Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Terruana]

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

When I took the NRA Basic Pistol course in 2006, there was a man there that was missing his right hand (I can't remember if it was a birth defect, or an injury that cost him his hand). He was an avid skeet shooter, and did ok with a pistol.

A friend of mine has a disability where his legs don't work and he's stuck in a wheelchair, and could make him a target. He has a pistol, not only for self defense but for target shooting.

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

[Terruana]

If the law changed to make gun ownership illegal, and you refused to give up your guns, you would be making yourself a criminal. Nothing to do with me.

No it would have everything to do with people like you, and I'm shocked you can't see how.

Nothing you have said has disproved the analysis in the article I linked to.

If that analysis is right why haven't gun deaths increased as carry laws have become more lax? Gun crime is at the lowest point since the 1950's and more people carry now more than ever.

You choosing to do something illegal is entirely your own fault though.

And that still does nothing to counter the analysis in the article. Try again?

[Washington Resistance Army]

You choosing to do something illegal is entirely your own fault though.

And that still does nothing to counter the analysis in the article. Try again?

Sure, I will try again. The evidence doesn't support the articles claims, that was easy. Not to mention the research in question is horribly flawed if you look into it, there's a reason nobody apart from extreme anti-gunners cite that study.

As for the first bit, lex iniusta non est lex

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

Free access to guns is impacting on other people's right to life, so...

No it isn't. Misuse of firearms might cause that, but their use by lawful gun owners doesn't have more than a statistically insignificant impact.

I could apply this logic to private transportation, which takes the lives of more people a year than firearms could dream of doing. We could ban cars and require all people use public transportation to get around. You don't need a car to travel. You don't need a car to survive. However, that alternative unduly restricts the freedoms of people, which does not outweigh the lives saved.

Amen brother. Just like when we outlaw drug use, outlaw euthanasia, and outlaw abortion! We don't Need to but we do it anyway!

If you dare take ma' guns then you are an oppressor of ma freedom!

[Kernen]

You're welcome to believe that. The Supreme Court of the US disagrees with your position. Holmes represents a statistical insignificance among lawful gun owners. That's on par with making transgendered people unable to use the bathroom of their gender on the grounds that some might assault somebody. It's idiotic.


I don't expect to change your mind, but I'm always happy to show you the flaws in your reasoning.

Clearly that would be the first time a supreme court judgement was wrong then.
It's not really the same though, unless you can show me multiple example of transgendered people actually using the bathroom of their gender to assault someone. One is based on fear and supposition, the other is based on actual events that occurred. There's a significant difference.

Good luck overturning half a dozen rulings, then. Especially since the US public supports gun rights more now than any time in recent history.

That's a pretty safe difference to hide behind when the data doesn't exist, but I was using it as an example, not a perfect allegory. Mass shootings remain statistically insignificant. Safe gun uses do not.

[Kernen]

When I took the NRA Basic Pistol course in 2006, there was a man there that was missing his right hand (I can't remember if it was a birth defect, or an injury that cost him his hand). He was an avid skeet shooter, and did ok with a pistol.

A friend of mine has a disability where his legs don't work and he's stuck in a wheelchair, and could make him a target. He has a pistol, not only for self defense but for target shooting.

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

And not having any weapon makes self defense for the average joe all but impossible. Ill take those odds.

[Terruana]

You choosing to do something illegal is entirely your own fault though.

And that still does nothing to counter the analysis in the article. Try again?

Sure, I will try again. The evidence doesn't support the articles claims, that was easy. Not to mention the research in question is horribly flawed if you look into it, there's a reason nobody apart from extreme anti-gunners cite that study.

As for the first bit, lex iniusta non est lex

New Scientist is a peer reviewed journal, are you seriously suggesting the entire scientific community is biased against guns?
And in what way does the evidence not support the articles claims? They seem to have stated it fairly clearly in their research if you ask me.

[Terruana]

Clearly that would be the first time a supreme court judgement was wrong then.
It's not really the same though, unless you can show me multiple example of transgendered people actually using the bathroom of their gender to assault someone. One is based on fear and supposition, the other is based on actual events that occurred. There's a significant difference.

Good luck overturning half a dozen rulings, then. Especially since the US public supports gun rights more now than any time in recent history.

That's a pretty safe difference to hide behind when the data doesn't exist, but I was using it as an example, not a perfect allegory. Mass shootings remain statistically insignificant. Safe gun uses do not.

I'm not trying to overturn anything. I'm saying it's wrong.

[Terruana]

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

And not having any weapon makes self defense for the average joe all but impossible. Ill take those odds.

Even if by "taking those odds" you're actually increasing your odds of being killed by gun crime?

[Kernen]

Good luck overturning half a dozen rulings, then. Especially since the US public supports gun rights more now than any time in recent history.

That's a pretty safe difference to hide behind when the data doesn't exist, but I was using it as an example, not a perfect allegory. Mass shootings remain statistically insignificant. Safe gun uses do not.

I'm not trying to overturn anything. I'm saying it's wrong.

Your welcome to that opinion. I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind, as I respect your right to hold that opinion. I would hope you'd extend the same courtesy to me. However, you should get used to the fact that you aren't going to have any luck with your position in this century, not with a half dozen SCOTUS rulings from different justices in favor of it and 44 states with the right to bear arms in their constitutions. Oh, and that 2A thing. There's that.

[Kernen]

And not having any weapon makes self defense for the average joe all but impossible. Ill take those odds.

Even if by "taking those odds" you're actually increasing your odds of being killed by gun crime?

Yup.

[Gun Manufacturers]

When I took the NRA Basic Pistol course in 2006, there was a man there that was missing his right hand (I can't remember if it was a birth defect, or an injury that cost him his hand). He was an avid skeet shooter, and did ok with a pistol.

A friend of mine has a disability where his legs don't work and he's stuck in a wheelchair, and could make him a target. He has a pistol, not only for self defense but for target shooting.

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

I see new stories all the time where people use firearms in self defense, so obviously they ARE useful.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure, I will try again. The evidence doesn't support the articles claims, that was easy. Not to mention the research in question is horribly flawed if you look into it, there's a reason nobody apart from extreme anti-gunners cite that study.

As for the first bit, lex iniusta non est lex

New Scientist is a peer reviewed journal, are you seriously suggesting the entire scientific community is biased against guns?
And in what way does the evidence not support the articles claims? They seem to have stated it fairly clearly in their research if you ask me.

"Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed", in case you don't know across the entire US our carry laws have gotten less strict over the past few years and become much more lax. Gun deaths have also continued to decline despite these claims that it will increase the risks of getting shot and killed. Likewise in bigger cities, crime rates experience noticeable drops when carrying a gun is allowed. There's also news stories almost daily of people using guns to defend themselves.

[Traditional Conservative Justice]

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

And not having any weapon makes self defense for the average joe all but impossible. Ill take those odds.

Oh yes, if you take our guns away you might as well cut off our arms because we LITERALLY can't defend ourselves! And there are no other alternatives because no other weapons exist either!

The mass shootings don't make a difference, you see here in 'Murica, we try to be the "Best" country in the world, like when we
see a good idea, we adopt it, or better yet, we try to make ourselves better than other countries, that's why Gun Control is Not
effective because only the bad guys are the ones left with the guns, look at violent Europe! They have WAAY more gun violence than 'Murica! More guns is always the answer because guns for self-defense is much more effective than Commie Gun Control because we have less gun violence than Commie Europe, and because of our flawless logic that guns for self-defense is better, not only is 'Murica safer than Commie Europe, it is also the safest country in the world with all our guns!

Failproof Gun Statistics That Prove Commie Gun Control Doesn't Work

[Kernen]

TCJ, your satire has become ham-fisted enough to become irritating, and I've long since added you to my foes list. I prefer my debates to be in good faith. I wanted to warn you so you didn't waste your time replying to my posts. Cheers.

[Pol Lunar]

How wonderful it is that Americans continue to value weapons that are literally designed to kill over human life.

That seems to be a false dichotomy. Valuing a firearm for what it provides in no way takes away from the value a person places on life.

[Pol Lunar]

By all means demonstrate how I'm doing that.

Since I don't even know who you, personally, are, that would be impossible. What I can do is show that American society in general has repeatedly pushed back against gun control laws designed to save lives on the grounds that they like having guns more than they like living in a society where mass-shootings don't occur every few months.

Being "designed to save lives" doesn't actually say anything about the success it would have in doing that.

Why would I even WANT to sacrifice myself and/or my rights to save the life of a violent criminal attacking me?

[Pol Lunar]

Not what I said at all.

I'm open to gun control, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

Because, as I originally stated, you prioritise your own access to guns over the protection of human life.

Do you have any evidence that their access to firearms provides any negative impact on the protection of human life?

[Pol Lunar]

Target shooting is a social sport that's a lot of fun when you're competing with friends. Hunting animals can be necessary, as some animals don't have enough natural predators left to keep the population in check (leading to motor vehicle accidents, disease, property damage, and starvation among the animals).

What is YOUR suggestion to reduce firearms violence, while still protecting people's rights?

My solution is that people's right to own guns doesn't outweigh other people's right to life, so owning guns should be completely illegal. Owning things does not outweigh someone's existence.

Fortunately, my right to keep and bear arms doesn't take away from any right to live.

[Big Jim P]

How wonderful it is that Americans continue to value weapons that are literally designed to kill over human life.

Ah, this debunked myth again.

[Pol Lunar]

No it isn't. Misuse of firearms might cause that, but their use by lawful gun owners doesn't have more than a statistically insignificant impact.

I could apply this logic to private transportation, which takes the lives of more people a year than firearms could dream of doing. We could ban cars and require all people use public transportation to get around. You don't need a car to travel. You don't need a car to survive. However, that alternative unduly restricts the freedoms of people, which does not outweigh the lives saved.

James Holmes bought his weapons legally, which is enough of an impact in my book to justify taking guns away from everyone, considering they have no essential purpose other than recreation.

And the difference between cars and guns is that a) not everywhere is accessible by public transport and b) guns are literally designed to kill and serve no other essential purpose (sport is not an essential purpose)

Self-defense IS an essential purpose.

[Big Jim P]

By all means demonstrate how I'm doing that.

Since I don't even know who you, personally, are, that would be impossible. What I can do is show that American society in general has repeatedly pushed back against gun control laws designed to save lives on the grounds that they like having guns more than they like living in a society where mass-shootings don't occur every few months.

Guns save innocent lives more than they take them.

[Pol Lunar]

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

Guns have no use in self defence.

Someone failing to grasp the difference between correlation and causation does not magically mean that firearms are useless in self-defense.

That a certain segment of society is more likely to both carry firearms and to be involved in violent crimes is not the same thing as carrying a firearm causing you to be more likely to be killed.

If you ARE attacked, the numbers have shown that you are more likely to survive if you defend yourself with a firearm

[Pol Lunar]

I wouldn't give up my guns, and most of the gun owners on this forum wouldn't either. Why do you want to make us criminals?

If the law changed to make gun ownership illegal, and you refused to give up your guns, you would be making yourself a criminal. Nothing to do with me.

Obviously wrong. You're the one supporting the criminalization of their exercise of their rights.

[Big Jim P]

My point was that guns are not useful in self defence (see earlier link to NewScientist article analysing gun related deaths)

I see new stories all the time where people use firearms in self defense, so obviously they ARE useful.

I even provide a convenient link in my sig.