Ah, yes, the 12, 50 and 60 year old exceptions that supposedly disprove the rule, eh?
It is to :D.
Now, how many people lacking the protection of guns have been robbed, shot, raped and killed during that same time, hmm?
Millions would be my guess.
And why were they lacking the protection of a gun? Are you saying that you cannot get a gun in the US?
Please.
Are no straws out of reach in this conversation?
You did say “never”, Brave Sir Cardboard.
Doesn’t seem to be, with your comments about people who are victims of violent crime due to a “lacking the protection of guns”, as if that were in some way due to them not being available.
Okay, now I see where you’re coming from. No such implication was intended. They didn’t have guns for the same myriad of reasons why most people don’t have guns. The point was that if they’d had guns there’d have been many fewer victims of such crimes.
Bolding mine.
Do you really want to use gun violence as an argument to encourage gun ownership? How much lead DID you ingest in the good ol’ days?
I reaaaally have to question why I spend so much time here. :rolleyes:
Youtube has lots of videos showing bad guys with guns getting shot by good guys with guns, good guys who very well may have been shot themselves without guns with which to protect themselves. Take a look at a few and see if you can manage to get even a glimmer as to what I might possibly have been talking about.
The rest of us have questioned that for fourteen years.
Anecdotes. Sure there are occasions where good guys with guns win the day but the price for them being able to do that with guns are far more people getting hurt/killed with guns. It is not a good tradeoff.
You’re defaulting back to thinking I’m talking about deliberate family killings in terms of a pro-gun-control argument again. I’m not, I’m asking about the opposite - about why you think (and now about whether you think your view is widespread) deliberate family killings aren’t something that gun ownership advocates feel is a useful or helpful point to consider.
I’m not asking “Hey, don’t gun control advocates ever think about people getting killed by their abusive partners with guns, here?!”, which seems to be the question you’re assuming I’m asking. I’m saying “Hey, don’t gun ownership advocates think that people defending themselves from their abusive partners is a good argument for their positions?” Your posts here have suggested that, to you, Jane Smith wanting a gun because her partner has threatened to kill her and her children just isn’t an argument that gun ownership advocates would, well, advocate. What I’m interested in knowing is whether you think this is a position that many gun ownership advocates would agree with you on, and why it is you feel that someone defending themselves from a violent mugger makes for a good pro-gun argument but someone defending themselves from a violent partner isn’t.
I’m sure that they would advocate it if asked, but people needing a gun to protect themselves from abusive mates or whoever and have fled to other housing already fall under the rubric of gun ownership to defend from criminal attack anyway. Plus I imagine there is a vastly greater number of people concerned about the type of street crime they need to defend against than there are people who’ve fled and need defense from mates or children who’ve threatened to come kill them, so in the overall or big picture sense it just doesn’t seem worthwhile to base pro-gun advocacy on it.
They would, but you excepted “deliberate family killings”, which is what confuses me. I agree that they fall under that rubric - so why shouldn’t they be a part of the conversation?
There’s a very wide gap between “basing” pro-gun advocacy on this issue, and saying that it shouldn’t be a part of the societal discussion at all, and saying that you don’t think anyone would take domestic abuse situations seriously in terms of a pro-gun argument. I can understand someone not making it the main point of their advocacy; I don’t understand someone saying that it should be rejected as an argument entirely.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attempting to change your mind on this point. It’s a viewpoint that I don’t understand, which I’m trying to.
But, here’s a crazy idea…we don’t let the bad guys have guns. We take them away!
How many good guys need to defend themselves against guns in that scenario?
Because the statistics show that far more people are murdered by angry spouses or family members than people defend themselves against said murderous spouses.
We seem to be talking in circles. You ask me why I think it isn’t important to include intrafamily homicides in the national dialog on gun control/abolition and I tell you. The you say you’re confused and you ask me again. Again I explain why, and again you tell me you don’t understand. Several times now I’ve explained why I don’t think such killings have significant import in considering gun control. I don’t know what else to say. You can include it all you want if you feel the need to, I just don’t think it’ll gain much traction.
Several times on this board I’ve stated that I would be more amenable to discussion of gun control if someone were to put forth a feasible way to keep guns out of the hands of the country’s bad guys. Crickets invariably chirp.
And to address your second question, there are many crimes not involving guns but other weapons in the hands of bad guys in which it would be very advantageous for the good guys/wives/sons/daughters to have access to guns to protect themselves and thwart the attack. Lots of people are killed by bad guys with knives, ball bats, crowbars, ligatures, you name it. Firearms would be a most excellent mode of defense against them all.
It’s been my feeling for some time now that people on the left really aren’t motivated by the desire to reduce deaths so much as they are simply to overturn established norms associated with the right, and especially those that involve that dreaded and despised liberal bugaboo, power, which guns unquestionably possess.
I’d bet my last dollar that more people are assaulted, raped, robbed and murdered every year in this country by thugs and career criminals turned loose upon society through the machinations of left wing sympathizers than because of intrafamily gun murders, or murder in the aggregate for that matter. And then of course there’s the huge amount of death and ruined lives caused by drugs, about which the left is pretty much overwhelmingly silent apart from the mocking of efforts to fight them and the ‘squares’ who speak out against them. And then there are cigarettes and alcohol, both of which cause infinitely more death and suffering than guns ever have.
If citizen deaths were truly your concern you’d be fighting against the largest causes of citizen death in this country rather than firearms, but no, it’s guns that draw all your attention and ire. We on the right recognize this and it adds fuel to our determination not to let you take our guns away, for we know you’d rather see the innocent among us fall victim to criminal assault through the use of guns or other deadly weapons in criminal hands than to use the power of guns to protect ourselves, for no better reason than ideological opposition, dressed up, as it is in this case, as concern for public safety. We see that, we resent it, and we ain’t gonna stand for it. Amen. 
Well, the solution is obvious - instant death penalty upon conviction for violent felonies or second-time offenses.
No. I ask you why you think it isn’t important to include intrafamily shootings in self defense in the national dialog on gun ownership. You then answer why you think it isn’t important to include intrafamily homicides in the national dialog on gun control.
In the last couple of posts you seem to get what I mean, although this post makes me reconsider that. So now I’ve been asking why you feel deliberate family killings should be entirely excluded from the national debate, and your response has been that people feel gun ownership is important for other, bigger reasons. Which I’m now saying makes sense not to make it the main point of a platform, but not to exclude it entirely, to say that it shouldn’t be taken into account.
Alleged Parkland shooter getting fan mail, money from supporters: report
As well as erotic photos.
Can I say how appreciative I am that people like Laura Ingraham are keeping the Parkland kids in the news? Not that I have any clue what her point was about which universities accepted or rejected David Hogg’s admissions applications. But at a point where, in the wake of the March For Our Lives, the story of the Parkland shooting could have started receding from the news, Ingraham & Co. have done their bit to keep it alive. WTG Laura!
David Hogg: My generation is going to start a revolution!
Baby Boomers: Your generation can’t start a lawnmower!
*Disclaimer: Swiped from Facebook
Somehow I doubt that the money and media behind the Parkland protests would have gone quietly into the night by now if not for Laura Ingraham.