Bitcoin Forum

I won't add anything to the irony of this situation. It's just incredible that she doesn't realize how lucky she was to have a second chance. Most never had it.
30 000 deaths every year by guns in the USA. The highest murder rate of the Western world. Maybe start to think about it?
Anyway, seems at least her son can't aim well!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/progun-mum-jamie-gilt-will-never-give-up-her-guns-despite-being-shit-by-son-family-say/news-story/36303137d00bab41c3e8eaa936e3319f

---

A MUM who was accidentally shot by her four-year-old son “will never give up her guns”, her family have announced.
Family members said Jamie Gilt will still be pro-gun — despite being almost killed in an accidental shooting in her truck.
Ms Gilt, 31, is in a stable condition and faces criminal charges after her son found a fully loaded .45 handgun next to his child booster seat and pulled the trigger.
The boy’s grandmother Jane Bramble told The Sun the youngster has no idea that he had almost killed his mum.
And she insisted her daughter would not change her opinion about owning guns — and will keep the semi automatic gun fired in the incident.
“This was an accident and nothing more,” said the 71-year-old from Palaka, Florida.
“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns.
“She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them.
“She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

Ms Bramble said her grandson was unaffected by the shooting.
“He is sitting opposite me eating pancakes and has no idea what he did. It was an accident, that is all it was.”
Ms Bramble refused to say how her grandson got hold of the loaded weapon.
“I don’t want to go into that now,” she said.
“I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers in this difficult time.
“The family wants to remain private and focus on the long road of healing ahead.”
Days before the shooting Ms Gilt had used social media to support the right to own guns and boasted that her son knew how to shoot.
“All of ours know how to shoot too. Even my 4-year-old gets jacked up to target shoot the .22,” she wrote in a Facebook posting.
As well as a personal account Ms Gilt has a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense”
The four-year-old boy has not been named and is in the care of his grandmother while social services launch an investigation. Police said he will not face any charges.
Ms Gilt was driving to her sister’s home near Jacksonville, Florida, when the youngster fired a single shot into the driver’s seat.

The bullet passed through her back and exited out of her stomach.
A police officer saw the driver waving at him frantically and when he approached the vehicle Ms Gilt said her son had shot her in the back.
Police found a handgun on the floor of the vehicle and the boy was unrestrained in the child booster seat.
Ms Gilt was flown by air ambulance to the UF Hospital in Gainesville where she remains in a stable condition.
She has yet to be interviewed by police as doctors have said she is not medically fit to make a statement.
The Putnam County Sheriff’s Office said Ms Gilt could face a negligence charge if it was found the boy had easy access to the gun.
However, a former state prosecutor said it was unlikely Ms Gilt would be charged as she had suffered enough.
Harry Shorstein said “You have to put great weight on the fact that the person who is criminally liable is the one who was shot.
“I’d be very reluctant to prosecute in this situation.”

---

I guess this is just what they say "Live by the Gun, Die By the Gun"  ;D and she still stand to her vote about owning a gun.

I support to own guns though but not letting minors hold it even for a second. Its the parents fault no matter how the situation is..

And I suppose it will be a relief for the families of those killed by minors by accident or at will :)

So the solution to people being stupid and leaving loaded guns with their safeties off next to a fucking child is to ban the guns instead of jail the mother for gross negligence or get the child to another relative? Gotta love that logic. It's amazing how fast people like you are to take advantage of accidents like this when it's obvious that the problem wasn't the gun it was the moron who left the gun lying around fully loaded.

Also, what about all the other people in the country who own guns without any problem and are no way near as stupid as this woman?

Yeah. Seems like a much better idea to jail people and separate families than to take away guns that have absolutely no other use but to kill people :)

One mother observes improper gun safety = the entire nation should disarm and be defenseless. Yeah. ok.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Also notice this article is published from Australia, a nation of disarmed British royal subjects trying to justify their own position of helplessness. After all, ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!


In most circumstances yes, anyone who allows young children unsupervised access to loaded guns SHOULD be prosecuted and potentially jailed. You don't find this to be worthy of criminal charges in most cases? Additionally are you making the argument that guns NEVER are used to defend life? I think you are going to lose that one.

That's what happens with domestic violence cases and so on and you don't seem to be complaining about that, again though, you didn't answer my question about people who own guns and don't do any of the stupid shit this woman did?

Doing a blanket ban because of morons like this is incredibly short sighted, if you want to stop her from having a gun fine, but going around and using this as an example of taking away guns from everybody is ridiculous.

Never said that.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Of course we are complaining about that. That's the whole point of education campaigns. But you can't simply stop domestic abuses/violence by taking away something.
I didn't answer your question because I don't see the relevance of it.

Not saying you should take away guns from everyone. There is a difference between banning all guns for everyone and increase gun control. And I didn't advocate anything, just giving out this example to make you all think about it from another point of view.

Another logical fallacy here. Seems like you preach a lot but you're not better at logical debate.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

There is a big difference between banning all guns and increasing gun control, a huge difference, by the way, it's really obvious when people are advocating for something because when it comes to gun control they get extremely emotional and treat people who disagree with them like shit. The problem is that people who are pro 'gun control' never talk about specifics, they may mention things like background checks and so on, but that's because most people would agree with that, when you delve deeper into the political belief system you find that they want to attack the people that own guns rather than actually solve the problems they talk about which is why they quickly revert to the usual gags and comments and the whole thing descends into a shit flinging competition.

Seems like Techshare or Galdur way of talking to people. Not mine. Unless you're too patriotic cause I got to say I easily lose my nerves against stupid ignorant patriotic Americans who knows nothing about History.

Again I didn't say anything about gun control, nothing else than "maybe think about it taking those kind of accident into account".
I'm not going to use an example like this to add oil on fire. Just to give a new vision of the debate. That's all.

And I'm not American so you do whatever you want in your country ;)
As long as you don't bring your guns here like Trump wants to do.

i watched this on news, the mom became careless on hiding her gun. I feel sorry for her  :-[

Well, it's really an anecdotal event... Is it?

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15."

Anyway. It's all a pros and cons debate. I don't see how the pros can overweight the cons but... Not my country.

So you did not just state that guns have no other use than to kill people? It seems pretty clear to me you did, making my statement 100% fair and logical. Just because you get amnesia about what you said when convenient doesn't erase your statement from the record.

I am pro-gun but you NEVER leave a loaded firearm lying around anywhere, especially near kids. This woman is stupid.

Sigh...
Amnesia? No it's just that contrary to you I understand words. Tell me, how guns protect lifes? Yeah by killing. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. It's the ONE AND UNIQUE PURPOSE of a gun.

Multiple lessons here. Weapons must be secured in a rapid-opening finger-touch-code locking device. Another lesson; handguns are wounding weapons that sometimes kill. The best home defense weapon should be either a shotgun or center-fire rifle (if living in dense population / apartment, rifle rounds over penetrate, so only a shotgun would be appropriate).

Well i guess the dream of arms manufacturers would be that every shot would miss and therefor people create an infinite demand.
Peoples death are just a sad and a not wanted occurrence - usually by accident or mistake - in the world of arms producer.

Lord of War was a pretty good movie :)

If you use a shotgun in the correct distance then you would have to miss your target on purpose to not kill him.

Well, Tecshare would maybe try to argue shotguns have other purpose than to kill someone xD

The NUMBER ONE PURPOSE OF A GUN IS SELF DEFENSE.

So you are doubling down on your ridiculous argument that guns are only for killing? Let me list just a few examples that prove you are absolutely full of shit and disingenuously just making claims that are impossible to back up:

-deterrent to crime simply by having it be seen by criminals
-brandishing without firing for self defense
-target shooting
-hunting for food (or should we not hunt animals to eat because it upsets you so?)
-collecting
-shooting competition/skill shooting
-law enforcement
-animal control

That took about 3 seconds. It is 100% fact that guns can be used for MANY other purposes than killing. Just because in your twisted pacifist mind you only can imagine it being used for killing does NOT make it reality. As a result your statement below is nothing more than a bold faced lie you toss about as a convenient platitude that works for control freaks like you who can't stand other people being free and able to defend themselves.



As far as your shotgun comment... ever hear of rocksalt douchebag? Of course you haven't, why would you know anything about firearms, you have probably never even seen one in your life. You live in a socialist hellhole where the subjects can't be trusted with arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#Less-lethal_rounds.2C_for_riot_and_animal_control

Just to point out, this is completely the mother's fault for not properly securing the firearm, not whether or not was a pro-gun mom. The fact that she was a pro-gun mom just makes it another excuse to say, "this is exactly why guns shouldn't be legal" counterarguement. She placed a loaded gun where it was easily reachable by the child. The firearm should of been locked in a child-proof container and kept in the trunk. Then, I guess the argument could be it couldn't be easily accessible if something were to happen. Either way, the fire-arm was not secure in the presence of a child. This is stupid human error on her part and now she has to face the consequences. 

Exactly. Not only guns but many other things too harm people when improperly used. IMO the safety of people is about education, not prohibitition.

Right. Funny when someone leaves a lighter laying around and a kid burns the house down, no one immediately blames the lighter and tries to have them banned even though fire is arguably far more destructive and dangerous than a gun. You know why that is? Because the media doesn't whip people into a hysteria programming fear of lighters into them.

Yeah. Just never let minors touch a gun. They don't have any idea what this stuff purpose. Then it's just happen. They can kill people. So be careful with this thing

Maybe it's because a lighter has other purposes than burning the house down whereas guns don't have other purpose than killing :)

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie liar. I already thoroughly dismissed this claim above.

Here, corrected this for you, it was just a flawed reasoning don't thank me ;)
Whaou, what a good argument, I'm really convinced.
Anyway, what would you expect from an American?
Because the only purpose of a gun is to kill hence they're frightened.
Because the only purpose of a gun is to kill hence they're frightened.
Right and that's why nobody wants a total ban of guns but you don't need to have a loaded gun in your house to practice target shooting.
Same as above
Cool thing bro, but you know you can collect swords for example too? Well usually collection swords are not sharpen. In the same way, collection guns don't have to be functionnal and they really don't need to be loaded and ready to fire.
Same as above
Because the only purpose of a gun is to kill hence they're frightened.
Right and that's why nobody wants a total ban of guns but you don't need to have a loaded gun in your house to practice target shooting.
No, the only point I'll grant you is the pleasure aspect of collection or skill shooting for example. Which is why total ban is never what people ask for, but skill shooting or collection don't need a loaded weapon at home ready to fire.
Well it doesn't except for the pleasure aspect of the guns. Which I agree on.
Sure because that's what I said xD

You're really a big mouth of propaganda. Anyway it doesn't change the fact that you're lying.

Sorry I took the time to make a long post to explain others how you're lying.
But again, what would you expect from a propaganda guy ;)

So your retort is... once again repeating the lie that "the only purpose of guns is to kill" over and over and over in the same post. Very convincing. You don't like the fact people defend their lives with guns, so just say "because the only purpose of a gun is to kill" after each example of nonlethal uses of guns and like magic the cognitive dissonance in the rusty wheel-works of your socialist confirmation bias riddled mind once again can grind away freely.

Just because you imagine violence, does not make the violence real, hence the fact that self defensive use of firearms DOES NOT REQUIRE KILLING, even if you pretend like this is not the case to try to support your shitty unsupportable argument.
Anything that doesn't fit with your socialist conditioning = "a propaganda guy"

I think it's a good example of why not every idiot should be able to own one and why there needs to be more restrictions in place.


Well that's certainly what they should be used for but does anyone have any stats or the percentage that guns are actually used efficiently in self defense compared to incidents like this and all the others that happen?

You're argument is that self defense doesn't require killing.
It's right, and what? That's not what I claimed. I claimed that the main purpose of a gun is to kill. Hence you can frighten people because they KNOW that the ONLY purpose of a gun is to kill.

I denied all your arguments, can you give me any use of a loaded gun at home but to kill?

Ah! I brought dozens of stats considering crimes but the pro gun freedom accept none of them because "correlation != causation".

In their minds culture diversity is enough to explain the fact that USA gets a murder rates 4 times higher than any other civilized Western country xD

Just ignore Tecshare.

He's not only dumb, he's also extremely rude and narrow minded ;)

Stop arguing, he can't think properly. And by that I mean he's not able to think more than one argument at a time, he can't make a reasoning with arguments actually step by step ^^

The only thing that stops a bad baby with a gun is a good baby with a gun. Where was it when it really counted?

Look at this stupid bint's past. Multiple convictions for a variety of reasons. Throw in child endangerment now and what if a random passerby had eaten a bullet?

This thread will no doubt end up 100 pages long with nothing learned on either side. Have fun, all.

Denying all of my arguments doesn't make you any more correct just by denying them. You actually have to have logic or evidence. You have done nothing but repeat yourself. Speaking of repeating yourself YES IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIMED. You are literally just pretending you didn't say things everyone can look at and see very clearly you said... lets look...


So just keep changing those goal posts, maybe it will make you have a point some day. Again I provided examples of how guns can be used without killing but then you just changed the goal posts to questions about justifying having a loaded gun at home as if that makes your argument mean more. You also didn't address anything about nonlethal ammunition like rocksalt shotgun shells. Just brush the facts aside they aren't important, you have a crusade against "propaganda guys" to win!

You want to know why people should be armed? look no further than your own country:

"By the summer of 1995, three towns in eastern Bosnia--Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde--remained under control of the Bosnian government. The U.N. had declared these enclaves "safe havens" in 1993, to be disarmed and protected by international peacekeeping forces. On July 11, however, Bosnian Serb forces advanced on Srebrenica, overwhelming a battalion of Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed there. Serbian forces subsequently separated the Bosniak civilians at Srebrenica, putting the women and girls on buses and sending them to Bosnian-held territory. Some of the women were raped or sexually assaulted, while the men and boys who remained behind were killed immediately or bussed to mass killing sites. Estimates of Bosniaks killed by Serb forces at Srebrenica range from around 7,000 to more than 8,000."  

http://www.examiner.com/article/restrictive-gun-laws-no-impediment-to-serbian-mass-shooting


Don't worry tho! The UN/Police/Santa clause will protect you! No need to be able to defend yourselves! Just get on those mass grave and rape buses and everything will be fine. Oh you don't want to? Tough shit, the bad guys have guns regardless of your "gun control" laws. Too bad the law abiding citizens don't.




Oh your back! That's too bad. I thought you said you were ignoring me. I guess you just say whatever is convenient at the time for you.



Think about it for a second. How would such stats be collected? Are people going to call the police and report they scared off assailants every time they simply brandish a gun? Even if they did the police have no official reporting mechanism for this, so there are no official stats. People on both sides of this debate have however tried to estimate the incidents of self defensive use of firearms in the USA, and even the most conservative numbers show that firearms are used far more often in self defense than in criminal violence.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

The NUMBER TWO PURPOSE OF A GUN IS SELF DEFENSE AGAINST JOKERS WHO TRY TO GET EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO HAVE A GUN.

:)

True.

Because there is nothing to learn here. Two ideals are opposed:
The one of people believing nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom
The one of people believing the state should always make the choice the most beneficial for the society as a whole

Pick your team, and kill the other. Because no compromise can be done.

Ahahah!
Yeah right on that ^^
But again, it's self defense because a gun is meant to kill and the assaillant doesn't want to die ;)

The emboldened text is about the only true thing I have ever read from you. The 100% indisputable fact is, nothing can excuse the restriction of freedom because the STATE IS THE NUMBER 1 MURDERER OF THE PEOPLE BY FAR. Do I need to prepare a list of state genocides? Open any history book. You keep telling yourself they have your best interest at heart tho, until they march you into those unmarked mass graves. The state isn't going to protect you from itself.

Just because you are a vulnerable disarmed subject of your state does not mean the world wants to join you. You keep that to that hellhole you call a state, well keep our freedom.

https://brasilltda.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ec7d9ca2-7b02-4580-bcd3-6c32c87011b0.jpg?w=545

It seems you don't understand that gun freedom will not protect you from your government...

But no problem, go on with your 19th century mentality.

And your proof for this is...what? Because they have tanks and jets? It seems to me that Afghanistan did just fine holding off the most powerful military in the world with just small arms, and they certainly don't have any fucking tanks or jets.

The government is made of people. People are some times criminals and murderers. People are susceptible to bullets. The point of firearm ownership is not to stop the government from bombing the shit out of everyone, but to prevent a totalitarian state that oppresses the people with targeted violence meant to terrorize and control. Its not as easy to terrorize individuals when they can fight back.

You know what else won't protect you from your government? Trusting it to protect you.

Cause you ever brought any proof for your claims? Never saw one.

Anyway. It's just that when the people wants to get rid of their government, they manage to do it by convincing the army to fight on their side, not by fighting a well trained and well equiped army...

Or maybe they don't have to fight because the government knows better than to start a war with its own armed populace. What exactly would you like me to prove? I gave a good proof of why your argument was false, what claim exactly do you want proof for, or are you just going to make a generalized argument then shift the goal posts when I provide a good logical argument like every other gun control freak?

The army is people. People have guns. Army of the people will always put the government down. Self-evident. No proof needed. But history is full of proof.

:)

And who gets to decide who should get to have guns? You?

Also I never said anything about "winning" against the US army. I am not talking about a head to head battle (as if that would ever even happen), I am talking about defending one's self and one's community from state sponsored terror in the form of individual peoples representing the state. That is most certainly attainable.

Exactly. which is why you don't need average citizen to be armed :)

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

The only time someone should go to prison is if he hurts someone in such a way that he won't stop, or if the threat of him hurting someone is real. Most of the people in prison are there for nothing.

8)

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?

Since the enforcers are the ones who are showing the gun violence, let them prove their peaceful intent by voluntarily disarming themselves. If they don't, you need your guns to protect yourself from them.

8)

Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?


Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword .. it is really hard to  understand those pro gun people and this woman still insist on having a gun inside of her house .. this is so insane.. if i were her shoes , i would completely get rid of all the guns i have. for sure..

If you were her shoes you would sit in her closet in the dark. BTW that parable of living by the sword is from the bible as well as other Greek classics. It means those who live by violence die by violence. Guns are not violent. People are. No matter how much you want to personify an inanimate object with your stigmas and misconceptions, you still will not change the fact that guns don't make people violent. People CHOOSE to be violent, and guns and laws against guns are not part of the considerations of violent people no matter how much you try to wish it so.

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

You miss the point. "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" has to do with living. Two things:
1. He who lives by the gun (sword) may become a murder and lose his soul, if he is not careful;
2. He who lives not by the gun, will die by whatever he lives by....

... and it just might be the gun that he dies by if he is not prepared to do self-defense in a way that works.

Let's hope that people who live, whether it be by the gun or not, get some better sense about the way that they live.

8)

In America, the Preamble to the Constitution is supreme law. This means that if the Constitution and ANY or ALL of the laws that flow out of it are not a benefit to a person (except when he harms his neighbor) then the laws do not stand, if they go against the Preamble. The Preamble says that government was created to be a benefit to the people.

If you steal my gun, you steal my property. If you are the government of laws and you steal my property by law or any other way, you are not being a benefit to me. You are not doing the thing you were created for in the Preamble. You are acting outside of government and foundational law. You are a wrongdoer. You deserve punishment.

Go ahead and screen people. But you better do it by being a benefit to them in their own thinking. If you are not a benefit to them according to their own thinking, you are a wrongdoer, except if you are stopping them from harming someone else. But you better be sure about what you are doing.

This governmental set-up has the same effect in Canada, the U.K., Australia, India, Bangladesh, and a few other countries, even though these countries may not have the same structure as the United States.

8)

The part that isn't understandable is how to not allow. Whoever does the not allowing, will need to do it with guns.

It should be the other way around. The people should all have guns so that they can disallow others from taking their guns - and anything/everything else - away.

8)

Actually, its not simple at all. Your idea is simple. The reality of implementing it is not simple. Who shouldn't have guns? Who decides this? Based on what standards? Who enforces these standards? What is stopping them from abusing this system to strip gun rights from people who should rightfully be allowed to own guns? Your "simple" point is fraught with tons of holes, which is why most pro-gun people reject any form of gun control outright, because nothing is stopping the government from abusing that process until no one can be armed.

Like he already said before, in the USA, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law counter to the constitution is not lawful, including your half baked gun control plans.

"How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns."

Absolutely. Now please tell me the magic powers that a costume and a badge grant people to do this better than any other law abiding citizen with a gun, and please don't tell me training, because most Police in the US are extremely poorly trained. In fact a lot of them are criminals themselves, which is exactly why citizens need to be armed so they are not so easily victimized by these thugs in costume operating under color of law. Even assuming they have your best interests at heart, they still get there in minutes when seconds count.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-civil-rights-prosecutions/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?

Did I say to strip citizens from the right to own or carry arms?  I said to take away guns form people who give guns to 4 year olds and get shot in return (for example).  People like that are dangerous.  They should not be allowed to own guns, EVER.

US gun regulation (or lack of) is out of control.  So blame YOURSELF for blindly supporting 2nd amendment next time a kid takes a gun from their parents, shoots them dead, gets to a mall or school and kills 20-30 people.

Blindly supporting laws that allow insane people to own, have access to guns or to store them unsafely, is nuts and irresponsible, IMHO.

I understand it is not easy, NRA political grip is strong, any bills that attempt to restrict 2nd amendment will not have enough support to even be introduced.

I'm saying it should be a grass roots movement to correct the wrongs of this law.  Once enough people would agree that the changes are needed, politicians will go with it.

But rejecting any proposals to reform gun control laws, you'll be just counting bodies of innocent people who died because of your blind support of a really bad idea.

No, you didn't, but your "simple" ideas will easily lead to people being stripped of those rights. There are no laws that allowed her to do this,she did it because she is irresponsible. Laws won't make irresponsible people magically more responsible. In fact what she did is already illegal! The prosecutor just decided that she was the injured party, she had already suffered enough and decided not to prosecute which is at their discretion as prosecutors, it doesn't mean there isn't a law against it. Also its not just the NRA, THE PEOPLE largely do not want gun control. Mostly a minority of hysterical control freaks driven by media fear mongering are the ones pushing gun control, and 9 times out of 10 they have never even held a gun and know nothing about firearms to begin with to even make an informed decision about them. Gun control freaks ALWAYS appeal to emotion to sell their ideology. Debating gun control advocates is like debating moody teenage girls on their periods. Everything upsets them to tears, and their emotional trauma is obviously caused by guns, certainly not their own emotional instability!

Sounds reasonable. Give her all the guns she wants. She learned her lesson. She will be a lot more careful. But you don't deserve any guns, because you haven't learned your lesson. People are free. Except you, you slave by personal design.

8)

this is just an accident that might happen even if there was no gun at home as the child might throw her with knife. so the problem is not with gun control, the problem is keeping weapons in a safe place away from children

Most of which are suicides (exercises of a human right) and self-defense (exercises of a human right), but go ahead, dance in the blood of the exceedingly rare victim of a kid-inflicted GSW to "justify" enabling more democide of disarmed & defenseless innocents (https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM).

Good one. So I demolished your sad excuse for an argument, so my demand for freedom = masturbating to guns. Makes sense. Also you are showing your ignorance about firearms and the law in the US even more. Even in states where full auto AK-47's are legal for the general public (most states full auto is not legal for anyone but police and military), they still have to get special federal permits that include a more thorough background check, but why let facts get in the way of a good bias?

This is what happens with any fucking gun control argument, yes, very often when confronted with facts the pro gun control side immediately resorts to this kind of crap, if that's all you have to back yourself up with af_newbie then no wonder your not getting anywhere. It's fucking tiresome seeing supposed adults who are allowed to vote resort to mocking the other side claiming they masturbate to guns when they don't get their way.

Facts? Facts? You saw facts? All I saw is this dumb Tecshare using the worst examples ever and insulting others... Didn't see any fact anywhere.

I don't even know what you're talking about... You want to defend yourself with guns from representatives of the state while not ignoring the law? Please explain me how you might do so xD
Great. So we agree, a society without guns is safer. Thanks and good bye.

No but the fact that you see a contradiction in the idea that representatives of the state on duty might be armed while the population in their daily routine might be unarmed, is a rather good example of how biased and limited your whole "reasoning" (if someone could even call reasoning the fact to insult people while giving neither facts nor stats and no logical argument) is.

Easy. Not all representatives of the state are operating within the law, meaning armed civilians could then legally take up arms agains't them. Is steam coming out of your ears trying to contemplate this yet?

So your reply to me pointing out I did not say something is to then make further statements on my behalf that I did not state? Stacking two strawman arguments together doesn't make logic. Sorry.





I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:

No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you ;)

Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/

Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D

I look forward to not having to try to refute your mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and insults. Also I am tired of you asking for crackers anyway. Have fun in the safety your birdcage. No one will challenge your ideologies there.

Lol? You're the one talking about insults? xD
And you challenge nothing let's be honest. You just spit with contempt on facts and evidence.

VICTORY: Police Settle Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over Activist Held at Gun Point... (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/193177-2016-03-13-victory-police-settle-rutherford-institute-lawsuit-over-activist-held-at.htm)


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/533-0313151010-Unknown.jpg (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/193177-2016-03-13-victory-police-settle-rutherford-institute-lawsuit-over-activist-held-at.htm)




Read more at http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_police_settle_rutherford_institute_lawsuit_over_activist_held_at_gu. (http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_police_settle_rutherford_institute_lawsuit_over_activist_held_at_gu)


8)

Lol xD
Ok please describe me a situation were state representatives aren't obeying the law and where it's safer for people to try to stop them themselves with guns than calling the police. I would like to read a situation like that xD
As you refused the statement "guns freedom makes the country safer" it means you support the statement "no gun freedom makes the country safer". Like it or not, even if you're not really able to think more than one argument at a time, you don't have a "middle choice". It's a yes or no question and position, the only other possible statement would be "both situation are equally safe" but that would be so ridiculous I wouldn't even bother answering you ever again.

Sorry, but I have zero obligation to defend statements I never made. You don't get to speak for me then demand I defend your interpretation of my words.

Sorry to be logical.

You're saying that you refuse the statement "guns make society safer". That means you support the statement "guns make society less safe". It's a closed question, only two answer possible, if you refuse one that means you accept the other.

I'm just quickly skimming through the replies here and see countless posts about "laws" and who should have a gun and more and more and more.

The facts are that a 4 year old doesn't know what the hell he's doing. If anything this should emphasize gun legalization because we should be teaching kids properly how to use a gun so they don't do anything inappropriate with them. Give them the proper education and they'll learn but it has to be at a young age.

Guns should be totally legal without the government telling me what I can and cannot use. I hate the argument that guns will make everyone less safe. That's wrong. It'll make us more safe. We'll be able to defend ourselves against radicals who are either mentally ill or something else.

It may take the police 15 - 20 minutes just to show up at a door. If someone, who was armed, broke in at the middle of night and tried to hurt someone, just having your arms is not enough.

Guns will make our society safer and better. We need to stop focusing on the petty problems like marijuana and start looking at real issues facing society.

The question then becomes is why wasnt there a safe keeping for the gun? A small safe cost $40 on amazon which requires a passcode.

Like I mean an actual small safe that requires intelligence to get to prevent the issue of the gun even going on the 1st place.

Thats another debate of educational side which should be reinforced to new gun owners and that pick up their license to carry a fire arm.

What was that crash? Oh! A burglar just broke into the house. Let's see. Where did I put the combination for the safe? Is it on that slip of paper in the kitchen cabinet? Is it in my bedroom chest of drawers? Maybe it's the one written on the back side of the wall clock.

"Mr. Burglar, would you please wait until I can locate the combination to my safe? Why? Because I have my loaded gun in there that I need to use to repulse you."

He says that he is going to beat me, and maybe kill me, after he gets done raping me.

I have heard that if a woman can fantasize that it isn't rape, but that she is making love to her best lover, that rape can even be fun. Oh well. Might as well have some fun before I get beaten and murdered.

Wish I had left that gun out for my 4-y-o to play with...


8)

Haha perfect. Love this.

You know, guns can do a lot of damage, just like knives can. Except a gun can actually defend you extremely accurately compared to a knife which can just cut cucumbers accurately. Still, they can hurt you.

Why don't we lock those up too?

Perfectly sums up American way of thinking...

Let's imagine the worst that statistically never happens and let's do something against it. No matter if this something is worst than the original idea.

Well, not so surprising from a country born from the cobra principle.

Is BADecker even from the USA? BTW It is called "the cobra effect" not the cobra principal.

What is the USA? Is it the government? Is it a chunk of land? Is it a quasi-uniting of a batch of people, none of whom really understands any of the others? Might it simply be some people living on some land?

What do you really think the USA is? Note that different sections of law and legal give it different meanings for their purpose.

Ask my mommy where I'm from.

8)

From what I remember yes he is.
Thanks for correction. I was translating it in a literal way.

USA is the piece of land.
Nothing more.

I like this "pro gun mom got shot" sort of things. Have anybody here seen any such breaking news when a not pro-gun mom got raped/killed/mugged because of the lack of means of self-defence?

In today's world, impossible to think life without guns.