Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun... right?

Oops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MelQCClmDD8#t=68

If only we could keep many of the bad guys from getting guns in the first place, rather than making it as easy for them as possible...

 

My goodness you are really flinging poo tonight. Here for your reading pleasure.
Lists several cases of good guys with guns.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161
This is just the threat of a good guy with a gun.
http://www.oredigger.net/satire/10-...ing-prevented-by-concealed-carry-weapons.html
Again, several cases
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html
Another list
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2125480/pg1

In the end, the uniformed need to understand that there is a HUGE difference between a wanna be shooter who comes in and agrees to talk to someone.... and an active shooter who comes in shooting. Don't let the misdirection of the OP fool you into thinking you can talk to a true active shooter, at that point trust me...only a good person with a gun will stop a bad person with a gun.
The best of both worlds is to have BOTH options available.

 

Yup, those examples (from the last 15 years or so) more than make up for the thousands of annual incidents of accidental gun deaths alone...

Acually, the best case scenario would be to implement some actions that would actually impact the ability of criminals to easily obtain firearms... Otherwise, all we can do is mop up messes.

 

you mean like all the laws we currently have that implement actions that actually impact the ability of criminals to easily obtain firearms? You know...murder is illegal, criminals can't own guns, stealing is illegal, being harmful to another human is generally illegal........you mean those actions? Guns or not...until we rid society of people who desire to be criminals not one law on the books will prevent them from doing what they do...I'd rather "MOP UP' the remains of bad guys killed by good guys with guns than mop up hapless victims.

In the end your logic fails you......criminals will be criminals and a good guy with a gun is a great deterrent.

 

"Criminals can't own guns", but we will support a system that makes it easy for them to get them anyway... Why?
I've never supported any gun ban, so I'm not saying that we should make it difficult for lawful owners to obtain and maintain firearms, so your point about deterrence is moot.

 

drunks can't drive drunk why do we support a system that allows them too? tax cheaters commit fraud, why do we support a system that allows them to cheat? sell drugs is illegal, why do we support a system that allows them to do so....pretty silly question you asked...I think you know the answer.
No you say you don't support a gun ban, I submit your rhetoric supports a belief that you actually do. You support a national database which is illegal and worthless but in the end....I observe you drifting away from your OP....why?

 

These straw man examples aren't doing you any favors...
Taxes are subject to greater review on both state and federal level than the issue at hand.
Sale of drugs is subject to greater controls than the issue at hand.

You're avoiding the question by slinging red herrings and straw men all over the place. I wonder why?

Please feel free to be specific about what "rhetoric" you believe is aligned to gun banning.
As for a national registry, I believe it would make the performance of straw purchases significantly more rare, and given that this is how most criminals get firearms in the first place, it would be an effective preventative measure that could limit the number of messes to mop up reactively.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

That's odd. I thought I was just answering your posts. If those questions drift from the OP, perhaps that's an indication of your tendancy to change the subject.

 

If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
Then what do we do?

 

Who said anything about taking guns away from non-criminals?

 

You can't dispute that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.
Who do you call if your home is being broken into at night by a bad guy with a gun?
I submit that you will call a good guy with a gun.

 

Criminals are going to get guns if it's easy or if it's hard. Most gun control hassles law-abiding citizens, while it does little to stop the bad guys from getting guns.

 

I see, so your perspective is that since it's difficult - if not impossible - to prevent ALL criminals from getting guns, we shouldn't bother preventing any percentage any percentage of them having guns...

 

How about doing something effective not something a proven failure. When you come up with that let us know...until then...it's a good thing good guys have guns.

 

Given that we have the highest crime rate of any first-world country, what we're doing now is a "proven failure".
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

 

And gun registry will fix that....RIIIGHT LOL

 

Have I said that? No.
Have I said it would be one part of a solution worth evaluating objectively. Yes.

Fallacy of composition much?

 

No.....

 

That's just not possible in most circumstances. Most slayings are perpetrated by those without a prior criminal record. Those who have been caught are usually behind bars. Of course, we could just release those convicted killers, but then we might have to severely curtail the freedoms of everyone else in society to deal with the potential threat. I do not like this second idea because it sort of makes the whole society like one gigantic prison, where potentially dangerous items have to be kept off limits because people cannot be trusted. The consummating apex of this line of thinking is when the government reaches the point that they start banning knives, as has been the case in the UK. just ridiculous

 

That is not the crime rate that is total crime. the crime rate is much lower. In fact many of your gun banning countries have higher crime rates.
here is a link that shows the crime rate and that is what you need to use. when determining how much crime is in a society
http://www.ranker.com/list/countries-with-the-highest-crime-rates/web-infoguy
in case you don't like the first link here is another
http://www.biggone.com/2013/03/23/top-10-countries-with-highest-rate-of-street-crimes-2013/
your attempt to make people believe that total crime is the same as crime rate has failed

- - - Updated - - -

That is not the crime rate that is total crime. the crime rate is much lower. In fact many of your gun banning countries have higher crime rates.
here is a link that shows the crime rate and that is what you need to use. when determining how much crime is in a society
http://www.ranker.com/list/countries-with-the-highest-crime-rates/web-infoguy
in case you don't like the first link here is another
http://www.biggone.com/2013/03/23/top-10-countries-with-highest-rate-of-street-crimes-2013/
your attempt to make people believe that total crime is the same as crime rate has failed

 

Except that the kid in Georgia was firing his gun, there were good guys with guns and a woman, under fire, talked him out of it. And the NRA line is the ONLY thing. Guess what the ONLY thing is not true.

Why does the pro-gun crowd have to lie?

 

of course only uniformed liberals like yourself wold make such a stupid statement. if you had a clue you would know that legal gun owners do not want to ever shoot anyone, it is a last resort, first thing you do is try to talk the person out of the crime. every year hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped by gun owners with out ever having to fire a shot. it is something you gun grabbers keep trying to deny no matter how many times its shown.every poll ever taken and every study including those conducted by the fbi and other gov org all say that.

 

Not in a way that interferes with law-abiding citizens getting guns. I don't have any problems with the NICS checks, except for idealistically (they are making people prove their innocence). Realistically, they aren't a problem, they are quick and unobtrusive. However, they do almost nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. The only way to realistically stop or even slow down criminals from getting guns would involve measures that are beyond our constitutional limits (i.e. the 4th and 5th amendments, not just the 2nd). That is not worthwhile.

 

Total crimes is irrelevant in a population of 300 billion, which is the largest of the First World countries.
Are you really presenting total crimes as crime rate? Are you ignorant, or are you doing your best to misrepresent the data? Rate is the number of occurences per population. The standard for crime rates is crimes/100,000 people.

Using the link data, along with population data:
US: 11.9 million crimes with a 300 million population: 3966 crimes per 100,000 people (standard for calculating this kind of thing)
UK: 6.5 milllion crimes with a 63 million population: 10,317 crimes per 100,000 people

In other words, UK has about 3 times the crime RATE of the U.S. I thought you were logical? You don't even grasp basic statistics and math.

 

That's an interesting position... Can you supply a link to validate this assertion?

 

How would background checks for all gun purchases stop law-abiding folks from getting guns? - It would prevent criminals from picking up weapons at gun shows or in private sales.
How would training in the use of a firearm prior to purchase stop law-abiding folks from getting guns? - It would make the law-abiding better shots than criminals, and might stop some accidental deaths.
How would owning a gun safe or other suitable storage stop law-abiding folks from getting guns? - It would make them harder to steal, so it would limit the options of criminals.
How would registration stop a lawful owner from getting a gun? - It would make it difficult to get guns through straw purchases, so it would limit the options of criminals.