Assault weapon bans

[viboracecata]

hunman rights absolutely backed by weapons.

[mdude77]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Yep. You choose to not carry, a murderer has the absolute safest choice in killing your defenseless ass, as opposed to an innocent who is armed.

I suppose I should live in a huge cave deep underground to avoid getting hit by a meteor. Or never cross streets for fear of getting hit by a car.

Do you have car insurance?  House insurance?  A gun is true life insurance.

Something you never intend to use, but it's there if you need it.

M

[FirstAscent]

....
Democrat Hullinghorst also believes that there is no right to carry a gun, but rather the citizens have a right NOT TO CARRY. Hey—that’s not my logic—that’s the logic of a statist.
...

if it wasn't totally fucking nuts I'd say this was a pro choice vs pro life problem.

• the choice to not carry
• the choice to stay alive.

Yep. You choose to not carry, a murderer has the absolute safest choice in killing your defenseless ass, as opposed to an innocent who is armed.

I suppose I should live in a huge cave deep underground to avoid getting hit by a meteor. Or never cross streets for fear of getting hit by a car.

Do you have car insurance?  House insurance?  A gun is true life insurance.

Something you never intend to use, but it's there if you need it.

M

And living in a cave deep underground would be insurance against getting hit by a meteor.

I suppose I should walk around in a kevlar vest all day just in case, you know...

I suppose I should get bulletproof armor and glass for my car, just in case, you know. It would be there if I need it.

I should never walk down sidewalks in high rise districts in case a piano falls from an upper floor. Best to be prepared.

[NewLiberty]

And living in a cave deep underground would be insurance against getting hit by a meteor.

I suppose I should walk around in a kevlar vest all day just in case, you know...

I suppose I should get bulletproof armor and glass for my car, just in case, you know. It would be there if I need it.

I should never walk down sidewalks in high rise districts in case a piano falls from an upper floor. Best to be prepared.

If you were that concerned about your well-being to take such measures as these, please consider whether a better place to start would be to less often pretend that you know what is best for everyone else.  Some people like to make decisions for themselves rather than have them made for them, even if you really do think it is for their own good.

One ought to take utmost care when using the awesome power of THE LAW against our fellow humans.  That power, which the state holds, has the power to impoverish, to expose, to mute, to indefinitely detain, to torture, to slay and to wage war; ought be kept in reserve whenever possible.  It is too easy to be wrong, and too hard to undo.

[FirstAscent]

And living in a cave deep underground would be insurance against getting hit by a meteor.

I suppose I should walk around in a kevlar vest all day just in case, you know...

I suppose I should get bulletproof armor and glass for my car, just in case, you know. It would be there if I need it.

I should never walk down sidewalks in high rise districts in case a piano falls from an upper floor. Best to be prepared.

If you were that concerned about your well-being to take such measures as these, please consider whether a better place to start would be to less often pretend that you know what is best for everyone else.  Some people like to make decisions for themselves rather than have them made for them, even if you really do think it is for their own good.

Sure, but unfortunately, it's the individuals who wish to own and carry guns which are the primary reason for arming criminals with guns. If all of you guys weren't so gun happy, then guns wouldn't be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are. But go on, keep sending out the message that we need guns!

[RodeoX]

Sure, but unfortunately, it's the individuals who wish to own and carry guns which are the primary reason for arming criminals with guns. If all of you guys weren't so gun happy, then guns wouldn't be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are. But go on, keep sending out the message that we need guns!

I don't say that. I am choosing to carry for my own protection. I will not defend a stranger with my gun and I don't care what others do. But I am going home tonight.

[NewLiberty]

Sure, but unfortunately, it's the individuals who wish to own and carry guns which are the primary reason for arming criminals with guns.

You lost me there.  Who is "arming criminals with guns"?

If all of you guys weren't so gun happy, then guns wouldn't be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are. But go on, keep sending out the message that we need guns!

I don't think you need a gun, and I am happy that you don't have one.  I do think you need the right to have one.  If anyone exercises that right and either miss-use it, or fails to secure it from violent criminals, I am happy for them to suffer the awesome power of THE LAW based on the circumstances of that failure.

Does that make me "gun-happy"?    

For what it is worth, I have more often heard the argument that the anti-2nd amendment stance is the single largest generator of gun-sales into the population so arguably your philosophy is what causes guns to be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are, rather than those you oppose and seek to disempower.  Feel welcome to check up on those stats, if you like.  Check out the relationship of google searches on "gun violence" (a term manufactured by gun control advocates) and "gun control" and correlate that with firearm sales spikes and troughs.

Where does that leave you but throwing stones from a glass house?
Your gun-control advocacy does not meet your own policy goal.  Please consider other more reasonable methods for achieving your goal.

[FirstAscent]

For what it is worth, I have more often heard the argument that the anti-2nd amendment stance is the single largest generator of gun-sales into the population so arguably your philosophy is what causes guns to be manufactured and sold into the population at the levels they are, rather than those you oppose and seek to disempower.  Feel welcome to check up on those stats, if you like.  Check out the relationship of google searches on "gun violence" (a term manufactured by gun control advocates) and "gun control" and correlate that with firearm sales spikes and troughs.

Nice try. The generation of gun sales is the result of gun buyers who are people who want guns. You're one of those. I am not one of those.

[NewLiberty]

Nice try. The generation of gun sales is the result of gun buyers who are people who want guns. You're one of those. I am not one of those.

Yes, and the "wanting of guns" is increased by the notion that a unified/federal restriction is advocated.  You are generating demand and creating gun buyers.  It is not your intended consequence, it is your unintended consequence.  It is also the single largest factor in gun sales growth.  You are responsible for more gun buying than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

[Spendulus]

Nice try. The generation of gun sales is the result of gun buyers who are people who want guns. You're one of those. I am not one of those.

Yes, and the "wanting of guns" is increased by the notion that a unified/federal restriction is advocated.  You are generating demand and creating gun buyers.  It is not your intended consequence, it is your unintended consequence.  It is also the single largest factor in gun sales growth.  You are responsible for more gun buying than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

This has certainly been true in the USA, first with the Clinton/Brady Bill nonsense and more recently with the various things Obama has tried.

It might, of course, play out differently in other countries.

There may be some countries where the people are told the government will protect them from dangerous criminals and they say...

"Okay."

[FirstAscent]

Nice try. The generation of gun sales is the result of gun buyers who are people who want guns. You're one of those. I am not one of those.

Yes, and the "wanting of guns" is increased by the notion that a unified/federal restriction is advocated.  You are generating demand and creating gun buyers.  It is not your intended consequence, it is your unintended consequence.  It is also the single largest factor in gun sales growth.  You are responsible for more gun buying than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

Again, nice try. People who want guns are people who want guns. Such discussion about gun restrictions have no effect on those who don't want guns. But go ahead and rationalize things that way if you want - the rationalizations of someone who wants guns.

[FirstAscent]

Nice try. The generation of gun sales is the result of gun buyers who are people who want guns. You're one of those. I am not one of those.

Yes, and the "wanting of guns" is increased by the notion that a unified/federal restriction is advocated.  You are generating demand and creating gun buyers.  It is not your intended consequence, it is your unintended consequence.  It is also the single largest factor in gun sales growth.  You are responsible for more gun buying than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

This has certainly been true in the USA, first with the Clinton/Brady Bill nonsense and more recently with the various things Obama has tried.

It might, of course, play out differently in other countries.

There may be some countries where the people are told the government will protect them from dangerous criminals and they say...

"Okay."

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

[Spendulus]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

[Rassah]

Hmm, this blowback thing reminds me of the sex issues in America. We focus the most on contraception and are trying to ban it more than European countries, where people don't care, and we have higher instances of unwanted pregnancies. We try to ban abortions way more than the European countries, and we have way more abortions. Even with alcohol, we try to restrict it as much as possible with age limits and such, compared to, say, Italy, where limits are more like guidelines, and we have way more issues with ten alcohol poisoning. Maybe the best way to reduce guns is to simply ignore them and make them an issue no one cares about.

[mdude77]

Do you have car insurance?  House insurance?  A gun is true life insurance.

Something you never intend to use, but it's there if you need it.

M

And living in a cave deep underground would be insurance against getting hit by a meteor.

I suppose I should walk around in a kevlar vest all day just in case, you know...

I suppose I should get bulletproof armor and glass for my car, just in case, you know. It would be there if I need it.

I should never walk down sidewalks in high rise districts in case a piano falls from an upper floor. Best to be prepared.

I'm still not following your logic, if there is logic.  You claim guns are not the problem, yet you demonize them every chance you get.  Is this like a religion for you, based on a belief regardless of factual reality?  Guns are not the problem.  Law abiding citizens buying and owning guns is not the problem.  The examples you provided are factually true, but a far stretch from reality, and not even close to a fair comparison.  

Criminals do prey on the innocent.
Guns in the hands of the innocent significantly decrease of the likelihood of said predatory actions from being attempted.  
They also significantly decrease said predatory actions that are attempted from succeeding.

What exactly are you proposing?  We all be helpless and beg said predators to leave us alone?  Yet government officials are allowed to protect themselves with armed bodyguards, police, and, yes, even owning and carrying their own gun?  

<shakes head in wonder>

M

[TheButterZone]

He is proposing we all reject reality and substitute his own.

[FirstAscent]

........

I don't go around thinking I will be protected from dangerous criminals by the government.

So you recognize that if your attitude held sway, your being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your own responsibility.  I accept that.  I have no problem with that.

Now do you accept that if your attitude held sway, other people being beaten, robbed, maimed and or shot is your responsibility?

Keep in mind that many of the victims are poor, female or elderly, and a gun is what protects them from vicious criminals, who may NOT HAVE A GUN.

I think you should keep in mind that you're projecting your own wants onto the poverty class in general. Why don't you just blatantly admit that it's you who wants a gun?

[FirstAscent]

Hmm, this blowback thing reminds me of the sex issues in America. We focus the most on contraception and are trying to ban it more than European countries, where people don't care, and we have higher instances of unwanted pregnancies. We try to ban abortions way more than the European countries, and we have way more abortions. Even with alcohol, we try to restrict it as much as possible with age limits and such, compared to, say, Italy, where limits are more like guidelines, and we have way more issues with ten alcohol poisoning. Maybe the best way to reduce guns is to simply ignore them and make them an issue no one cares about.

No. The best thing to do is to address poverty.

[NewLiberty]

Again, nice try. People who want guns are people who want guns. Such discussion about gun restrictions have no effect on those who don't want guns. But go ahead and rationalize things that way if you want - the rationalizations of someone who wants guns.

Please explain why these facts are either not true in your mind, or why you think they are unimportant.
Try to avoid claiming that I have a belief that I have not offered.

I am not claiming that guns are good or bad or that I want them or don't, only that your mission is ill conceived and ill executed.

There may be some really great way to reduce the number of guns.  What you are doing is simply the opposite of that.  Add to this that you are doing it so poorly and one might easily conclude that you are the one that wants guns, not I.

If you were able to clear your mind, you might realize that by listening to those who question you instead of tossing it on your mental pile of "things people who like guns say", you can improve your rhetoric and have a chance of progressing your agenda instead of running it in the opposite direction.

[FirstAscent]

Again, nice try. People who want guns are people who want guns. Such discussion about gun restrictions have no effect on those who don't want guns. But go ahead and rationalize things that way if you want - the rationalizations of someone who wants guns.

Please explain why these facts are either not true in your mind, or why you think they are unimportant.
Try to avoid claiming that I have a belief that I have not offered.

I am not claiming that guns are good or bad or that I want them or don't, only that your mission is ill conceived and ill executed.

There may be some really great way to reduce the number of guns.  What you are doing is simply the opposite of that.  Add to this that you are doing it so poorly and one might easily conclude that you are the one that wants guns, not I.

If you were able to clear your mind, you might realize that by listening to those who question you instead of tossing it on your mental pile of "things people who like guns say", you can improve your rhetoric and have a chance of progressing your agenda instead of running it in the opposite direction.

If you would like to offer more clarity, I'm all ears.