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
I assume that one day when your wife gets spooked at night in an alley somewhere by some street-bad looking kid, pulls her gun and shoots him dead, only to find that he was trying to ask her directions to the closest 7-11, that you will happily surrender her to the justice system on a murder charge?
Or perhaps it is a mugger, and your wife shoots him dead (after all he pulled a gun..), then she turns around just as someone else walks in the the alley, they see her with a gun having just shot someone, turning towards them still holding her gun, so they grab theirs and open fire.. Will you uphold the third persons right to self defense?
"Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen.."
Really? Do they? When? How often? More often than an armed citizen successfully prevents a violent crime? (from 1 to 2 million times per year depending on how you count)
As it turns out, armed citizens shoot the right person more often than the police do and most of the time, they do not have to shoot at all (the mere presence or presentation of the gun deters a criminal). Since eliminating armed citizens would require increasing armed police to replace them, the rate of accidents will go up not down.
As a gu
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:4, Interesting)
I assume that one day when your wife gets spooked at night in an alley somewhere by some street-bad looking kid, pulls her gun and shoots him dead, only to find that he was trying to ask her directions to the closest 7-11, that you will happily surrender her to the justice system on a murder charge?
Or perhaps it is a mugger, and your wife shoots him dead (after all he pulled a gun..), then she turns around just as someone else walks in the the alley, they see her with a gun having just shot someone, turning towards them still holding her gun, so they grab theirs and open fire.. Will you uphold the third persons right to self defense?
Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen..
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, horrible scenarios I know, but they happen.."
Really? Do they? When? How often? More often than an armed citizen successfully prevents a violent crime? (from 1 to 2 million times per year depending on how you count)
As it turns out, armed citizens shoot the right person more often than the police do and most of the time, they do not have to shoot at all (the mere presence or presentation of the gun deters a criminal). Since eliminating armed citizens would require increasing armed police to replace them, the rate of accidents will go up not down.
As a gu