Gun rights victory today!

[Revoltingest]

The Republic of Ireland took on the IRA with an unarmed police force.
The RoI came out on top.

As great as that is, that is a different country with different politics & culture.
I think our problems here are more entrenched & diverse than the IRA.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As great as that is, that is a different country with different politics & culture.
I think our problems here are more entrenched & diverse than the IRA.

Shame on you for taking away the rhetorical impact of his anecdote.

 

[Revoltingest]

Shame on you for taking away the rhetorical impact of his anecdote.

I still think it was a wonderful anecdote.

 

[Father Heathen]

I would disagree. Technically police are supposed to deal with that.

Unfortunately the police do not possess the ability to psychically sense crimes in progress nor to instantaneously teleport to location.

 

[Zardoz]

Why anyone would wish to posess an instrument of death is just beyond me.
It's one thing about America I'll never understand.

Because no one is going to just march me and my family into cattlecars bound for death camps. Not without a fight, a much preferable fate. Unlike Germany in the 30's, I live where I have the right to defend myself, and I will do so. When I can't, then I know the death camps are inevitable. That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People. No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.

 

[sandandfoam]

Thanks for the reply Zardoz. I imagine we will never agree.
As I see it I can live free or I can live in fear. I can be strong or I can be weak.
To give in to the need (or the use) of weaponry is to surrender ones being to fear.
The use of weapons and physical force is the way of the inherently weak, the fearful.
Badshah Khan, Ghandi, King - these were men of bravery. Free men.
Weapons = no freedom.
Just that simple.

 

[Tiapan]

Just goes to show how backward yanks are. They also have the death penalty still. I think they all want to grow up to be John Wayne look alikes, Pilgrim.

Cheers

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for the reply Zardoz. I imagine we will never agree.
As I see it I can live free or I can live in fear. I can be strong or I can be weak.
To give in to the need (or the use) of weaponry is to surrender ones being to fear.
The use of weapons and physical force is the way of the inherently weak, the fearful.
Badshah Khan, Ghandi, King - these were men of bravery. Free men.
Weapons = no freedom.
Just that simple.

It's not that simple. Moreover, the notion that while I own guns I'm living in fear is all in your imagination. I'm not fearful or weak at all. Carrying a weapon is a
logical choice, ie, I'm better off with it than without. Mentally, it feels more like an expression of preparedness & assumption of personal responsibility. Certainly,
you may choose not to have a gun & explain why you feel that way. But you lack the expertise to tell me how I feel about it.....in such disparaging terms too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just goes to show how backward yanks are. They also have the death penalty still. I think they all want to grow up to be John Wayne look alikes, Pilgrim.

Hey, we aren't that uncivilized....we don't let dingos eat our babies or serve Vegemite to our children.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because no one is going to just march me and my family into cattlecars bound for death camps. Not without a fight, a much preferable fate. Unlike Germany in the 30's, I live where I have the right to defend myself, and I will do so.

So far, so good. I completely understand.

When I can't, then I know the death camps are inevitable.

That would depend on the political situation, wouldn't it? In most places that is not quite true.

That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People.

Sure.

No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.

Not really. The very presence of guns at the hands of people that aren't always balanced is to some degree a threat to one's freedom, or at least to safety.

 

[darkendless]

To people who use the self-defense arguement:

If you have a gun the chances of others having a gun are just as high. Net gain in safety is sweet nothing.

Also, police are in the same position as criminals with access to weapons.

WTF America.... wait, its hardly suprising.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, like I said, it only takes once.

That's not the point. The point is how often it helps compared to how often it harms.

We'll have no way of knowing that until studies are done of responsible gun owners, too.

I mean, we've all heard the statistics on crime and accidents. But does anyone know how many law-abiding people own a firearm and never have cause to regret it?

I don't think that's a relevant question. The question is how many people are helped by having a gun and how many people are harmed.

 

[Magic Man]

Shame on you for taking away the rhetorical impact of his anecdote.

Actually, I'd say more shame on him for missing the point of the anecdote (and you, too, apparently). But press on with your one-line zingers that add nothing to the conversation.

 

[Magic Man]

Unfortunately the police do not possess the ability to psychically sense crimes in progress nor to instantaneously teleport to location.

Yes, that is unfortunate. However, this comment completely misses the point of my comment, but that seems to be a common theme on this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

Because no one is going to just march me and my family into cattlecars bound for death camps. Not without a fight, a much preferable fate. Unlike Germany in the 30's, I live where I have the right to defend myself, and I will do so. When I can't, then I know the death camps are inevitable. That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People. No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.

See, this is exactly the kind of paranoia we don't need. We can have a real debate about guns, but this type of reasoning just doesn't hold up. First, there is no reason whatsoever to be afraid of a Nazi-like America. That's just paranoid fear. Second, even if the government does come for you, your couple of handguns and rifle aren't going to save you. The real power of the people rests in the fact that we control the government. We haven't done too well with this control in recent times, but in the end we do still control it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's as good a barometer of freedom as any; arms in the hands of the People = power in the hands of the People. No arms? No freedom. Just that simple.

It's not doing much good in many African countries.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know. If so, it's not by much. Also, this isn't really an argument for handgun ownership.

It speaks to your point:

And how often is it harmful when people have guns?

We should consider also how often is it not harmful when people have guns. If it is overwhelmingly less harmful to own guns, we need to consider other alternatives than restrictions that take away liberty.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Legally held guns get pinched and then used to kill people. People kill people with legal and illegal weapons.
If guns are not legal it's easier for the police to take them out of circulation.

That is just it, drugs are illegal and they are plentiful in the states. You will never be able to remove anything in the states if there is a demand. Outlawing guns will only take them away from law abiding folks.

Actually outlawing guns will only make the black market more profitable. :sorry1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is just it, drugs are illegal and they are plentiful in the states. You will never be able to remove anything in the states if there is a demand. Outlawing guns will only take them away from law abiding folks.

Actually outlawing guns will only make the black market more profitable. :sorry1:

I doubt the more wealthy collectors - who are otherwise law-abiding - would surrender their collections that they spend years (decades?) building.

If it were suddenly illegal, the value of the collection would skyrocket.

It would be closer to Prohibition. The wealthy folks would hide/keep their guns, poor folks would give up theirs and start making their own.

 

[Storm]

That's not the point. The point is how often it helps compared to how often it harms.

I don't think that's a relevant question. The question is how many people are helped by having a gun and how many people are harmed.

We should consider also how often is it not harmful when people have guns. If it is overwhelmingly less harmful to own guns, we need to consider other alternatives than restrictions that take away liberty.

I agree with ae.

Ignoring the vast number of people who never face the worst case scenario is stacking the deck.