Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[TX-Beau]

This lie is getting old. If this were true, we'd have a murder rate far, far higher than it is.

Firearms protect people from harm hundreds of thousands of times a year. People are killed by firearms less than a tenth as often -- even counting suicides.

Yeah, I didn't say that. Your lie above is getting old too. You have absufuckinglutly NO way to substantiate that. It's probably just something you like to spend time contemplating while you whack off.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. The courts have consistently ruled that we are allowed to be stupid enough to kill ourselves left and right.

But, just because we're allowed to be stupid doesn't mean we should be.

I have yet to see you propose anything to address the issue of stupidity; rather you propose to let people keep on being stupid, and take away things they might do something bad with when particularly stupid.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not a matter of how I "feel."

It's a fact. The single most likely outcome, if any, of owning a gun is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Only an idiot would buy a gun for "protection" when it accomplishes precisely the opposite of protection.

Really?

I wasn't aware that the murder count in the United States was in the hundreds of thousands per year. Seriously, if that were true, even Benvolio would be begging for more immigration because we'd be running out of people!

The single most likely outcome of owning a gun is... not even touching it for months on end.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

Sure. That's why the courts haven't overturned any gun laws at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

What's pretty obtuse is all the drama-mongering from gun addicts over defense and Constitutionality when ALL THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED is regulations which are already constitutional and already have been law in one form or another.

All the rest of the hot air you and the others in here are providing is utterly pointless.

We're talking about constitutionality in this thread because posters like you are trying to change the subject.

The point of the thread is that people do use firearms to defend themselves. That means that any attempt to take away firearms is pro-murder, because it is a preference for those people to have been or be killed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I didn't say that. Your lie above is getting old too. You have absufuckinglutly NO way to substantiate that. It's probably just something you like to spend time contemplating while you whack off.

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

 

[TX-Beau]

We're talking about constitutionality AND defense (which NOBODY EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER had a problem with) because you and the originator of this thread have Icon-ized guns to the point where you seem to be revering with religious significance.

Get over it. A gun is a tool, NOT holy objet handed down from on high. It's right and proper to regulate them.

 

[TX-Beau]

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. So you don't have any way to substantiate your whack off fantasy.

 

[Kulindahr]

We're talking about constitutionality AND defense (which NOBODY EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER had a problem with) because you and the originator of this thread have Icon-ized guns to the point where you seem to be revering with religious significance.

Get over it. A gun is a tool, NOT holy objet handed down from on high. It's right and proper to regulate them.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. So you don't have any way to substantiate your whack off fantasy.

Congratulations -- you've completed your journey, and are now a benvolio.

 

[Stardreamer]

"Absolutely nothing" is not an "outcome." It's absolutely nothing.

The single most likely outcome of carrying a gun is that you or someone in your family will get killed by it. Period. Only an idiot would carry a gun for "protection" when the most likely outcome is that it will kill them.

Of course it is an outcome, by this logic one could ignore the that vast majority who operate a car every day without an accident and just point to the crash statistics to say that dying in an accident is the MOST likely outcome of operating a car. But we all know most people drive cars in the US and most people do not die in automotive accidents. Hell flying is the safest means of travel but if we use your methods it is statistically down right suicidal. To ignore 'nothing happened' as a potential statistical outcome is scientifically and statistically stupid.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course it is an outcome, by this logic one could ignore the that vast majority who operate a car every day without an accident and just point to the crash statistics to say that dying in an accident is the MOST likely outcome of operating a car. But we all know most people drive cars in the US and most people do not die in automotive accidents. Hell flying is the safest means of travel but if we use your methods it is statistically down right suicidal. To ignore 'nothing happened' as a potential statistical outcome is scientifically and statistically stupid.

Actually the most statistically common result of automobile ownership is repair bills.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

 

[T-Rexx]

There is an old joke about a statistician who refused to ride on airplanes. He had calculated the probability of there being a bomb on a plane which he boarded. Although a minute probability, he decided that the risk was just not acceptable to him.

Then, one day, he began flying everywhere. His colleagues asked him what had changed.

He had calculated the probability of there being two bombs from two separate terrorists on the same plane. The chances were astronomically small. So, he just carried his own bomb with him wherever he flew.

Of course, the plane would be even safer if more than two people on board had brought bombs. And safest if everyone aboard had a bomb.

That is the logic of the gun lobby. That we are all safer when we are surrounded by as many potential explosions as possible.

 

[Rolyo85]

I will only point out that the court has never overturned any same-sex marriage bans either. Or - so far - DOMA. Courts' rules come from people, the "Court" is not some divine infallible institution. And people rule as the times dictate. America is STILL riddled with nut-jobs who revere guns. I imagine it was only more pronounced in the past.

 

[Stardreamer]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

The vast majority of Americans do exactly that every day, its called caffeine.

 

[Laufey]

Sure but there aren't 15.000 homicides a year by caffeine poisoning.

 

[chrisrobin]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

The military at Pearl Harbor had a fair amount of arms at their disposal - more than any private citizen could have hoped for. How did that work out?

 

[Stardreamer]

The military at Pearl Harbor had a fair amount of arms at their disposal - more than any private citizen could have hoped for. How did that work out?

An excellent point about how circumstances could impact any situation but it would have taken only a very minor change such as the radar reports being taken seriously to have completely changed that outcome and then that firepower would have made a world of difference.

 

[Rolyo85]

An excellent point about how circumstances could impact any situation but it would have taken only a very minor change such as the radar reports being taken seriously to have completely changed that outcome and then that firepower would have made a world of difference.

Yeah, because nothing scares kamikadze bombers as much as handguns...

 

[T-Rexx]

The vast majority of Americans do exactly that every day, its called caffeine.

This is absolutely not true. Caffeine most emphatically does not kill people, unless it is deliberately ingested in concentrated industrial form as a suicide attempt. You can't kill yourself with the caffeine in a cup of coffee.

The benefits and risks of caffeine have been studied by the medical establishment for decades. The conclusion is that caffeine is generally a positive benefit for people who use it routinely.

I mean you no disrespect, stardreamer, but to compare the risk of guns to caffeine is beyond absurd. You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution do not do yourselves credit by such illogic. You prove to the rest of us that your advocacy is driven by emotion, not reason.