(November 7, 2016 at 7:09 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 4, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Sleazy, blood-soaked fucks that they are, even the NRA's gun safety rules are correct.

Somebody breaks into the gunner's home. 

The gunner says "Hang on, I've got to load my piece." 

"Take your time, mate, I'm a good sport." 

"Thank you kindly. Now I'm ready to shoot you dead." 

"Fair is fair!. 

NRA rules negate the "home defense" meme.

Now you're getting it, Boy-o.

(November 7, 2016 at 11:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: It;s important to give credible -reasons- for our agreement, though..otherwise, some gun nut loon will tell you what I just told you, and -rightly- dismiss your objection to his lunacy.  He absolutely and demonstrable -can- ready his safely stored weapon for action in a matter of seconds.

No sense in making it easy for the loons, amiright?  That's the value of a factual, rather than counterfactual, narrative in the gun debate, if we hope to effect change.

I'll point a gun at you, you go for your ammo. Let's see if you make it.

If you've got the jump like that then there is no defending yourself, that's not a burglary scenario...that's a hostage out of nowhere scenario.  C'mon Sama, I'm trying to help you respond to the loons and you're just becoming one yourself, lol.  

This is why they keep winning. They propose something shitty...and then the people who oppose them -lose their shit- and come off looking like the nutballs.

Naturally, resolution 555b "Gun in every toddlers hand" -because- surprise hostage, no less, passes by a wide margin. When someone says we need more good guys with guns to stop the badguys with guns -for example, breaking into our homes, we can't say "No, cuz you couldn't reach your gun in time" ...... Yes, yes they could, and that's -exactly- the problem.

(November 7, 2016 at 2:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you've got the jump like that then there is no defending yourself, that's not a burglary scenario...that's a hostage out of nowhere scenario.  C'mon Sama, I'm trying to help you respond to the loons and you're just becoming one yourself, lol.  

This is why they keep winning.  They propose something shitty...and then the people who oppose them -lose their shit- and come off looking like the nutballs.  

Naturally, resolution 555b "Gun in every toddlers hand" -because- surprise hostage, no less, passes by a wide margin.  When someone says we need more good guys with guns to stop the badguys, you don;t say :No, cuz you couldn;t reach your gun in time"  Yes, yes they could..and that's -exactly- the problem.

Quibbling, I see. Burglary with weapons isn't rare. I know of cases from when I was running with the cops in LA. People wake up with a gun in their face and give up all the valuables. 

You guys want to live in a perfect world where  your toys are actually worth something.

You guys, this guy says, lol.

At some point, we who would like to see gun reform (that's you and me) have to accept our responsibility in how things got fucked up in the first place. Softballing loons with nutball objections is part of it.

(November 7, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You guys, this guy says, lol.

At some point, we who would like to see gun reform (that's you and me) have to accept our responsibility in how things got fucked up in the first place.  Softballing loons with nutball objections is part of it.

Swooshed again, I see.

...............?

Sama, consider, for a moment, your objection.  From every angle.  I want to see if I can help you to undersand why it;s a poor objection in both principle and practice..and why it;s counterproductive to what we both want.  Reform.  

Firstly, the midnight gun to your face surprise example is -not- what a gun nut has a gun in their house for.  It just isn;t.  It;s also not the most commn way for a burglary to go down, not by a wide margin.  It is, however, even more terrifying than the type of situation they -do- keep a gun in their house for.  There is simply no point at which referencing something like that will make a gun nut think it's not a good idea to have a gun in his home for self defense.  You -do- have to make him think that, you -do- have to lead him to that realization, if you want to see change. It's not going to happen if you don't, won't, or can't.

The type of thing they -do- keep a gun for, is when you hear the window smash, when you hear someone rummaging around in the other room.  They think that's what they;re going to use their guns for.  You tell them that, if their guns were safely stored..they couldn't get to them..and you'd simply be wrong.  Wrong on the face of it.  So, again, not a good objection.  The problem with "goodguys" with guns..is that they can and do get to their guns..they use their guns, and somebody gets shot.  Often enough, it's not the burglar.  Even more terribly, there may never have been a burglar...and they weren't the goodguy at all..precisely because they could and did reach and use their guns.  Few months ago...this was in this thread I believe, some asshole popped off at somebody he thought was a criminal in a parking lot. He was super-surprised to end up in handcuffs, he hadn't thought the use of his weapon through, at all. You know what, why would he? It's not as if the counternaarrative presented to him is a factual narrative...and for all the things he;s wrong about, he's right about that one. All the anti-gun stuff he's ever heard, belted at him from the fanatics on the other side of the divide...nutball shit. The actual consequences of his actions drowned out in a see of things that are trivially easy for he and his gun nut buddies to dismiss.

You went off on a tangent, out of defensiveness.

Here are some better ones, for your consideration.

The amount of burglaries where the occupant is home?  A fraction of overall burglaries.
The amount of burglars who employ firearms in the commission of their crime, a fraction of all burglars.
The amount of burglars shot by people "defending their homes with guns", a fraction of the number of people shot by those very same people "defending their homes with guns".  

The situation the gun nut dreads, not actually likely to occur.  If it does occur, he's not -actually- likely to need a gun to defend himself.  If he -does- use a gun, he's much more likely to shoot his wife, or his friend, or his children, or the neighbor, or the meterman.  -These- are the reasons he doesn't need a gun in his home for self defense, why he shouldn't think of firearms this way, not because he couldn't reach them if they were safely stored...but because he could do that, and the consequences will, likely, be terrible...and not at all what he's imagining.  Evemn if he manages, like most don't, to actually shoot a "bad guy"...he'll have that on his head for the rest of his life. So, rather than allow him the easy out of that mistaken objection..why not levy those he just can't get around?

Defensiveness to what, you nutball? I don;t have any firearms in my home for self defense, and don;t plan to ever use one for self defense. I think it's a terrible idea. Somebody busts into my house, imma call the cops and give him what he wants. They can shoot the fucker, if somebody wants to shoot the fucker. I'm not interested.

How about: a gun that is safe is not immediately ready for use, and therefore the issue of "home defense" is moot in that regard.