Topic: Pro gun mom got shot by her 4 years old son - page 3. (Read 2271 times)

In Canada, you can have most of the guns you can get in US, but you have to go through an extensive background check, pass safety courses.  For handguns, you have to show you belong to a shooting club.

All permits are issued by the police.

I think in the US, you could introduce a similar screening process so that you can determine who can be trusted to own and store guns safely.

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

You can leave it the way it is and let the natural selection take care of things.  But some innocent people will die in the process.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?

Since the enforcers are the ones who are showing the gun violence, let them prove their peaceful intent by voluntarily disarming themselves. If they don't, you need your guns to protect yourself from them.

The only time someone should go to prison is if he hurts someone in such a way that he won't stop, or if the threat of him hurting someone is real. Most of the people in prison are there for nothing.

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Exactly. which is why you don't need average citizen to be armed

And who gets to decide who should get to have guns? You?

Also I never said anything about "winning" against the US army. I am not talking about a head to head battle (as if that would ever even happen), I am talking about defending one's self and one's community from state sponsored terror in the form of individual peoples representing the state. That is most certainly attainable.

2nd amendment is too broad. We are not equal.  We have lots of morons.  Morons should not have access to guns, ever!

BTW, if you think you can win with the present day US army with your rifles and handguns, you should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.

The army is people. People have guns. Army of the people will always put the government down. Self-evident. No proof needed. But history is full of proof.

Or maybe they don't have to fight because the government knows better than to start a war with its own armed populace. What exactly would you like me to prove? I gave a good proof of why your argument was false, what claim exactly do you want proof for, or are you just going to make a generalized argument then shift the goal posts when I provide a good logical argument like every other gun control freak?

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

The emboldened text is about the only true thing I have ever read from you. The 100% indisputable fact is, nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom because the STATE IS THE NUMBER 1 MURDERER OF THE PEOPLE BY FAR. Do I need to prepare a list of state genocides? Open any history book. You keep telling yourself they have your best interest at heart tho, until they march you into those unmarked mass graves. The state isn't going to protect you from itself.

Just because you are a vulnerable disarmed subject of your state does not mean the world wants to join you. You keep that to that hellhole you call a state, well keep our freedom.

Ahahah!
Yeah right on that ^^
But again, it's self defense because a gun is meant to kill and the assaillant doesn't want to die

True.

Because there is nothing to learn here. Two ideals are opposed:
The one of people believing nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom
The one of people believing the state should always make the choice the most beneficial for the society as a whole

Pick your team, and kill the other. Because no compromise can be done.

The NUMBER TWO PURPOSE OF A GUN IS SELF DEFENSE AGAINST JOKERS WHO TRY TO GET EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO HAVE A GUN.

Denying all of my arguments doesn't make you any more correct just by denying them. You actually have to have logic or evidence. You have done nothing but repeat yourself. Speaking of repeating yourself YES IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED. You are literally just pretending you didn't say things everyone can look at and see very clearly you said... lets look...


So just keep changing those goal posts, maybe it will make you have a point some day. Again I provided examples of how guns can be used without killing but then you just changed the goal posts to questions about justifying having a loaded gun at home as if that makes your argument mean more. You also didn't address anything about nonlethal ammunition like rocksalt shotgun shells. Just brush the facts aside they aren't important, you have a crusade against "propaganda guys" to win!

You want to know why people should be armed? look no further than your own country:

"By the summer of 1995, three towns in eastern Bosnia--Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde--remained under control of the Bosnian government. The U.N. had declared these enclaves "safe havens" in 1993, to be disarmed and protected by international peacekeeping forces. On July 11, however, Bosnian Serb forces advanced on Srebrenica, overwhelming a battalion of Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed there. Serbian forces subsequently separated the Bosniak civilians at Srebrenica, putting the women and girls on buses and sending them to Bosnian-held territory. Some of the women were raped or sexually assaulted, while the men and boys who remained behind were killed immediately or bussed to mass killing sites. Estimates of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces at Srebrenica range from around 7,000 to more than 8,000."  

http://www.examiner.com/article/restrictive-gun-laws-no-impediment-to-serbian-mass-shooting


Don't worry tho! The UN/Police/Santa clause will protect you! No need to be able to defend yourselves! Just get on those mass grave and rape buses and everything will be fine. Oh you don't want to? Tough shit, the bad guys have guns regardless of your "gun control" laws. Too bad the law abiding citizens don't.




Oh your back! That's too bad. I thought you said you were ignoring me. I guess you just say whatever is convenient at the time for you.



Think about it for a second. How would such stats be collected? Are people going to call the police and report they scared off assailants every time they simply brandish a gun? Even if they did the police have no official reporting mechanism for this, so there are no official stats. People on both sides of this debate have however tried to estimate the incidents of self defensive use of firearms in the USA, and even the most conservative numbers show that firearms are used far more often in self defense than in criminal violence.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

The only thing that stops a bad baby with a gun is a good baby with a gun. Where was it when it really counted?

Look at this stupid bint's past. Multiple convictions for a variety of reasons. Throw in child endangerment now and what if a random passerby had eaten a bullet?

This thread will no doubt end up 100 pages long with nothing learned on either side. Have fun, all.

Just ignore Tecshare.

He's not only dumb, he's also extremely rude and narrow minded

Stop arguing, he can't think properly. And by that I mean he's not able to think more than one argument at a time, he can't make a reasoning with arguments actually step by step ^^