History proves that a gun is better for self-defense than a sword.
Do you agree or disagree?
Please answer yes or no.
If you did not understand why I used the example of the 2 actors please say so and I will explain.
Please, no insults. Attack the post, not the poster. Thank you
I suspect that most of the views are in the nature of watching a trainwreck.
I think I can safely say that it seems you are not convincing anyone who is posting.
Do you agree or disagree?
What part of “criminal” isn’t clear? Criminals won’t turn in their guns…period. That’s why they’re criminals!
Oh, by the by…let me just get this correct. In order to hypothetically save a few lives (and is most definately hypothetically, as you have failed to demonstrate or prove how your idea would save anybody) you would definately kill others. You are willing, in fact eager to deny the power of lethal force for self-defense, but are perfectly willing to kill to enforce your ideals. This proves once and for all the moral bankruptcy of your position. Tell me once again how this jibes with “the Land of the Free.” You are demonstrating quite clearly why some of us feel we need protection from the government as well as from criminals.
People with guns are citizens - people without guns are subjects.
You know, most folks here are right. You have yet to provide any relative proof to your statements.
And I like the bit about hanging… can we erect a guillotine? I know that had a brief revival back in the 40’s from some of your philosophical brothers…
.
Not directly. Several courts have stated that the police are cannot be legally compelled to protect the citizenry. The cops only statutorily mandated duties are to investigate crimes and apprehend the perpetrators. This cannot be done until after a crime has been committed. Thus, the role of the police in society affords you no real protections; you’re on your own when the actual event goes down. And since you’re on your own, it is both morally and ethically bankrupt for one to advocate that law-abiding, peaceable citizens may not defend themselves, their lives, or their loved ones, by the very means with which they may find themselves threatened.
So you want to outlaw hunting as well as self-defense?
I donno, I suppose it would be more challenging to have to bow-hunt everything, but what about those of us* who hunt for food, not sport?
[sub]*No, I’m not currently a hunter. No time for it, but I hope to still be able to in a few years when I have my own land.[/sub]
Thanks Unclebeer, that’s the point I was trying to make.
A cop does not carry a gun to protect or defend the public, he carries a gun for HIS self defense. If the public is somehow defended by a cops gun, it is incidental.
Nearly every police department in the country determined that a handgun is the most effective self defense tool invented.
A handgun will continue to be the best tool for anyones self defense, until and unless the police stop carrying handguns.
You’re getting lost in arguing a meaningless point. I haven’t contended that a gun wasn’t useful for self-defense. My contention is two fold:
You and others are trying to make out the supposed need for self-defense as a bigger need than it is. As a group, you people appear to be paranoid and living in fear of everyone around you. And even if self-defense requirements is a bigger issue than I think it is (and you haven’t provided any cites to back up your contention that it is), then, self-defense could be obtained through other means, such as mace, tasr, knife, sword, nunchucks, etc., etc.
A gun is too easy to use as an offensive weapon. Therefore, to repeat, any benefits obtained (self-defense, hand-eye coordination <lol>, a feeling of control or safety) are outweighed by the proven damage that guns cause.
I understood but your example was not realistic. And I said so.
How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over again? Of course, I disagree, or I wouldn’t be doing this. And clearly you must agree that I am making headway, for otherwise, you would move on and forget about this thread. I mean, if you are so convinced that I have wasted my time, then why do you keep posting?
Who said anything about morality??? I didn’t! If a law is passed and some people refuse to obey it (criminals or for instance, those who said earlier in this thread something like "from my cold, dead hands), then they will have to suffer the consequences of their decision. I just suggested that something like a public hanging would be a possible solution that might encourage the remainder to follow the law. And no, I am not against capital punishment.
It would be wonderful if you could link a few thoughts together instead of jumping all over the place. Where did “Land of the Free” come into play? You take a slogan, which you have to know is in no way absolute, and now try to equate that owning a gun has something to do with freedom? Please. Society makes rules that are supposed to be for the betterment of the majority. These rules MAY involve restricting freedoms that we may have possessed in the past (for instance, the Patriot Act). Therefore, I don’t see any disconnect in removing the general right to own guns.
Proof of what? That more people die by gunshot than from any other personal weapon (please don’t go back to cars, tobacco, alcohol, etc.)? That criminals get a lot of their weapons by stealing them? That a gun is only useful if it is in your hand or can be gotten to your hand in a self-defense instance?
Read backwards to post #85 where I posted a link you may have skipped over. The problem is, using a search engine like Google, anyone can find a plethora of links to prove virtually anything they want. Then we get into meaningless discussions on statistics and whey are correct, or new enough, or a big enough sample or whatever.
Hmmm. I hadn’t thought of a guillotine. I think that is a swell idea!
FINALLY! Now I can come back and ask - CITE? Please point to these court cases.
If no one had guns, then their would be less crime with guns, less theft of guns by criminal elements and less gun accidents. Both “peaceable, law-abiding citizens” and criminals would have to use something else to defend themselves, examples of which I have given many times in this thread.
Why doesn’t a bow & arrow or crossbow suffice for hunting? After all, they were the weapons of choice for hunting for much of our history. And I say, it is a bit more sporting…
I disagree with your interpretation of why a cop carries a gun.
I don’t disagree with your statement that a gun can be very effective in a self-defense situation. As I’ve said before, most people don’t need to worry about self-defense and I think gun owners are just a little bit to paranoid and afraid of everything around them (which in and of itself, may be a reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun). However, a gun is also a strong OFFENSIVE weapon that is easily used by virtually anyone to create havoc, injure and/or murder innocent people. It is on that basis that I think guns should be banned. Find a way for a gun to not be an offensive weapon and I will change my view.
The point was argued and mocked by you. I was refuting your original contention, which I notice you are now modifying.
It’s not being paranoid to have a fire exstinguisher in your house. It’s being prepared. Homes do not, regularly burst into flames. But, in the rare case when they do, you have a tool to provide for the protection of yourself. Of course, you are free to not have a fire extinguisher if you so choose (I know, guns are not fire extinguishers).
But you agree that guns are more efficient for self-defense, right?
So is a sword, taser, nunchuk…
it was hyperbole, I guess it was wasted or ignored.
Please name the poster in this thread who has agreed with any of your points.
Because I have some free time between calls at work, because I find it fascinating that you can be so stubborn as to refuse or ignore the facts and evidence you have been presented with here. Also, I have this hope that maybe, just maybe you will think about all that’s been said here and change your mind on some of these issues. It’s no skin off my nose whether you do or not, I’m allowed to own a gun if I so choose, and in my state, I’m even allowed to carry concealed.
And where in all my posts does it “clearly” indicate that I feel you are making “headway” ? I don’t see it.
Here ya go - bolding mine.
In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1(D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: [C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. As you can see, the police are not required under the law to protect you as an individual.
I don’t disagree with that; it’s obvious and irrefutable. The problem is (and I pointed this out in my very first post in this thread which you seem to not have read), banning guns will not make them go away. There are simply too many of them - about 250 million in the United States alone. Criminals are already in possession of any number of these through whatever means; they’re simply not likely to turn them in; they’re criminals, remember? Only law-abiding owners are gonna do turn 'em in. (And the extent to which that will happen is even in question.) This means that you have only deprived those law-abiding citizens who willingly turn in their guns the ability to defend themselves with the very means by which they may find themselves threatened. This is both unethical and amoral.
Okay. This is easy. The manner in, or intent with, which a person uses a gun is the only determining factor whether the use is offensive, or defensive. The gun itself is a constant; only the way in which it is used is variable. So, how about the 99.9% of licensed concealed carry permit holders who are never involved in a shooting of any sort? Is that enough evidence that guns, when held by law-abiding citizens, are not being used offensively?
I don’t think this is going to happen any time soon. You’ve made a lot of statments and make claims which you solidly back up with rhetoric, try facts they work better. How ever in principal I do agree with you.
This is actually scary. You’ve just chased away criminals who are quite possibly violence and not reported this to the Police? I’m sorry they we onto kill a14 year old girl in the next county, forensic evidence at your location would have helped catch a criminal but it obviously was’t worth your time.
I’ve also had two occaisions where people have tried to enter my home. Mind you with my guns locked away as they should be I used my D6 Maglite which has worked both times in combination with the use of the telephone and the police. Funny thing is I could shoot the offender but I’m not allowed to hit them with a Maglite. It scares the shit out of most people though, and if someone sees one coming towards them they tend to drop whatever they are carrying. But then I have trained in self defense. My wife on the other hand, has not been trained and she still scares me when she picks it up. 
Sorry, I have to disagree, evidence is factual not rhetorical. Then when you do find reasonable information (post #85) you don’t make the effort to use it properly.
A very slow one maybe.
Maybe he’s not convincing anyone who is posting, but as he himself stated there are a lot of people viewing the thread. So I guess it’s a case of if he throws enough shit and some will eventually stick, and there may also be plenty of others who do agree with the views. Maybe not the arguments but definately hold a similar view.
Aren’t the police there to “Server and protect” or is this just a misunderstanding on my part. Not trying to argue the point but, this is the moto of nearly every police department I’ve ever dealt with. And will you be my Uncle 
I personally do own guns however, I also live on a very large property and have problems with wild animals from time to time. Without this need for a gun I wouldn’t be able to justify owning one. I have family members who are also Police officers and I trust them when they tell me it is their jobs to protect people. Even though our laws most often prohibit this from happening.
The people who are equating cars to guns, I’m sorry the primary purpose of a car is transportation. The primary purpose of a gun is to cause death or injury. So ake abetter arguement.
I think society has many checks and balances in place which would stop a government from taking total controll of the population within our modern “western culture”. Guns and militias I don’t believe are good examples of what prevents goverments from becoming dictatorships. Money on the other hand is a far better example.
And if any of the above makes any sense I apologise. 
You don’t see the inherent problem with this? Morality is the core to Law. So what you are stating is that every person who helped runaway slaves should have been hanged? That Martin Luther King and the marchers in Selma, Alabama should have had the fire hoses turned on them? According to you, all civil disobedience should be crushed, with salutary hangings. And yet you fail to see how this could possibly make people call you a fascist.
Let’s see…jumping all over the place? What part of “People with guns are citizens. People without guns are subjects.” didn’t you understand? You are all for hanging anybody who doesn’t agree with your nonsensical views. Would you feel the same way if we were advocating something you felt strongly about? I don’t think so. At no time during this “debate” have you proven, or for that matter adequately supported any of your arguments. You just claim that you think they are logical, and therefore the rest of the world has to see it too.
See above. At no time have you proven, or even slightly supported the idea that Society would be better off if everybody was disarmed. Again you miss the point about cars. They cause many more deaths than guns. By your lights, they should be banned. Why aren’t you supporting this as well? Better example: pools. Do you have any idea how many children drown each year in swimming pools? Since they serve no useful purpose other than to kill our kids, ban them!
You mock and call names anyone who disagrees with you, then get all high and mighty when called a fascist. You should have stated up front that you were the World’s Leading Authority on self-esteem issues. That way we would have known not to dare argue with your off-the-cuff psychobabble about how we “feel like a big man with a gun.”
You have proven nothing more than your own inability to allow others the freedoms you demand for yourself.
Just because it is the motto doesn’t mean they are legally obligated to follow your interpretation of it. Neither the police nor the fire departments are obligated to come to your aid. We have a very good fire department in my town, but I still have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and the garage. UncleBeer beat me to the cites, but there are quite a few out there, and they all make the same point. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is legally obligated to lift a finger to save you and yours. Therefore, primary defense against crime must rest with the individual. My guns have never hurt anybody, and God willing, they never will. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right and duty to protect myself and my loved ones.
At no time in human history has the disarming of the general populace been anything than a prelude to oppression. At no time. Yet those of us who can read and understand history are called paranoid, and worse.
in re: the Guillotine. I was refering to the Nazi’s use of same during the 40’s. Thank you for fessing up to your paranoid delusions. Seek therapy.
In other matters, you have stated numerous times that guns, if banned, will slowly fade away.
Oddly enough, it’s been illegal for a LONG time here in California to own a fully automatic weapon. Doesn’t stop them from being used in crimes, of course… so there must be a flaw in your theory.
Also, a friends of mine who used to be a criminal has stated that the majority of handguns that he had access to were stolen from the military. Crates of Beretta 9mm handguns marked “Property of US Gov’t” (allegorical… he said they actually had a fairly lenghty string of numbers and letters, amongst others…).
Are you planning on stripping the Military of weapons? That way they can’t be stolen from bases or armories…