Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[Timothy Bryce]

where I live we have drive by shootings

return fire might curtail some of it

Great quote.

"When there are bullets flying around, more bullets flying around might curtail some of it".

Are you out of your mind?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Gosh. So much butthurt and rage. Deep breaths, son.

If you infer that from a post that took me 20 seconds to write, you're the one with the problem dude.

Which KFC do you work at? I'll buy it just so I can fire you out of principle.

 

[Jumi]

Because internet debate forums are what makes the world really turn?

I guess you missed that point completely.

I've defended many people who have killed people;

How much did it help their victims to understand that this is a pathetic man killing them?

as anyone with half a brain would understand that these horrible events are never open and shut and often trickle down to very subtle and complicated semantics as well as subjective elements that are always judged on their individual merits.

Guess what? You took on to bad guy too literally. No one's denying that you can't interpret getting killed in subtle ways. But when you are about to be killed, would you rather take a moment to understand that the killer had complex motives or have a chance of surviving?

The people who kill (including those who kill out of self defence) are, indeed, scared people who come from backgrounds and immediate dispositions that can not be described any more accurately than "pathetic".

If someone pathetic and scared tries to kill me, I'll try to keep that in mind. Yes, I've known folks who are pathetic and scared and are violent but you know, that wasn't the point here.

Satisfied yet?

Nope, I'm expecting you to throw in more insults to help your case.

 

[Brian Schuh]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the establishment of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You all wonder why gun control is mostly nonexistent, just read the Constitution! The 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed before serious gun control could be passed.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I guess you missed that point completely.


How much did it help their victims to understand that this is a pathetic man killing them?


Guess what? You took on to bad guy too literally. No one's denying that you can't interpret getting killed in subtle ways. But when you are about to be killed, would you rather take a moment to understand that the killer had complex motives or have a chance of surviving?


If someone pathetic and scared tries to kill me, I'll try to keep that in mind. Yes, I've known folks who are pathetic and scared and are violent but you know, that wasn't the point here.


Nope, I'm expecting you to throw in more insults to help your case.

More insults? Cite one comment I've made to you that qualifies as an insult.

As for your reference to me "missing the point completely," I'll advise you to walk into any local or criminally based courthouse and attempt to have your printed off RF papers filed. I don't expect you to report anything in the way of a report on the outcome, but I think it would be funny.

You strike me as someone who is incredibly uneducated and lacking in basic communicative skills.

My point from the get go in this thread is that "bad guys" is an incredibly reductive and disadvantageous term to be using regarding an issue such as gun violence.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the establishment of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You all wonder why gun control is mostly nonexistent, just read the Constitution! The 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed before serious gun control could be passed.

Rough. What a terrifying country you obviously live in.

 

[Jumi]

More insults? Cite one comment I've made to you that qualifies as an insult

Anyone with half a brain would figure it out if they were not jacking off to Die Hard at the time.

As for your reference to me "missing the point completely," I'll advise you to walk into any local or criminally based courthouse and attempt to have your printed off RF papers filed. I don't expect you to report anything in the way of a report on the outcome, but I think it would be funny.

You're getting further away from the point and apparently you don't care.

You strike me as someone who is incredibly uneducated and lacking in basic communicative skills.

Just be glad that you're not a judge.

My point from the get go in this thread is that "bad guys" is an incredibly reductive and disadvantageous term to be using regarding an issue such as gun violence.

And you had to go on a tangent including ad hominems to make that point when you could have just said it.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Yep, you've been duped.

Australia is literally the world's greatest example of why severe gun "buybacks" and other drastic measures are an overwhelming success.

So do your research more diligently.

Or maybe the US cultural gun fetish embarrassment is a bridge to far for such a thing to be successful?

I really didn't want to have to restate my own post.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Anyone with half a brain would figure it out if they were not jacking off to Die Hard at the time.

You're getting further away from the point and apparently you don't care.

Just be glad that you're not a judge.

And you had to go on a tangent including ad hominems to make that point when you could have just said it.

The "jacking off to Die Hard" comment I made referred specifically to gun nuts with deep psychosexual bull**** going on. Learn to read.

"Apparently I don't care" (as you say) about what? Straw man.

I'm very glad I'm not a judge; it appears to be a form of zombie like death after lawyerhood. Thanks for the pep!

I invite you to explain my logical error you're referring to which apparently included "ad hominems".

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Jumi]

The "jacking off to Die Hard" comment I made referred specifically to gun nuts with deep psychosexual bull**** going on. Learn to read.

Calm down. Getting caught insulting people isn't the end of the world. It's not like you do much else on this thread?

I'm very glad I'm not a judge; it appears to be a form of zombie like death after lawyerhood. Thanks for the pep!

I bet you tell that to every judge...

I look forward to your reply.

I don't look forward to a new round of insults from you. Consider our discussion closed until you have something to offer.

 

[esmith]

Yep, you've been duped.

Australia is literally the world's greatest example of why severe gun "buybacks" and other drastic measures are an overwhelming success.

So do your research more diligently.

Or maybe the US cultural gun fetish embarrassment is a bridge to far for such a thing to be successful?

One might suggest you look beyond the Australian governments misleading information, or should it be called propaganda, on the success of the firearm confiscation program. Quoted excerpts and charts taken from the following link and referenced PDF files in the report..http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...work-and-it-wouldnt-work-america-mark-antonio

From the above chart it can be seen that the overall homicide rate was in decline prior to the confiscation program.
University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

While the chart does show a steady decline in gun-related suicides, the reduction occurred at the same time as an overall reduction in the Australian suicide rate. What’s more, firearm-related suicides had been declining in Australia for nearly ten years before the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership. Vox’s own chart does not appear to show a causal link between gun control and a reduction in suicide rates in Australia.

Also one might look at the following report: http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf
and http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf
to support the above charts.

So your statement " Australia is literally the world's greatest example of why severe gun "buybacks" and other drastic measures are an overwhelming success." Is clouded by your own opinion and shows that it really wasn't an "overwhelming success". As a matter of fact it was a draconian measure visited on the citizens of Australia by an over-reaching, over-reacting government. I also suggest you read the following article http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/ Of course when ones mind is made up it is hard to convince them with the facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rough. What a terrifying country you obviously live in.

Unless one lives in bad parts of Detroit, it's pretty peaceful here.

I know....you're wondering there are parts which aren't bad?

Anyway, many people are terrified by things they oppose.
It enhances arguments, eg, Al Sharpton's plan to flee the country because Trump is coming for all the black folk.

 

[Thief]

Yep, you've been duped.

Australia is literally the world's greatest example of why severe gun "buybacks" and other drastic measures are an overwhelming success.

So do your research more diligently.

Or maybe the US cultural gun fetish embarrassment is a bridge to far for such a thing to be successful?

got stats.....people here just love stats....

and a lot of gun owners were more than upset to have granddaddy's heirloom rifle cut in half.

 

[Thief]

One might suggest you look beyond the Australian governments misleading information, or should it be called propaganda, on the success of the firearm confiscation program. Quoted excerpts and charts taken from the following link and referenced PDF files in the report..http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...work-and-it-wouldnt-work-america-mark-antonio

Also one might look at the following report: http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf
and http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf
to support the above charts.

So your statement " Australia is literally the world's greatest example of why severe gun "buybacks" and other drastic measures are an overwhelming success." Is clouded by your own opinion and shows that it really wasn't an "overwhelming success". As a matter of fact it was a draconian measure visited on the citizens of Australia by an over-reaching, over-reacting government. I also suggest you read the following article http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/ Of course when ones mind is made up it is hard to convince them with the facts.

oh look!.......stats!!!!!

 

[Thief]

Great quote.

"When there are bullets flying around, more bullets flying around might curtail some of it".

Are you out of your mind?

not at all.....

so what are YOU going to do when the bullets fly?.....raise your hands and say.....
Take me I'm yours!

 

[Thief]

Saw a video from a Japanese hotel lobby......bad guys holding up the patrons.....
with golf clubs for weapons

it was brutal

 

[Thief]

There are people on this earth with the strength and know how....
you cannot stop them without a gun.

sure ....the moment to draw aim and fire is a fine line....
and the judge will want all the details....

but the alternative might be the hospital or the grave.

yeah, stopping the bad guy is a tough line to walk
but the police usually show up for the paper work.....at the hospital

sometimes the morgue

 

[metis]

oh look!.......stats!!!!!

It's quite both hilarious and pathetic that so many here accept "stats" from sources that have a vested interest on this issue and then reject stats from organizations that don't have a vested interest one way or another. The National Review is hardly an objective source on this.

I've posted stats from more objective sources on this many times, only to have some here out-and-out reject them and either post a stat from a vested-interest source that cannot be verified, or they just say my stats are wrong without any stats to counter, and most of the time it's the latter. So, I've given up.

 

[metis]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the establishment of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You all wonder why gun control is mostly nonexistent, just read the Constitution! The 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed before serious gun control could be passed.

Please reread the 2nd again, but focus this time what the first part of the sentence that I underlined actually says.

 

[Thief]

It's quite both hilarious and pathetic that so many here accept "stats" from sources that have a vested interest on this issue and then reject stats from organizations that don't have a vested interest one way or another. The National Review is hardly an objective source on this.

I've posted stats from more objective sources on this many times, only to have some here out-and-out reject them and either post a stat from a vested-interest source that cannot be verified, or they just say my stats are wrong without any stats to counter, and most of the time it's the latter. So, I've given up.

yeah....but here you go....

I have practiced martial arts for a long time
and now that my 61st birthday is coming around....
I am certain that most defense situations by hand are behind me.

it's a reality.
you ARE your own line of defense up close, first.

taking away the guns won't make you safer.....just more of a target.