How would you respond...FB Discussion

[87iroc]

A friend of mine from High School is now a National Park Service Ranger(or maybe Park Police...but probably Range)...

I posted up the washington post link on my FB page and he started off by saying 'does the 40% number really matter'....I responded with a few things...and he came back with this...

Do criminals go the speed limit? Stop at locked doors? Not talk on their phone while driving? Stop at stop signs? Not take stuff because its not theirs? Not take drugs? No criminals do these things but we still have laws that make it illegal. So not passing a law because criminal wont follow it is not really a valid argument. Does the process make it harder for guns to be on the street, yes. As some one who deals with people with guns on a regular basis (both criminal and legal) less guns are better.

My thought is 1) He never commented on the fact that the laws proposed would NOT stop Newtown or other mass killings. ( I had pointed this out in my original reply)...

2) They're messing with our fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and they don't have facts to back up any of their arguments.

3) He says less guns is a good thing. Tell chicago that

ANything else?

 

[Double T]

Tell him to turn his over first.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Can't argue with stupid.

 

[eldirector]

Well, your friend certainly has a bias.

Ask him to prove his point by giving up his first. I mean, with the right laws in place, he won't "need" them anyway.

 

[87iroc]

The guy is an Eagle Scout and I won't just blow him off. Keep in mind I have my Anti Gun Brother-in-law watching I'm sure....itching to comment but I don't suspect he will as we kind of have a ignore each others posts policy as it wouldn't be civil. I can be civil with my friend here...and he will be civil as well. He's not a whacko...just knows hwat he's seen which is more than 80% of the anti-gun crowd can say.

 

[Que]

He confused his own conclusion with his premise (yeah, I meant in that order). If less guns are better, why doesn't he follow in the footsteps of Andy Taylor and refuse to carry on on his job?

 

[HandK]

He confused his own conclusion with his premise (yeah, I meant in that order). If less guns are better, why doesn't he follow in the footsteps of Andy Taylor and refuse to carry on on his job?

This^^^^

 

[87iroc]

I had commented on the fruitlessness of limiting magazine size...

He double posted and posted this up next.

I disagree with you magazine argument too. I have taken extensive training on active shooter response and time matters. If there is any way to increase the time even through magazine reloads and increasing the burden of amount of gear to carry. It gives law enforcement time to get there. All the evidence points to at a shooter won't stop until they are confronted by law enforcement. And why does anyone need a magazine that carries more than ten rounds. Look at it as an opportunity to practice your magazine exchanges!

 

[Double T]

I had commented on the fruitlessness of limiting magazine size...

He double posted and posted this up next.

ask him what makes law enforcement any better than a civilian with a gun? LEO's are civilians after all, and they obviously aren't that great of shots in large metro areas that BEG anyone and everyone to become one.

 

[phylodog]

Tell him this cop who works in the 11th largest city in the country thinks he's full of it. Legislation won't result in fewer guns just like it hasn't, for one second, curbed the abundance of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana or extasy. It didn't work with alcohol either but back then the ratio of morons who believe prohibition works was much smaller so it was abandoned.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Yeah, the evidence doesn't support his statement at all, actually.

 

[Legba]

How many does his mag hold? Ask him why the lawmakers and him are allowed to be exempt from the laws they push on us. Good job keeping it civil. Good luck.

 

[87iroc]

My responses are as follows...

You've never commented on the fact that the laws would do nothing to stop a massacre from happening....maybe vaguely alluded to it in your comment about magazines and slowing a shooter down.

Your comment about 'anything that slows the shooter down to allow law enforcement to arrive' backs up the NRA's position that more guns are better as 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. That then contradicts what you said about less guns is better.

If 10 round magazines are good(or if after the 10 round magazine limit doesn't 'fix' the problem..it'll be 7...then 5...then outlaw semi-autos....then outlaw...you get the idea...see NY State for my evidence here)anyway...if 10 round magazines are OK for the common citizen. When is law enforcement going to give up their large capacity magazines? Seems NY State had to quickly swoop back in and 'fix' that oversite in their law....what makes Law Enforcement better than the average citizen trying to defend themselves. I know you're thinking 'training'...tell that to the 2 women that got shot in LA in their pickup because it 'looked' like the gunman's truck. In addition to that...if you're defending your home....you quickly grab your pistol to go check a noise. If magazines are limited to 10 rounds or 7....and you need more and you 'forget' to grab more...no time for a magazine change...if you don't have it. Of course, you might be thinking 'who needs more than 10 rounds to defend a home'....tell that to the woman that defended her child against 3 intruders...

 

[manygunsmike]

Can't argue with stupid.

EXACTLY Ignore the B.S. !!! I seem to get into discussions with people about guns a few times a week and I just started making up **** just like them sometimes I go way out there and say the craziest stuff ! LOL They the stupid ones always seem to have a damn answer HAHAHAHA!! F Them anyway jokes on them everytime STUPID is just that STUPID!!

manygunsmike

 

[actaeon277]

A mag limit only affects (or is it effects) the defender.
Generally a weapon carried is carried with just the mag in it, or one spare. I'm betting the same for home defense. Not all, the majority.

But the attacker gets to choose. He can bring 30 mags in a backpack.

So the defender is now at a worse disadvantage, even considering both having 10 rnd mags.

And if less guns are better, why is England so high on the list of violent crime?

 

[Hotdoger]

I had commented on the fruitlessness of limiting magazine size...

He double posted and posted this up next.

Quote:
I disagree with you magazine argument too. I have taken extensive training on active shooter response and time matters. If there is any way to increase the time even through magazine reloads and increasing the burden of amount of gear to carry. It gives law enforcement time to get there. All the evidence points to at a shooter won't stop until they are confronted by law enforcement. And why does anyone need a magazine that carries more than ten rounds. Look at it as an opportunity to practice your magazine exchanges!

He is pompous liberal dolt and there is little hope.
I unfriended my lib brother from FB. It makes life a lot easier.

 

[actaeon277]

He is pompous liberal dolt and there is little hope.
I unfriended my lib brother from FB. It makes life a lot easier.

If you unfriend them, they don't get to hear that people disagree with them.

 

[MikeDVB]

I just always bring facts and cite sources, and ask them to do the same... They never do, and then I say, "I see you've said X, Y, and Z - are those simply your opinions or can you cite sources to back up your claims?"

The next step they generally take is to turn emotional, "Don't you care about the children?" etc... There is no winning that argument because no matter what you say their response is, "So you don't care about the children then..."

 

[87iroc]

Latest....first and only response I've ever seen to why the police should have more capacity magazines....

If home defense is your primary reason for owning a pistol, then I believe you chosen your weapon poorly. I would say the best weapon for home defense would be a shotgun unless you continually practice with that weapon. Also if you can't get it done in 10 rounds then what's to say 15 or 17 will be enough. Why not 100 or 1000 round magazine for the pistol. And do you really want Law Enforcement to have less? Really? Why? There are many things that I can do as a police office that the average citizen and I also have a responsibility that the citizen doesn't have. When the shooting starts my job is to run in the this fight and take care of the problem and you as a citizen will run and save yourself and family and leave the threat for me and the other police officers to deal with. This scenario has played out time and time again. So you want the police who are here to defend you and protect you to have limits on their abilities? As for the ladies who were shot I am sorry but police officers are people too and if some one is hunting you, your reactions might be similar. But as usually the public is alway against the police until they need them.

 

[strokin7.3]

He makes mention of the police officerS going to deal with the problem. So if there are multiple officers then they should only need ten rounds each right?

Also some people don't depend on the police for their protection, they just need them to fill out the report after the fact...