I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

Your buddy Turtledude is about to provide them for you

 

So you're just going to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist cuz "feelings".

Liberals sticking their heads in the sand is a recurring theme in this thread.

 

you quoted my post in your silly rant about race. and I am not supposed to be doing anything. I know I am right and I don't take orders from people whose arguments are pathetic

 

the race card is a common ploy from left wingers who cannot argue the facts but want to pretend they won the argument

 

If you please, let us look at the basic factors.

When guns are freely available, the able bodied good citizens can use them for fun and self defense. But they make up only about 1/6 of the total population, which includes the elderly, women, children, sick, etc. On the other hand criminals as a rule are all able bodies, and have easy access to guns. This exposes the weak very widely to death buy guns.

When there is strict control over gun availability, the big time criminals (say assassins, drug lords, bank robbers, lunatics, etc.) will acquire guns anyway. But such crimes make very small portion of the total crimes, and mostly those guns kill only those who live in the violent world. The everyday common families are exposed to mugging, burglary, street fights, and like. These crimes are not well planned, and killings are not intended to be part of the acts. Our mentally distorted students will find it difficult to get guns. School and neighborhood fights may turn into stabbing or fist fight events, from gun-killings.

Social vices, like poverty, family abuse, and the likes, breed crime. So the level of crime does not really go down much, but the death rate due to crime and quarrels will almost vanish (not totally), with tight gun regulations.

Colonial people lived close to nature, and were exposed to much danger. Also invasions by foreigners and native Americans were huge factors in their life. As such, their temperament was very different from today's well policed, and strongly defended nation. No system serves well forever. As conditions and mentalities evolve, the systems have to be modified. Our system of social values and governance has served us well for more than two hundred years. That is why we are emotionally so attached to our way of life. Rome thrived on its glory aimed brutality for half a millennia, but fell for refusing to change. India's cast system, China's Confucius inspired submissive culture, and many other such social values served well for many centuries. But when they got outmoded, they refused to die, causing demise of those societies. Let us be smarter. Even Jesus killed the thirteen-hundred-year-old tradition of stoning adulterers to death.

We, the able bodies should think in terms of all of us, rather than me as an individual. Living in a society gives me huge benefits. But in return, I have to let go some of my freedoms. I will not give up my basic human rights like, free speech, voting right, and trial by jury. But I am willing to give up my right to keep all my earnings and pay taxes, give up my right to drive any which way I like and obey the traffic laws. Only a man living in isolation has total rights, but he also has many more, huge problems.

 

My buddy? Never met the man!

But I guess that's a "no?"

And I'd still like you to tell me what constitutes a "reasonable gun law" and why government should enact them to prevent suicide.

 

So why don't we lock those bad guys away for a long, long time instead of continually letting them back into our society to hurt the innocent children, elderly women and so on that you mention above? Then I can go shoot all the beer cans I want on the weekends.

 

I would never intentionally carry a firearm onto personal property if I knew they didn't want me to, I just wouldn't go there.

However, you also would never think to suggest it because you would never know I was carrying a firearm.

 

is this a long winded way of saying you don't value second amendment rights?

 

I am sure that will keep you safe from armed robbers.

 

I've never needed a gun to protect myself and I know of no one who has.

 

...said every unarmed person ever before they were killed in a home invasion.

If you've never known anyone with AIDS do you just not bother using condoms?

Even at the lowest estimate, guns are used defensively 100k times a year.

 

I am afraid this is an anecdote, which as we all know, doesn't carry any weight in a debate.

Maybe you personally find firearms not to be of use, but other people might disagree. I believe we should respect these people's constitutional right to own firearms.

 

In 1972 a hollywood bimbo was heard to say "I Cannot believe Nixon won, EVERYONE I KNOW, voted for McGovern. I shot my way out of a mugging. One of the guys I play squash with-his daughter was the target of a serial rapist. She had a knife. Rapist is doing 20 years, his right hand doesn't work very well anymore after she cut most of the nerves in his wrist when he tried to joke her. Another friend of mine-no longer with us-was on leave from one of his three tours in Nam where he was a NCO in the SF. He was riding his Harley in an area that was known to be infested with one percenters. well a couple of them tried to knock him off his bike so he shot both of them in the head with the 45 he carried. He went back to the jungles in Nam and the local constabulary wrote it off as "inter-gang violence". I know at least 20 people who have defended against violent attacks with weapons and if you throw in LEOs its double that

your experience is irrelevant to the second amendment and to the rights of millions.

 

I went to college not all that far away from that famous case in CT where a wealthy doctor was beaten, his wife and daughters raped and then burned to death when the house was torched. Members of my mothers' side of the family live in the area and its a very Safe area. I suspect those people never figured they'd need a gun for self defense either

 

Not concerned.

 

Which is what would have happened to this lady if she hadn't turned into an operator and drove into these ***holes like a boss.



or this lady

 

It was your claim Mr. Prosecutor. And your friend is demanding a link

 

I don't understand how some people think that they don't need guns to protect themselves because there is police. By the time the police arrives (this is assuming they even had the chance to properly dial to 911), they will have already been beaten, raped, or killed.

 

Yeah you can hear how disinterested the 911 operators are in these types of phone calls.

There was even a case where one 911 operator was charged with hanging up on EIGHT HUNDRED (!) 911 callers.

http://abc13.com/news/911-dispatcher-charged-with-over-800-hung-up-calls/1558866/

 

You probably should not live is crappy neighborhoods then . Of course I never lived in a gated community or anything like one but.

 

And theres the normalcy bias.

 

that's really silly. that case in Connecticut was in one of the wealthiest areas in a state that has the highest per capita income. You clearly have no clue what you talk about

 

They should have lived on the moon duh. Much safer there.

 

So what is your recommendation to people who cannot afford to live in nice neighborhoods? They should just rely solely on the police for their personal safety?