-
Features
Some clear evidence gun bans won't disarm the people
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
Ya know, the reason they don't is because the convention locations impose those restrictions. The NRA isn't doing that.
untermensche
Contributor
A person only needs a gun to defend against another gun.
And if a person has a gun and wants to do you harm having a gun is not going to help you.
And if a person has a gun and wants to do you harm having a gun is not going to help you.
zorq
Veteran Member
source?
And what is the rate of people with 'clean noses' having their own firearms used against them or others by criminals? By their family? What does Our Lady of the Immaculate Nostril have to say about her followers losing (or 'losing') their weapons into the hands of criminals?
You always focus on the 'bad apples' in society and how they are the only problem associated with guns. But the bad apples can't be defined until after they have gone rancid and then it is damage done.
Plus, The US already bans felons from owning firearms so why then would the US still have such a big firearm problem compared to places with more control? Maybe if you REALLY want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals you need to something the US isn't doing but other countries without such a big gun crime problem ARE doing.
laughing dog
Contributor
Come on. You don't think the NRA could find a convention location that either doesn't impose those restrictions or is willing to loosen them for such a lucrative convention?
Random Person
Senior Member
They allowed firearms carry in Dallas a month ago.
marc
Veteran Member
Saaay.... so many times a police shooting of an unarmed person is justified by saying the guy could have disarmed the trained officer and taken the gun. Yet the untrained average guy is the best defense as gained anyone, especially someone armed.
Fist vs fist: The advantage, generally a major advantage, goes to the stronger guy. Tough vs typical citizen, the tough will almost always win.
Gun vs gun: Now the situation is far more variable.
If the bad guy is coming to kill you and you aren't aware of them he's still going to win--guns didn't change the picture.
If the bad guy is coming to kill you and you know it the advantage is generally to you--you can take cover and wait for him to enter your field of fire. The defender has a big advantage over the attacker.
If the bad guy is coming to harm you rather than to kill you (include rape in this category) there's a good chance you'll be able to turn the tables on them and if you can't it's unlikely to end up any worse than if you didn't have the gun.
If the bad guy is after something else but you become a target because you're there you again have the advantage of being stationary.
On the flip side, a mugger with a gun is far less likely to hurt his victim than one without. Pointing it is enough to get a very strong upper hand, no need to actually inflict harm to get compliance.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Loren, since you're back to the thread how about you acknowledge that the entire point of the OP has been debunked -- most of those weapons weren't stored by private citizens in spite of strong gun control laws, but by territorrial defence units spread throughout the country, with full knowledge and support of the state as part of it's policy to fight a potential invader with a guerilla strategy?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,369
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That's a lovely set of hypotheses you have there.
It would be a shame if somebody were to test them.
arkirk
Veteran Member
That tank was hard to hide. You gotta be kidding, Loren! This is bullshit.
So why didn't people bring their guns inside the convention center?
The Secret Service said no.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,369
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
What, and the NRA didn't stand up for their rights under the second amendment? What a bunch of pussies.
laughing dog
Contributor
Please provide a link that substantiates your claim.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,369
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
What, is this your first day here or something?
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you. That restriction violates the 2nd amendment which the NRA holds sacrosanct - surely there are some intrepid and staunch defenders of the Constitution in the NRA who would stand up for their constitutional rights.
What a bunch of hypocritical pussies. One of the NRAs main argument for firearms is that it protects the people from a tyrannical government. Yet they folded like a bitch when gov'ment tells them too, despite the fact people have carried firearms at a venue where the President is speaking before.
So basically, all the arguments against gun control seem to magically go away when they are confronted by reality. No big shock there.