Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
"Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed."
I agree with you, except the part noted above. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point? So how is a gu
So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.?
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People or animals. On the streets of most countries you do not find animals, at least not animals one would want to eat (the only valid reason to kill an animal imho). And almost certainly no animals that would want to eat you.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
And that is the difference between a gun and the other objects you mentioned: those objects do have a valid function in modern day life.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's r
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else. I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide. Even just across the border, in Shenzhen, which belongs to the world's most criminal cities, no-one carries a gun.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
And yes I may suffer some mental illness. It's called "common sense". Something that's absent in many "I need a gun!" kinds of people.
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
The USA has overall very relaxed gun laws (and "smuggling" from one state to another with stricter laws is trivial of course), and a very high number of gun deaths, murder, self-defence, accident, or otherwise.
Europe has overall very strict gun laws and much lower gun death rates.
Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government have stricter gun ownership laws, and lower gun related death rates than the USA.
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
"Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government"
Until you realize the impossibility and silliness of your comment, no intelligent conversation can be had.
Yes, the trend is that people kill by other means in those countries. What you're missing is that all crime is derived from societal forces, without regard to the tools available to the criminal.
Maybe in your snide haze, you missed the fact that those restrictive laws had virtually no effect on gun violence. Chicago's gun laws have been on the books since the early 80's and we just had one of the deadliest summers in a decade due to gun violence. Just like the War on Drugs, let's keep doing the same thing even though it's proven not to work. I agree with one of the other grandchildren posts in this thread: societal causes lead to violence, not guns. Given that over half of households in the cou
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Carrying a gun MAY help you against a sudden attack, but then if e.g. a robber is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, the last thing you should do is to start digging up your own gun. Provided you'd like to live to tell the tale.
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. Th
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
When I was in high school a friend of mine convinced me to join the wrestling team. I sucked pretty badly at it. I only had fighting with my siblings as experience where as my team mates had been doing it for four years or more. At my first tournament a friend of mine from another school's team wanted to informally wrestle with me to warm up and have some fun. He had been wrestling for years. He had won more than half of his last 40 matches by pin. I out weighed him by about 25 pounds.
You will note that itr ties with financial health, not gub ownership.
Also, Hong Kong is tine compared to the use. 426 sq mi and about 7 million people. I can find many similiar area and populations in sections of the US with a homocide rate far less then Hong Kongs.
Hong Kong expects a strong [police force and the polices ability to do whatever they want to make up for the lack of self defenc
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
You just don't get it though. It's not about weapons, it's about inequality. No amount of martial arts training is going to allow a crippled elderly individual to fight off a 20-year-old criminal bent on robbery and murder. Nor will the best martial arts fighter in the world stand a chance against a gang of half a dozen attackers.
Not everyone lives in Hong Kong or Shangri-La. The rest of us have to consider the very real fact that there are plenty of people out there who want to do others harm.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
I have no intention of hurting anyone, but I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh nearly 250 pounds so I could if I wanted to. I've fought and placed in martial arts tournaments. I'm not a world class fighter, but I can hold my own against most people. How is a 110 pound 5'2" woman supposed to defend herself from a man my size who decides
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who des
Pohl's law:
Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons.
Speaking from experience living in a country where people don't go armed, it works in a little different way. Naturally, the evil criminals don't turn in their weapons.
Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed.
The second part is that
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today, anyone can just claim he's just exercising his right to be armed right up to the point when he does something criminal with it. With a weapon ban in place, whenever a police officers finds someone with a weapon, they can take him off the streets on that charge. They don't have to wait for him to do his evil deed."
I agree with you, except the part noted above. Are you saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their right to own a gun because they might use it illegally at some point? So how is a gu
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
So how is a gun any different than a screwdriver, brick, hammer, etc.?
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People or animals. On the streets of most countries you do not find animals, at least not animals one would want to eat (the only valid reason to kill an animal imho). And almost certainly no animals that would want to eat you.
There is NO valid reason of carrying a gun on the streets. Really, there isn't.
And that is the difference between a gun and the other objects you mentioned: those objects do have a valid function in modern day life.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is physically small. Any man of average size and strength could kill her with his hands. To deny her the right to go armed is to deny her the right to self defence. To deny her right to self defence is in effect to deny her right to life. I assert my wife's right to life, with force if necessary, but I can't be there all the time.
I don't understand and will never agree with people like yourself who deny my wife's r
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else. I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide. Even just across the border, in Shenzhen, which belongs to the world's most criminal cities, no-one carries a gun.
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
And yes I may suffer some mental illness. It's called "common sense". Something that's absent in many "I need a gun!" kinds of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
An
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has overall very relaxed gun laws (and "smuggling" from one state to another with stricter laws is trivial of course), and a very high number of gun deaths, murder, self-defence, accident, or otherwise.
Europe has overall very strict gun laws and much lower gun death rates.
Most countries in the world with a properly functioning government have stricter gun ownership laws, and lower gun related death rates than the USA.
Seeing a trend here?
Re: (Score:2)
I must be completely out of my head then, because I'm a self-described "liberal" who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment. I own a gun, precisely because Illinois (and Chicago in particular) have much stricter gun laws than the rest of the country. Coincidentally, we have higher murder rates and crimes in which a gun is used than the rest of the country too. The city with the highest murder rate (typically by firearms) is Washington D.C., which has a total ban on any firearms ownership. Seeing a trend?
By you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you think a properly functioning government should disarm its citizens.
A collection of armed people are citizens. A disarmed populace are subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the trend is that people kill by other means in those countries. What you're missing is that all crime is derived from societal forces, without regard to the tools available to the criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in your snide haze, you missed the fact that those restrictive laws had virtually no effect on gun violence. Chicago's gun laws have been on the books since the early 80's and we just had one of the deadliest summers in a decade due to gun violence. Just like the War on Drugs, let's keep doing the same thing even though it's proven not to work. I agree with one of the other grandchildren posts in this thread: societal causes lead to violence, not guns. Given that over half of households in the cou
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to not realise you live in a society where there are so many arms around that everybody is afraid of everybody else
You conveniently missed the part where he said the attacker didn't need a weapon. That's what "with his hands" means.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Carrying a gun MAY help you against a sudden attack, but then if e.g. a robber is standing in front of you with his gun drawn, the last thing you should do is to start digging up your own gun. Provided you'd like to live to tell the tale.
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as someone has their hands around your neck, is stronger than you, and has the intent of killing you, it's pretty much too late to start digging for your gun. If someone is really intent on killing you, and has planned it, then not much defence will save you.
Some of us are aware enough of our surroundings to see them coming. At that point, and armed person can defend themselves, unarmed probably not.
This may surprise you, but some of us don't go around in a hazy daydreaming state oblivious to those around us. When we are talking about self defence, we are generally speaking in reference to human attackers. They have these things we call "bodies" which are subject to the laws of physics. They do not suddenly materialise with their hands around your throat. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an amateur cage fighter with (after calculating) over 800 hours spent training, primarily in Jiu-jitsu. I'm not a big guy, though. I fight at 155 and walk around about 165. If an athletic 200+ pound man were to attack me, I wouldn't feel confident that I could win. Sure I could armbar him, maybe throw on a triangle choke or take his back, but do you really want to pull guard in a street fight? If that man were of equal size to me and armed with a knife, I wouldn't even want to try to fight him.
Mar
Re: (Score:1)
As anecdotal evidence.
When I was in high school a friend of mine convinced me to join the wrestling team. I sucked pretty badly at it. I only had fighting with my siblings as experience where as my team mates had been doing it for four years or more. At my first tournament a friend of mine from another school's team wanted to informally wrestle with me to warm up and have some fun. He had been wrestling for years. He had won more than half of his last 40 matches by pin. I out weighed him by about 25 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, you need to pay attention.
If you look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
You will note that itr ties with financial health, not gub ownership.
Also, Hong Kong is tine compared to the use.
426 sq mi and about 7 million people.
I can find many similiar area and populations in sections of the US with a homocide rate far less then Hong Kongs.
Hong Kong expects a strong [police force and the polices ability to do whatever they want to make up for the lack of self defenc
Re: (Score:1)
The posters ad hominum attack was unnecessary and didn't help at all.
It's not an ad hominum, I really do think that a fear of guns should properly be classified as a psychological condition. They are inanimate objects. To fear them is irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone lives in Hong Kong or Shangri-La. The rest of us have to consider the very real fact that there are plenty of people out there who want to do others harm.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, there are more ways of self-defence than guns or other weapons. Think e.g. martial arts. Yes that needs training but for a gun to be effective, training is also necessary.
I have no intention of hurting anyone, but I'm over 6 feet tall and weigh nearly 250 pounds so I could if I wanted to. I've fought and placed in martial arts tournaments. I'm not a world class fighter, but I can hold my own against most people. How is a 110 pound 5'2" woman supposed to defend herself from a man my size who decides
Re: (Score:1)
I live in Hong Kong, no-one carries arms here, and homicides and other violent crime levels are one of the lowest worldwide.
Hong Kong is a part of China. I presume that you are not including the millions of Chinese murdered by the CCP in your assessment of homicide and violent crime.
In any case, self defence is a right regardless of the probability of you needing to exercise it. Living in an area where there are low levels of violence (as I do) does nothing to diminish your right to self defence.
By the way, demanding that your own rights get taken way isn't common sense, it's stupidity. It is the mentality of those who des