Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Grinning Dragon]

Seriously? You expect a person to just lay there and take a beating / being stabbed / shot / etc. and not even put up a fight, because said victim isn't law enforcement / soldier /govt douchebag?

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

However they can't go around murdering people, like how a long time ago the KKK use to do it (they claimed it was self defense too).

And if said perp is jacked up on pcp or isn't hindered by such weapons that you have suggested, then what? Diall 911 and die?
How is a person that is only 95lbs expected to fend off an much larger attacker. Firearms are equalizers, they are just another tool in the line of self defense.
Killing a person intent on killing you or intent to do grave bodily harm is not an unjustified murder.
I'd rather take my chances being tried by 12 than by carried by 6.

[Ardoki]

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

However they can't go around murdering people, like how a long time ago the KKK use to do it (they claimed it was self defense too).

And if said perp is jacked up on pcp or isn't hindered by such weapons that you have suggested, then what? Diall 911 and die?
How is a person that is only 95lbs expected to fend off an much larger attacker. Firearms are equalizers, they are just another tool in the line of self defense.
Killing a person intent on killing you or intent to do grave bodily harm is not an unjustified murder.
I'd rather take my chances being tried by 12 than by carried by 6.

I didn't understand the first and last lines of that.

[Webus]

Most people don't own guns and most people are never affected by gun violence so I don't care about gun control.

[Sevvania]

Seriously? You expect a person to just lay there and take a beating / being stabbed / shot / etc. and not even put up a fight, because said victim isn't law enforcement / soldier /govt douchebag?

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

Knives and other cutting instruments kill more people annually than rifles, shotguns, and blunt instruments (like baseball bats) combined, so your "they can use anything but a gun" stipulation is completely arbitrary. The appeal of a gun as a means of self-defense is that they can be just a effective in the hands of an old woman or a scrawny teenager as they are in the hands of a healthy man in his mid-twenties. Whereas the usefulness of things like knives and cudgels has a more direct correlation to the size and physique of the wielder.

I'm sure I've already linked you to this table before, but for sake of sourcing my stats:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

[Ardoki]

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

Knives and other cutting instruments kill more people annually than rifles, shotguns, and blunt instruments (like baseball bats) combined, so your "they can use anything but a gun" stipulation is completely arbitrary.

I'm sure I've already linked you to this table before, but for sake of sourcing my stats:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

According to that table, in 2011 firearms accounted for over 67.77% of murder victim's cause of deaths.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Seriously? You expect a person to just lay there and take a beating / being stabbed / shot / etc. and not even put up a fight, because said victim isn't law enforcement / soldier /govt douchebag?

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

However they can't go around murdering people, like how a long time ago the KKK use to do it (they claimed it was self defence too).

Yup, guns have been the only tool for murder

Perhaps if the blacks had guns could they protect themselves from the KKK.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Knives and other cutting instruments kill more people annually than rifles, shotguns, and blunt instruments (like baseball bats) combined, so your "they can use anything but a gun" stipulation is completely arbitrary.

I'm sure I've already linked you to this table before, but for sake of sourcing my stats:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

According to that table, in 2011 firearms accounted for over 67.77% of murder victim's cause of deaths.

And if we ban them, criminals will totally turn them in. I know right, that gangster in New York would be like "hey hey po po, have mah M9, M1911 and revolver!"

[Ardoki]

They can defend themselves or others if their lives are being threatened. Just not with guns (they could use knives,. baseball bats, swords, etc.).

However they can't go around murdering people, like how a long time ago the KKK use to do it (they claimed it was self defence too).

Yup, guns have been the only tool for murder

Perhaps if the blacks had guns could they protect themselves from the KKK.

Are you trying to trick me?

[Ardoki]

According to that table, in 2011 firearms accounted for over 67.77% of murder victim's cause of deaths.

And if we ban them, criminals will totally turn them in. I know right, that gangster in New York would be like "hey hey po po, have mah M9, M1911 and revolver!"

Tougher penalties for owing them.

[Sevvania]

Knives and other cutting instruments kill more people annually than rifles, shotguns, and blunt instruments (like baseball bats) combined, so your "they can use anything but a gun" stipulation is completely arbitrary.

I'm sure I've already linked you to this table before, but for sake of sourcing my stats:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

According to that table, in 2011 firearms accounted for over 67.77% of murder victim's cause of deaths.

And the vast majority of those are handguns. But you didn't say "no handguns," you said, "no guns," which encompasses rifles and shotguns. And, as I said, rifles and shotguns account for fewer homicides than your proposed alternatives. In any case, firearm homicide rates (and homicide rates in general) have been on a steady decline, even with the expiration of things like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

[Ardoki]

According to that table, in 2011 firearms accounted for over 67.77% of murder victim's cause of deaths.

And the vast majority of those are handguns. But you didn't say "no handguns," you said, "no guns," which encompasses rifles and shotguns. And, as I said, rifles and shotguns account for fewer homicides than your proposed alternatives. In any case, firearm homicide rates (and homicide rates in general) have been on a steady decline, even with the expiration of things like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

When I said no guns, I meant no guns.

It's a lot easier to commit a mas shooting with a shotgun, than a handgun right?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Why do most people here support gun rights?

They are not a right at all in my opinion. If they are a right, they are a right to be justly and rightfully taken away. You never have a right to murder another person, usually (of course hypothetically speaking sometimes things may have to be done for the greater good).

I support firearms rights because I enjoy target shooting, and may one day decide to take up hunting.

You are right, there is no right to murder someone. There is, however, a right to defend yourself/others with lethal force (if need be).

[Gun Manufacturers]

Murder and self-defense are separate things.

English, learn it.

Self defence is only applicable, if performed by law enforcement officials (or the military or any other state ministry/department). Otherwise it is murder in my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong, legally speaking.

[Ardoki]

Self defence is only applicable, if performed by law enforcement officials (or the military or any other state ministry/department). Otherwise it is murder in my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong, legally speaking.

In my opinion my opinion is fact.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Your opinion is wrong, legally speaking.

In my opinion my opinion is fact.

You're hilarious.

[Republic of Coldwater]

And if we ban them, criminals will totally turn them in. I know right, that gangster in New York would be like "hey hey po po, have mah M9, M1911 and revolver!"

Tougher penalties for owing them.

Because that will totally do shit.

Just like how there are tough penalties for using controlled substances, you won't stop criminals from using such substances.

[Republic of Coldwater]

In my opinion my opinion is fact.

You're hilarious.

Is he a joke, or a troll. I don't know.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yup, guns have been the only tool for murder

Perhaps if the blacks had guns could they protect themselves from the KKK.

Are you trying to trick me?

Do you understand sarcasm?

[Ardoki]

You're hilarious.

Is he a joke, or a troll. I don't know.

I'm not a troll! How dare you!

I am entitled to my own opinion. My opinion is based on facts, it may be wrong. However once I found out it is not supported by facts I change and revise it so it is correct.
In my belief, all of my current opinions are facts. They may not actually be, however it is my belief they are, that is why I believe them.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And the vast majority of those are handguns. But you didn't say "no handguns," you said, "no guns," which encompasses rifles and shotguns. And, as I said, rifles and shotguns account for fewer homicides than your proposed alternatives. In any case, firearm homicide rates (and homicide rates in general) have been on a steady decline, even with the expiration of things like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

When I said no guns, I meant no guns.

It's a lot easier to commit a mas shooting with a shotgun, than a handgun right?

Actually, a handgun is easier to conceal, load, and fire compared to a shotgun.

Your opinion is wrong, legally speaking.

In my opinion my opinion is fact.

Facts cannot be wrong. Your opinion is wrong. Ergo, your opinion is not fact.

[Ardoki]

Are you trying to trick me?

Do you understand sarcasm?

You have a pro-slaver flag as part of your nation's flag. Your signature states "Neo-Confederate".

I'm confused about your attitude toward African-Americans.

[Scomagia]

Do you understand sarcasm?

You have a pro-slaver flag as part of your nation's flag. Your signature states "Neo-Confederate".

I'm confused about your attitude toward African-Americans.

Attacking the poster is bad form.

[New Tsavon]

Do you understand sarcasm?

You have a pro-slaver flag as part of your nation's flag. Your signature states "Neo-Confederate".

I'm confused about your attitude toward African-Americans.

You're attacking the poster, rather than the argument.

You've already lost.

[Ardoki]

You have a pro-slaver flag as part of your nation's flag. Your signature states "Neo-Confederate".

I'm confused about your attitude toward African-Americans.

Attacking the poster is bad form.

I'm not attacking him.

He says one thing in his signature, then posts something against his views. I'm not sure if he is trying to trick or joke me, or if he is serious.

[Scomagia]

Attacking the poster is bad form.

I'm not attacking him.

He says one thing in his signature, then posts something against his views. I'm not sure if he is trying to trick or joke me, or if he is serious.

Address his post.

Also, Neo-Confederate doesn't necessarily mean they feel any particular way about black people. Some people support the Confederacy because they believe in the right of secession, not because of slavery.