He owned a gun to protect his life and safety.That is why. It was not an automatic that is for sure.
That's part of the problem isn't it? You can't have a gun for home defense locked away in a gun safe...and none of the quick access safes are really proof against theft. Just (hopefully) kids. These are best bolted under the night stand or maybe desk or bed.
I find this one the most amusing:
Too bad it probably won't work with the iPhone 5. LOL.
What about those who feel that they have to carry their weapon? What is to prevent a bad guy from popping them upside the head with a bat and stealing the gun?
Or a kid lifting the gun off an un-suspecting person just trying to show that he feels more strongly about his 2nd rights than anyone else cares about life or whatever or is covering up for a small body part?
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"
You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."
What about those who feel that they have to carry their weapon? What is to prevent a bad guy from popping them upside the head with a bat and stealing the gun?
Or a kid lifting the gun off an un-suspecting person just trying to show that he feels more strongly about his 2nd rights than anyone else cares about life or whatever or is covering up for a small body part?
Exactly. That's why carrying a gun is more dangerous than not carrying one (assuming that we're not living, or aspiring to live in the Wild West). A gun doesn't stop someone from whacking you on the back of the neck with a baseball bat and taking your gun.
What about those who feel that they have to carry their weapon? What is to prevent a bad guy from popping them upside the head with a bat and stealing the gun?
Or a kid lifting the gun off an un-suspecting person just trying to show that he feels more strongly about his 2nd rights than anyone else cares about life or whatever or is covering up for a small body part?
Originally Posted by tonton
Exactly. That's why carrying a gun is more dangerous than not carrying one (assuming that we're not living, or aspiring to live in the Wild West). A gun doesn't stop someone from whacking you on the back of the neck with a baseball bat and taking your gun.
The reasoning is absurd. There are people who can break the law. Because of this, the bill of rights no longer matters and thus you should be deprived of those rights.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
100,000,000+ gun owners did not kill anyone today.
Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, and neither of his claims is even provable. Nor will he even try to provide evidence to support them. He just wants to restrict people's rights to own what they want and to have the tools to defend themselves if they wish. It's what leftists do.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Then show the numbers that support your claim ("gun ownership costs more lives than it protects,") and makes it "obvious."
WHy the **** am I chasing this red herring. It doesn't fucking matter. People have a right to own firearms. Period. They also have a right to use them for purposes that do not infringe on other people's rights of life, liberty and property unless the other person is threatening their own rights (i.e., right of self-defense.)
So all this bullshit about "gun ownership costs more lives than it protects," is just a red herring.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Now we're moving onto appeal to emotion?
The death of innocent people at the hands of anyone is terrible and tragic. No one disputes that. But it is still red herring. People have the right to own firearms and to use them to defend themselves. Period. If more people in places like Sandy Hook a) ha not been denied that right, and b) had taken it seriously, far fewer (maybe no one) would have been killed (except the assailant.)
Now, let's move onto your outrage over the (many more) children Obama has killed...
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Whether SDW meant this or not...I'll tell you why it doesn't matter: It's a red herring. A person's qualifications with firearms is irrelevant as is whether someone "needs" X firearm for hunting (or whatever activity the anti-gun crowd wishes to limit people to.) And so is whether or not you think someone (or a group) could reasonably defend themselves against a modern tyrannical government armed to the teeth as the US government is. These are all red herrings. They are all irrelevant.
This is a question about rights. Those other items are an attempt to distract from the real issue.
That is exactly what I meant, actually.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
tonton, let's assume you are right for moment. Let's say that in a given nation, gun violence is lower because there are severe restrictions on gun ownership. Now, let's look at the U.S. Even assuming you are correct, it's a moot point. There is no way such a policy (legislative or otherwise) will be upheld in the courts, because we have this little thing called the 2nd Amendment. To pass the kind of restrictions you and BR (and others) advocate, the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed. What do you think the chances of that are? I put it somewhere between a "snowball's chance in Hell" and "when talking pigs fly."
I would ask you to prove this assertion. There are 270 million guns in the United States. There is no where near that number of deaths per year. .003148148148% of all guns are involved in a murder per year. Your claim is absurd on it's face.
Emotion isn't the law or reasoning. The law is supposed to be blind to emotional tactics that attempt to activate mob reasoning.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Really? You say that as if it's an undisputed fact. Or you're trying to obfuscate by mixing in bar fights and non-injury knife robberies with deaths and gunshot wounds.
Meanwhile...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2013/01/tough-gun-control.html
Yee notes that the law center cited low per-capita gun death rates in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut -- states that the law center identified as having some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
He failed to mention the law center also included California on its list of states with the strongest gun control laws and lowest gun-releated deaths. The center declares California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation and gives the state an "A minus" on its report card, a designation shared only with New Jersey and Massachussetts.
The highest per-capita gun death rates were in Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi -- states that the law center said have weak gun control laws.
And speaking as someone who lives in a place where guns are completely banned -- and this law is strictly enforced -- and where we haven't had a single gun death in the last three years... well...
Of course emotion means something. But, Mr. Logic and Science, we don't use it to drive policy and law.
We should appeal to save lives, but now you're begging the question (you're just full of fallacy these days) in assuming that your gun right infringements will actually save more lives than they cost.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
tonton, let's assume you are right for moment. Let's say that in a given nation, gun violence is lower because there are severe restrictions on gun ownership. Now, let's look at the U.S. Even assuming you are correct, it's a moot point. There is no way such a policy (legislative or otherwise) will be upheld in the courts, because we have this little thing called the 2nd Amendment. To pass the kind of restrictions you and BR (and others) advocate, the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed. What do you think the chances of that are? I put it somewhere between a "snowball's chance in Hell" and "when talking pigs fly."
Except it wouldn't because we already restrict ownership of fully automatic weapons, it works and it's constitutional.
Few crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons in comparison to the ban.
We can restrict hand guns to the same degree as fully automatic weapons and remove a significant portion of gun violence in the US while not significantly reducing the effectiveness of personal arsenals from the perspective of military utility.
Except it wouldn't because we already restrict ownership of fully automatic weapons, it works and it's constitutional.
Arguably, it is not constitutional.
We can restrict hand guns to the same degree as fully automatic weapons and remove a significant portion of gun violence in the US while not significantly reducing the effectiveness of personal arsenals from the perspective of military utility.
Perhaps in theory. But, again, this is all irrelevant. That's not a justification for infringing on people's rights.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Really? You say that as if it's an undisputed fact. Or you're trying to obfuscate by mixing in bar fights and non-injury knife robberies with deaths and gunshot wounds.
Meanwhile...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2013/01/tough-gun-control.html
And speaking as someone who lives in a place where guns are completely banned -- and this law is strictly enforced -- and where we haven't had a single gun death in the last three years... well...
Violence is violence, is it not?
You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the U.K. than in the U.S. This is an undisputed fact.
And in the U.S., you have greater odds of dying by:
Heart disease (1 in 6)
Cancer (1 in 7)
Stroke (1 in 29)
Motor vehicle incidents (1 in 98)
Intentional self-harm (1 in 109)
Unintentional poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances (1 in 126)
and Falls (1 in 163)
than by Assault by firearm (1 in 321)
Source: http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/TheOddsofDyingFrom.aspx
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Violence is violence, is it not?
Well, yes and no.
Let me try to explain:
1. If the violence is with some other weapon than a gun...well that's "not as bad."
2. If the violence is something like killing children with drones...well, that's not worth getting to worked up about either.
3. If the violence is done to the women and children of some "whackos" (Waco)...that's just enforcing the law (or something).
4. If the violence is done to collect your taxes or prevent you from selling unsanctioned milk or running a medical marijuana shop...that's just making people play by the rules.
5. Having the tools to defend yourself against violence (or its imminent threat)...well, that's bad.
Furthermore...tonton (et al) isn't really opposed to guns. Guns are just fine in the hands of the state. He's just opposed to the "commoners" having them.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Violence is violence, is it not?
You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the U.K. than in the U.S. This is an undisputed fact.disputed fact.
And in the U.S., you have greater odds of dying by:
Heart disease (1 in 6)
Cancer (1 in 7)
Stroke (1 in 29)
Motor vehicle incidents (1 in 98)
Intentional self-harm (1 in 109)
Unintentional poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances (1 in 126)
and Falls (1 in 163)
than by Assault by firearm (1 in 321)
Source: http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/TheOddsofDyingFrom.aspx
You are so wrong it's not funny. First of all, what's catagorized as a violent crime in the UK is quite different from the US. Our whole society is quite different.
I visited my aunt for Christmas. Her oldest and best friend, who she's known since she was about 17 and she's now in her late seventies, had a husband and whilst they were living in the US he had a patient visit his surgery who shot him dead. I like her, other than her best friend, have never known anyone killed in an attack. I lived in Baltimore and saw two different store owners killed. One was killed going to the bank with his takings the other in his store. I was only there foir ten years. I've never known anyone killed who owns a store in the UK.
The UK has violent crime, there's no doubt, everywhere does.The UK has a bout 300 knife/stabbing deaths a year. The US has about 1,700. Population wise then they occur at about the same rate. Those 300 homicides though make up more than half of our homicides. We have about 50 gun deaths a year. The USA has over 10,000. In fact, the accidental gun deaths in the USA, are higher than the total homicides than the whole of the UK per year.
When it comes to reducing crime though, I somewhat empathize with you and MJ. The gangs, (who are largely black in the UK who use firearms to conduct their business) are not going to lose out if guns are banned, quite the reverse. Incidents of school shootings etc and partners shootings their wives etc, no doubt would decline.
The way I see it is sensible gun laws and legalazing drugs, to a degree is the way to go. Those who owns guns need to have them registered and inspected for safe storage. A safe kept in concrete, so it's not removable and a valid liscence that has to be renewed each year should be a minimum requirement.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
You are so wrong it's not funny. First of all, what's catagorized as a violent crime in the UK is quite different from the US. Our whole society is quite different.
I visited my aunt for Christmas. Her oldest and best friend, who she's known since she was about 17 and she's now in her late seventies, had a husband and whilst they were living in the US he had a patient visit his surgery who shot him dead. I like her, other than her best friend, have never known anyone killed in an attack. I lived in Baltimore and saw two different store owners killed. One was killed going to the bank with his takings the other in his store. I was only there foir ten years. I've never known anyone killed who owns a store in the UK.
The UK has violent crime, there's no doubt, everywhere does.The UK has a bout 300 knife/stabbing deaths a year. The US has about 1,700. Population wise then they occur at about the same rate. Those 300 homicides though make up more than half of our homicides. We have about 50 gun deaths a year. The USA has over 10,000. In fact, the accidental gun deaths in the USA, are higher than the total homicides than the whole of the UK per year.
When it comes to reducing crime though, I somewhat empathize with you and MJ. The gangs, (who are largely black in the UK who use firearms to conduct their business) are not going to lose out if guns are banned, quite the reverse. Incidents of school shootings etc and partners shootings their wives etc, no doubt would decline.
The way I see it is sensible gun laws and legalazing drugs, to a degree is the way to go. Those who owns guns need to have them registered and inspected for safe storage. A safe kept in concrete, so it's not removable and a valid liscence that has to be renewed each year should be a minimum requirement.
Noted. You haven't convinced me.
Any comments on the "odds of dying from..." statistics I listed?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Don't get all bent out of shape because I presented you with facts.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Which ones would you cross off?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Give it up jazz. You can't compete with the fictional, Utopian world that tonton is demanding we all compare reality to. It typical leftist delusions and wishful thinking. They claim to be realists while blatantly denying reality. They claim to support individual liberty while systematically destroying it. They claim to value diversity and individuality so long s everyone individually conforms to their wishes and ideals. It's a lost cause. Move on to someone else. The best we can hope for is they don't vote or reproduce.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Give it up jazz. You can't compete with the fictional, Utopian world that tonton is demanding we all compare reality to. It typical leftist delusions and wishful thinking. They claim to be realists while blatantly denying reality. They claim to support individual liberty while systematically destroying it. They claim to value diversity and individuality so long s everyone individually conforms to their wishes and ideals. It's a lost cause. Move on to someone else. The best we can hope for is they don't vote or reproduce.
He's apparently talking to himself now, so I'll just let him go on.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
"Banning guns for their misuse is like banning the First Amendment because one might libel or slander." - Ron Paul
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
