

Never mind then. Hunting Rifle or AR then

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

But you have to ask yourself - in that moment, do you want the victim's mode of thought to be "well, should I allow myself to be raped or should I go to prison?"

That's not a choice we want to force people to make, but that's what making self defense a crime would do.

Anyone who favors the former option of allowing one to be victimized in that manner... I can't even begin to comprehend that stance.

Then you're glossing over what the girl did after arming herself and before killing a man.

I haven't looked the case up because I have a nasty feeling she was aided, or given her age, set up, to commit a premeditated murder, and the jury let her walk. Why should I stick my head in that bucket of shit, just because Galloism says it's such good shit?

Like Kyle, doing something no sane person would do unarmed, a death coming from their gun, then apparently "it's not felony murder" even if carrying the weapon was a felony. For no other reason than stopping people deliberately walking into trouble and someone getting killed, the girl should be held responsible for her actions in illegally carrying and she can choose rape or 2 to 5 years in prison. Probably a lot less due to age, but I can't do anything about that.

Also, do you really support children carrying guns in the city? You think that should be legal, no license required?

[The Chuck]

Anyone who favors the former option of allowing one to be victimized in that manner... I can't even begin to comprehend that stance.

Then you're glossing over what the girl did after arming herself and before killing a man.

I haven't looked the case up because I have a nasty feeling she was aided, or given her age, set up, to commit a premeditated murder, and the jury let her walk. Why should I stick my head in that bucket of shit, just because Galloism says it's such good shit?

Like Kyle, doing something no sane person would do unarmed, a death coming from their gun, then apparently "it's not felony murder" even if carrying the weapon was a felony. For no other reason than stopping people deliberately walking into trouble and someone getting killed, the girl should be held responsible for her actions in illegally carrying and she can choose rape or 2 to 5 years in prison. Probably a lot less due to age, but I can't do anything about that.

Also, do you really support children carrying guns in the city? You think that should be legal, no license required?

Considering I have been shot twice in my life when I still was a "kid" due to the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the most crime ridden cities in America... I am not opposed to individuals being armed for their own safety.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Then you're glossing over what the girl did after arming herself and before killing a man.

I haven't looked the case up because I have a nasty feeling she was aided, or given her age, set up, to commit a premeditated murder, and the jury let her walk. Why should I stick my head in that bucket of shit, just because Galloism says it's such good shit?

Like Kyle, doing something no sane person would do unarmed, a death coming from their gun, then apparently "it's not felony murder" even if carrying the weapon was a felony. For no other reason than stopping people deliberately walking into trouble and someone getting killed, the girl should be held responsible for her actions in illegally carrying and she can choose rape or 2 to 5 years in prison. Probably a lot less due to age, but I can't do anything about that.

Also, do you really support children carrying guns in the city? You think that should be legal, no license required?

Considering I have been shot twice in my life when I still was a "kid" due to the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the most crime ridden cities in America... I am not opposed to individuals being armed for their own safety.

"Individuals" presumably including people with a record of enforced mental health treatment, foreigners, ex-felons still on parole, and children of any age. Because you're a man of principle I can tell.

[The Chuck]

Considering I have been shot twice in my life when I still was a "kid" due to the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the most crime ridden cities in America... I am not opposed to individuals being armed for their own safety.

"Individuals" presumably including people with a record of enforced mental health treatment, foreigners, ex-felons still on parole, and children of any age. Because you're a man of principle I can tell.

Did I ever stutter ASoT? I support the right of all individuals to own firearms as per how it is laid out under the 2nd Amendment. Folks going through mental health hiccups should seek out assistance and continue to hold the same rights as everyone else. Foreigners already can own firearms in the United States. Ex-Felons, having served their debt to society, should have all of their rights as citizens restored. Including but not limited to their right to own firearms and their right to vote in our elections. As for children, I honestly would rather have a child be informed on how to use a firearm than not. Your attempting to argue in bad faith is rather amusing and your condescending attitude reeks of a "better-than-thou" stench. I hold my principles near and dear and I frankly don't care if you continue to attempt to bait myself or others into getting a rise out of us.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

"Individuals" presumably including people with a record of enforced mental health treatment, foreigners, ex-felons still on parole, and children of any age. Because you're a man of principle I can tell.

Did I ever stutter ASoT? I support the right of all individuals to own firearms as per how it is laid out under the 2nd Amendment. Folks going through mental health hiccups should seek out assistance and continue to hold the same rights as everyone else. Foreigners already can own firearms in the United States. Ex-Felons, having served their debt to society, should have all of their rights as citizens restored. Including but not limited to their right to own firearms and their right to vote in our elections. As for children, I honestly would rather have a child be informed on how to use a firearm than not. Your attempting to argue in bad faith is rather amusing and your condescending attitude reeks of a "better-than-thou" stench. I hold my principles near and dear and I frankly don't care if you continue to attempt to bait myself or others into getting a rise out of us.

Well that's remarkably bad tempered. I thought "an armed society is a polite society".

As to trying to get a rise out of you, I could have done that any time in the last few years, by going into one of the gun threads. The reason I never did, is exactly what happened there. I can't get a reply out of anyone who replied to me, before someone else jumps in and starts propounding their own gun agenda.

Legal carry for illegal immigrants with a mental disability who are eight. That's reasonable. Good luck to your agenda and I hope I can count on your support for all children having the vote.

[Kowani]

Considering I have been shot twice in my life when I still was a "kid" due to the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the most crime ridden cities in America... I am not opposed to individuals being armed for their own safety.

"Individuals" presumably including people with a record of enforced mental health treatment,

so, your first problem is that your data is bad
mentally ill people are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of a crime than the perpetrators of it, and it's in the interest of everybody to allow people to defend themselves, and the tradeoff here is practically nonexistent

foreigners, ex-felons still on parole, and children of any age. Because you're a man of principle I can tell.

i mean, yeah, he is
i argue with chuck quite often-specifically about firearms policy, both on and offsite, and he's extremely principled, to the point where he can't actually craft effective gun policy
you're stepping into waters you don't know much about
this is what i hate about NSG
really shitty psychoanalysis
if you're going to try and figure someone out from just posts, at least be good at it

[The Chuck]

Did I ever stutter ASoT? I support the right of all individuals to own firearms as per how it is laid out under the 2nd Amendment. Folks going through mental health hiccups should seek out assistance and continue to hold the same rights as everyone else. Foreigners already can own firearms in the United States. Ex-Felons, having served their debt to society, should have all of their rights as citizens restored. Including but not limited to their right to own firearms and their right to vote in our elections. As for children, I honestly would rather have a child be informed on how to use a firearm than not. Your attempting to argue in bad faith is rather amusing and your condescending attitude reeks of a "better-than-thou" stench. I hold my principles near and dear and I frankly don't care if you continue to attempt to bait myself or others into getting a rise out of us.

Well that's remarkably bad tempered. I thought "an armed society is a polite society".

As to trying to get a rise out of you, I could have done that any time in the last few years, by going into one of the gun threads. The reason I never did, is exactly what happened there. I can't get a reply out of anyone who replied to me, before someone else jumps in and starts propounding their own gun agenda.

Legal carry for illegal immigrants with a mental disability who are eight. That's reasonable. Good luck to your agenda and I hope I can count on your support for all children having the vote.

Rather a snarky ending from you no? You like to wave your thoughts and views around without much support under them and yet you refuse to look into 3 minute videos sent to you from the opposite side of the aisle. Your argument that the govt. should go kicking down the doors of firearms owners seems rather hypocritical. Should the govt. go kicking down your door simply because you wanted to partake in an ounce of Mary Jane?

...he's extremely principled, to the point where he can't actually craft effective gun policy...

... What a pleasantly rude thing to say about me Kowani... Thank you though.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

"Individuals" presumably including people with a record of enforced mental health treatment,

so, your first problem is that your data is bad
mentally ill people are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of a crime than the perpetrators of it, and it's in the interest of everybody to allow people to defend themselves, and the tradeoff here is practically nonexistent

Except suicide. In any case, it's a matter of accountability. If a court has already ruled that this person was (at some time in the past) not responsible for their actions, it seems irresponsible to let them carry a gun. Particularly in light of the self-defense standard that "a reasonable person" would think they are in danger. You shouldn't give any encouragement to people who may not be reasonable to trust their judgement about their lives being in danger.

BTW, I didn't even look at your link, because very few mentally-ill people have a court order forcing them into treatment at some time in the past.

Finally on that point which I was only quizzing The Chuck on, not propounding myself, it seems reasonable to restore gun rights after a year or so of release from enforced mental treatment. Perhaps a consultation with a government psychiatrist at that point.

foreigners, ex-felons still on parole, and children of any age. Because you're a man of principle I can tell.

i mean, yeah, he is
i argue with chuck quite often-specifically about firearms policy, both on and offsite, and he's extremely principled, to the point where he can't actually craft effective gun policy
you're stepping into waters you don't know much about
this is what i hate about NSG
really shitty psychoanalysis
if you're going to try and figure someone out from just posts, at least be good at it

Whatever man. You take The Chuck more seriously than I do, presumably because he knows so much about guns. Whereas I don't buy that I have to know even the definition of a rifle in order to have an opinion on what other people should be allowed to do with guns. Or who should be allowed to do it.

So you've got an opinion about mentally ill people being allowed to have guns. You can give it again, if you'd like to tailor it to the minority of (presumed) mentally ill people I mentioned.

Cut out the personal stuff, and tell me your opinion on children legally carrying guns. Including in that public facility they're required to attend: a school.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Depends on the caliber, a firearm isn't a one size fits all tool.

*laughs in M44 Mosin Nagant*

>Bolt sticks

[UniversalCommons]

Why a rifle, an AR-15, and a pistol. A shotgun is a much more practical weapon for home defense. For hunting most people are more likely to shoot turkeys and ducks than deer. Deer are big messy animals. Also shotguns can use a greater variety of ammunition including things like bean bag rounds, taser shells, rock salt in addition to lethal rounds. Generally in my understanding home defense is with a shotgun or pistol. High powered rifles and guns go through people and create messes.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Well that's remarkably bad tempered. I thought "an armed society is a polite society".

As to trying to get a rise out of you, I could have done that any time in the last few years, by going into one of the gun threads. The reason I never did, is exactly what happened there. I can't get a reply out of anyone who replied to me, before someone else jumps in and starts propounding their own gun agenda.

Legal carry for illegal immigrants with a mental disability who are eight. That's reasonable. Good luck to your agenda and I hope I can count on your support for all children having the vote.

Rather a snarky ending from you no? You like to wave your thoughts and views around without much support under them and yet you refuse to look into 3 minute videos sent to you from the opposite side of the aisle.

I do prefer text, it tends to have more verifiable (or falsifiable) facts in it, and I'm more able to detect its bias.

Your argument that the govt. should go kicking down the doors of firearms owners seems rather hypocritical.

Except we were talking about situations where people carrying illegally kill someone and claim self-defense. I don't dispute that sometimes it is genuinely self defense, but the presumption that the killer wouldn't even have put themselves in such a situation without bringing a gun, seems to me a degree of guilt. If they hadn't found a gun to illegally carry, they wouldn't have gone there, and one less person would have died.

What guns someone illegally has in their house, really has nothing to do with that.

Should the govt. go kicking down your door simply because you wanted to partake in an ounce of Mary Jane?

Something like that did happen once. Luckily I'd left my front door open, so it didn't get kicked down.

...he's extremely principled, to the point where he can't actually craft effective gun policy...

... What a pleasantly rude thing to say about me Kowani... Thank you though.

No policy is the best policy. If some foreigners want to import nukes, that's none of the government's business, right?

[Kowani]

so, your first problem is that your data is bad
mentally ill people are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of a crime than the perpetrators of it, and it's in the interest of everybody to allow people to defend themselves, and the tradeoff here is practically nonexistent

Except suicide. In any case, it's a matter of accountability. If a court has already ruled that this person was (at some time in the past) not responsible for their actions, it seems irresponsible to let them carry a gun.

what
mental illness isn't static
things change over time
this policy is entirely nonfunctional

Particularly in light of the self-defense standard that "a reasonable person" would think they are in danger. You shouldn't give any encouragement to people who may not be reasonable to trust their judgement about their lives being in danger.

"you're at extra high risk of being victimized but we won't trust you to defend yourselves"
fucking lol

BTW, I didn't even look at your link, because very few mentally-ill people have a court order forcing them into treatment at some time in the past.

entirely irrelevant, but thank you for admitting your opposition to inconvenient facts

Finally on that point which I was only quizzing The Chuck on, not propounding myself, it seems reasonable to restore gun rights after a year or so of release from enforced mental treatment. Perhaps a consultation with a government psychiatrist at that point.

nice, cool, not how mental health works

Whatever man. You take The Chuck more seriously than I do, presumably because he knows so much about guns. Whereas I don't buy that I have to know even the definition of a rifle in order to have an opinion on what other people should be allowed to do with guns. Or who should be allowed to do it.

no, i take The Chuck seriously because he's extremely passionate about guns
i don't know shit about firearms myself
but i do follow the evidence to craft good policy
you don't do either of those things

So you've got an opinion about mentally ill people being allowed to have guns. You can give it again, if you'd like to tailor it to the minority of (presumed) mentally ill people I mentioned.

literally no difference
criminals with a mental illness are literally the least likely category of people to reoffend
this is literally an example of what i mean

Cut out the personal stuff, and tell me your opinion on children legally carrying guns. Including in that public facility they're required to attend: a school.

not a fan
but i'm anti-gun as a whole
this is expected

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Man I just want a house and guns, all I need

[Radiatia]

To be honest, I'm not bothered if everyone has a gun as it's bullets that tend to do most of the damage. On its own a gun can poke you in the eye at worst.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

To be honest, I'm not bothered if everyone has a gun as it's bullets that tend to do most of the damage. On its own a gun can poke you in the eye at worst.

Bayonet