GUN CONTROL!

[The Truth and Light]

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

Like how James Holmes defended himself against movie goers, or how Adam Lanza defended himself against elementary school students.

*nods*

I'm just thinking how it's a blatant idiocy to claim that, with a dearth of aggressors and an abundance of people who use weapons defensively, that there would be any defense going on at all. Then again, they also seem to classify defense as pre-emptively killing someone who has a fire arm, so there's that.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's a force multiplier.

More people use it to defend themselves than others do to harm others.

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

By brandishing or threatening a home invader with a firearm, usually without discharging it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=269887&p=17388113#p17388113
According to studies of federal inmates, it usually works.

Like how James Holmes defended himself against movie goers, or how Adam Lanza defended himself against elementary school students.

*nods*

I'm just thinking how it's a blatant idiocy to claim that, with a dearth of aggressors and an abundance of people who use weapons defensively, that there would be any defense going on at all. Then again, they also seem to classify defense as pre-emptively killing someone who has a fire arm, so there's that.

I don't see how that is not defence.
You have responded appropriately to a pretty severe threat.

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

Like how James Holmes defended himself against movie goers, or how Adam Lanza defended himself against elementary school students.

Something's clearly touching a nerve with you, isn't it?

[Dyakovo]

In effect it just makes it harder for normal people to defend themselves. Criminals won't stop buying guns just because writing on a sheet of paper told them to.

By that logic, nothing should be illegal.

[Gauthier]

In effect it just makes it harder for normal people to defend themselves. Criminals won't stop buying guns just because writing on a sheet of paper told them to.

By that logic, nothing should be illegal.

Gun control seems to be the only type of laws where opponents apply the "People are still being shot, so we should abolish the law because it's clearly not working" argument.

People still rob, people still rape, people still murder. Yet nobody's calling for laws against those to be abolished.

[Dyakovo]

Remember guys, it's about freedom, not safety

Guns protect people.

Guns also kill people.

[Dyakovo]

Nah.

Oh that's right. I shouldn't be able to defend myself with a firearm against someone else using one against me.

Have you ever been in that situation? Somehow I think not.

[The Truth and Light]

Defend themselves in what manner, and from whom?

By brandishing or threatening a home invader with a firearm, usually without discharging it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=269887&p=17388113#p17388113
According to studies of federal inmates, it usually works.

*nods*

I'm just thinking how it's a blatant idiocy to claim that, with a dearth of aggressors and an abundance of people who use weapons defensively, that there would be any defense going on at all. Then again, they also seem to classify defense as pre-emptively killing someone who has a fire arm, so there's that.

I don't see how that is not defence.
You have responded appropriately to a pretty severe threat.

Like how James Holmes defended himself against movie goers, or how Adam Lanza defended himself against elementary school students.

Something's clearly touching a nerve with you, isn't it?

There's something that gives me the heebie-jeebies about people who believe in pre-emptive killings.

[Gauthier]

By brandishing or threatening a home invader with a firearm, usually without discharging it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=269887&p=17388113#p17388113
According to studies of federal inmates, it usually works.
I don't see how that is not defence.
You have responded appropriately to a pretty severe threat.
Something's clearly touching a nerve with you, isn't it?

There's something that gives me the heebie-jeebies about people who believe in pre-emptive killings.

Stand Your Ground is just the first step towards Uncle Jimbo Laws where all you have to do is yell out "LOOK OUT, IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!" and you'll be absolved of any gun fatality regardless of actual circumstances.

[Dyakovo]

By brandishing or threatening a home invader with a firearm, usually without discharging it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=269887&p=17388113#p17388113
According to studies of federal inmates, it usually works.
I don't see how that is not defence.
You have responded appropriately to a pretty severe threat.
Something's clearly touching a nerve with you, isn't it?

There's something that gives me the heebie-jeebies about people who believe in pre-emptive killings.

*kills you pre-emptively*

[Yes Im Biop]

Gun control is very very important. If you don't have it. You shouldn't be shooting. Always knwo where the bullets are going.


*picks up phone* O! They mean Regulation?


Well Chicago shows that it really does not work in america. The amount of regulation is fine, I just wish Ammo prices would drop down again.

[Gauthier]

Gun control is very very important. If you don't have it. You shouldn't be shooting. Always knwo where the bullets are going.


*picks up phone* O! They mean Regulation?


Well Chicago shows that it really does not work in america. The amount of regulation is fine, I just wish Ammo prices would drop down again.

Only reason everyone thinks Chicago gun laws don't work is because the neighboring states have no such regulations. It's like having a pedophile clinic housed in the middle of an elementary school.

[Dyakovo]

Gun control is very very important. If you don't have it. You shouldn't be shooting. Always knwo where the bullets are going.


*picks up phone* O! They mean Regulation?


Well Chicago shows that it really does not work in america. The amount of regulation is fine, I just wish Ammo prices would drop down again.

Actually, what Chicago shows is that patchwork regulations don't work.

[Yes Im Biop]

Gun control is very very important. If you don't have it. You shouldn't be shooting. Always knwo where the bullets are going.


*picks up phone* O! They mean Regulation?


Well Chicago shows that it really does not work in america. The amount of regulation is fine, I just wish Ammo prices would drop down again.

Actually, what Chicago shows is that patchwork regulations don't work.

What Chicago shows is a City in major need of being glassed, as well as Detroit.

[Imperializt Russia]

By brandishing or threatening a home invader with a firearm, usually without discharging it.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=269887&p=17388113#p17388113
According to studies of federal inmates, it usually works.
I don't see how that is not defence.
You have responded appropriately to a pretty severe threat.
Something's clearly touching a nerve with you, isn't it?

There's something that gives me the heebie-jeebies about people who believe in pre-emptive killings.

...
If someone is threatening you with a firearm (or, equally, someone has invaded your home and has a firearm), you should not be allowed to kill him first?

[Gun Manufacturers]

There should definitely be gun control. It's kind of scary thinking about someone having an M16 in their home, even if they're very careful with it. I just don't like the thought of people being able to freely own an automatic weapon. I'm totally fine with people having a small hunting rifle, or a 20 gage shotgun for clay pigeons.

Purchasing a transferable full auto/select fire weapon is not a cheap or easy process, so the people that tend to buy them are collectors very unlikely to do anything illegal with them. Transferable full auto/select fire weapons cost a minimum of several thousand dollars, and requires a tax stamp costing an additional $200 and several months of paperwork/background checks/etc.

Larger caliber hunting rifles are needed for longer ranges and bigger game. You're probably not going to be able to safely take down a bear/moose/elk/etc with a .22lr. Hell, a lot of states consider .22lr too small to humanely kill a deer (for example, CT requires a MINIMUM of .243/6mm for deer).

[Gun Manufacturers]

Lower prices of gun club membership to owners of only small arms; for people who want to shoot AK-47s and M16s recreationally, they can always play Call Of Duty. Sure video games increase violence¹, but no one has ever died from mass video gaming sessions at schools. ²

1- Not really, IMHO.
2- That I know of.

AKs, M16s, and ARs are small arms.

[Big Jim P]

Guns protect people.

Guns also kill people.

Which is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, the killings are legitimate.

[Greed and Death]

By that logic, nothing should be illegal.

Gun control seems to be the only type of laws where opponents apply the "People are still being shot, so we should abolish the law because it's clearly not working" argument.

People still rob, people still rape, people still murder. Yet nobody's calling for laws against those to be abolished.

When rape control laws ban condoms we will talk.

[Big Jim P]

Gun control seems to be the only type of laws where opponents apply the "People are still being shot, so we should abolish the law because it's clearly not working" argument.

People still rob, people still rape, people still murder. Yet nobody's calling for laws against those to be abolished.

When rape control laws ban condoms we will talk.

Everyone is guilty of rape until they have a background check to prove otherwise. After all, just having sexual organs makes you a rapist by default, just like having a gun makes you a murderer.

[Grinning Dragon]

I think this quote sums it up quite nicely IMO.

Well, there ya go. Victims are always right, after all. Suffering a tragedy bestows infallibility upon the victim — a kind of karmic reward for having lost something.

Which is why it makes so much sense to base law and policy on the hysterical ravings of angry, freaked-out victims. They and they alone possess the clarity of thought and the kind of wise, sober, carefully crafted ideas that make for good policy.

[Dyakovo]

When rape control laws ban condoms we will talk.

Everyone is guilty of rape until they have a background check to prove otherwise. After all, just having sexual organs makes you a rapist by default, just like having a gun makes you a murderer.

Let's just ignore the fact that no-one has said that. Instead we'll just build strawmen in an attempt to defend a logically unsound argument.
*nods*

[Dyakovo]

Gun control seems to be the only type of laws where opponents apply the "People are still being shot, so we should abolish the law because it's clearly not working" argument.

People still rob, people still rape, people still murder. Yet nobody's calling for laws against those to be abolished.

When rape control laws ban condoms we will talk.

When you can show that condoms facilitate rape, that will be an apt comparison. However, since they don't, it's just stupid.

[Imperializt Russia]

When rape control laws ban condoms we will talk.

When you can show that condoms facilitate rape, that will be an apt comparison. However, since they don't, it's just stupid.

It could be argued that they do, since they would limit the amount of DNA that could be found in a sexual assault examination.

[Spreewerke]

Patchwork gun laws do not work. There needs to be one standard for the whole country.

I agree, the gun laws of Texas should be nation wide.

Missouri's laws would be better than Texas since Texas does not allow open-carry of handguns.

[Dyakovo]

When you can show that condoms facilitate rape, that will be an apt comparison. However, since they don't, it's just stupid.

It could be argued that they do, since they would limit the amount of DNA that could be found in a sexual assault examination.

Sure, if you divorce yourself from reality, you can argue anything. Meanwhile, in the real world, they don't facilitate rape.