Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 41. (Read 36627 times)

Fixed it.

Unfortunately the fix makes smaller, weaker people such as women, children or the elderly far more capable of being assaulted...

Darn, you don't think that might be the reason guns became popular, do you?

Go back to the basic statement, highlighted above.

Then look at the second bolded statement, which is of course ridiculous.  For example, a rapist corners a girl, she pulls out her gun and shoots him.  He dies.  The "gun death", as you put it, was caused by the rapist attempting the assault, not by the girl acting in self defense.  

Far more commonly, we should note, she pulls out that firearm and once the bad guy sees it, that guy is off running.  How common is that compared to an actual self defense shooting?  You never hear about those cases where the gun was not fired, do you?  They are a hundred to one.  There are any number of real life situations where just the sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a round caused the bad guys to become total cowards....

Many examples like this where the presence of deadly force in the hands of the good guys prevented something bad from coming down.  What you've done is tried to assert that the good guys are the bad guys!

By any rules of debate with  you have just lost the argument.  But I already noted that gun control nuts always lose these arguments, because of a lack of actual knowledge.....

You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't.

I suspect that ownership of chainsaws is far, far more prone to causing tragic accidents than ownership of guns.  But let's stick with YOUR logic.  Obviously, we need to take guns away from police and the military.  Because as long as they have them, gun deaths could occur.

Really?

Here you go with the same argument again.  Of course we don't.  Do you know what makes a criminal a criminal?  They don't follow laws.  Governments don't either.  Both are excellent reasons for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given right to defend themselves by owning guns.

M

I wouldn't consider those godly governments.

M

Would you rather be shot in the heart from twenty feet away, or have someone throw punches at you from twenty feet away?

On the second point, obviously. On the first, do you advocate distributing guns to criminals?

I still don't get the focus on guns.  When we see "criminals", why do we think "guns"?  Were there no criminals before guns?  Was theft a relatively new concept once the first rifle was introduced?  For if there was no crime, there would be no need for law, but we know there was law, for there was crime and a form of government to punish the criminal.

The very core of these debates is as follows: how to handle the problem of crime.  The solution, however, does not seem to be, "Disarm the criminals and they won't do any crimes"; this did not work, ever, in the history of man.  The true solution will begin once we ask, "What is causing all this crime?"  What drives a man to rob another man, whether with a gun, a shiv, or just smashing the victim's head into concrete?  These are the questions we need to ask; the gun debate is simply a distraction for lesser men with lesser minds to focus upon, as if it were the deciding factor between paradise and a living hell, while crime, no matter the ruling of gun control, will continue to happen with no end in sight, guns or no guns.

For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death.  But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.

Maybe the answer isn't to tell people what to do, but to teach people how to think?

Maybe it will be the case that such "empowering" technology will ultimately be the undoing of us all. Maybe one day we'll all be able to make much worse things in our own homes, and some crackpot will destroy us all. Who knows? Is there some natural law that says the inevitable technological achievements of the human race will always result in good?

On the other hand, maybe counter-technologies will arise simultaneously, such that detection of any such devices on anybody's person out on the streets will be trivial. Again, who knows?

So, how do you keep criminals, or anyone else for that matter, from getting guns when anyone is able to make one easily in the privacy of their home?

There are many many other ways to avoid being killed by criminals that you're so eager to arm with guns. Criminals not armed with guns, prudence, and a socially responsible government are the solution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wild West is on its way out.

Because there is no utilitarian value in keeping yourself from being killed, unless you are a criminal, then by all means, use gun control to do nothing but disarm innocent victims so you effectively cannot be killed in self-defense by them.

Then continue to use any murder weapon you please, especially guns, because there is absolutely no way you, a criminal, can be prevented from having it in the first place. And finally, taunt your legally disarmed and defenseless victims about "the Wild West", which was statistically safer for innocents by far, than every jurisdiction with "gun control", which is ONLY safe for criminals, in other words, a criminals' utopia.

This again? It's called utilitarian value. It's been discussed.

So, why focus on guns? There are way more deaths every year from people in possession of cars 

If you know so much, how come you don't grasp some of the basics? Furthermore, what does it matter what your own personal opinion is regarding how adept you are at using firearms? The chances of you causing injury to yourself or someone else while in the possession of a firearm is infinitely greater than those who are not in possession of a firearm.

Do you understand that all gun deaths are caused by those in possession of a firearm? They are never caused by those not in possession of firearms. All homicides, all suicides and accidents caused by guns are caused by those in possession of firearms. You seem to think that your claim as to proper gun usage eliminates gun deaths. It doesn't.

Better to make it short and pithy...

"Governments can never be trusted..."

Not to detail the subject, but I wouldn't trust a godly government, either. See Dark Ages and modern Middle East for why.

Instituting a draft is the quickest way to end a war. 
A democratic population will stop the war when folks have to fight against their will.
just an observation, not advocating either way.

Require a login and a password.

But they likely wouldn't matter, and here's why.  Basically, people that either grew up around firearms, who decided to learn about them, who are familiar with hunting, or who have had military or police style training know A LOT MORE THAN YOU.  Now don't be offended - this happens in virtually every discussion where a liberal progressive tries to talk to what he thinks are "gun nuts".

This is just the way it is.  It's also why anti gun people lose virtually all the debates on the subject.

I have a suggestion - go take some classes, learn to operate some firearms and handle them safely, then come back and discuss them.

Oh, by the way, don't lecture me(us) on violence and homicides.  I'm liable to start telling you stories about South Africa.  Or Mexican border cities.  Or any of a number of American ghettos.  And you don't want to hear those stories.

The only thing I've seen for sure from you is you believe most people are not capable of taking care of themselves, and that a bigger better society has to do it for them.  Therefore guns should be taken from you "for your own protection".  That tells me that either you desire to be taken care of (which is fine), or you desire to control others (not fine).  Either way, I can take care of myself, I don't need a nanny state to do so.  Governments can never be trusted as long as they are godless, and I'm not surrendering my God given right to a government full of power control freaks.  Not only that, I will also encourage every one else who is capable of taking care of themselves (most people) to do the same.

BTW, your attempted slams of NRA are not accomplishing anything.  I personally don't like the NRA, they endorse far too many folks in government who have no right being there.  However, if it wasn't for them, the US would likely be a dictatorship like China or the UK.  (Yes, I did say that.  You're either free, or you aren't.  Not allowed to have a gun?  But the government can?  That makes you a subject.  That's the political correct term for a slave.)

M