Yes, there’s ALWAYS some difference between tools you want to use and tools I want to use, such that the ones you want to use are somehow uniquely more dangerous and must be banned utterly.
There’s no “somehow” about it. Hurting *other *people, and badly, is the *design function *of guns. Duh.
Lumpy’s analogy is so silly that it seriously undermines any point he might think he’s somehow making.
The pro-confiscation brigade has, for years, been trumpeting this bit of fortune-cookie wisdom as the reason why guns are a special class of item to which no rules of reason, statistics, or rule of law may ever be applied. Would you like to be the first person to actually explain the logical connection between “item that is designed to hurt people” and “item which cannot be analogized to any other thing ever”? Besides “wave hand here”?
If she gets convicted? Yes, that is already the law. If you would like, we can pas another law that makes it double bad to own a gun if you are a convict but noone seems to enforce those laws because the gun grabbing cops “chase criminals, they don’t chase paper”
You keep lobbing these softballs with urban legends about previously law abiding citizens going on rampages when you know (or by this time should know) that the vast, overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by people who are not allowed to possess a gun. So what percentage of gun crimes do you think are committed by law abiding citizens?
“Guns hurt people” is not some panacea that absolves you from logic, rationality and the world of facts. The fact that guns hurt people is a feature not a bug.
On the other hand, the second amendment provides a pretty sound argument for the continued possession of guns in private hands.
If the driver had been armed, was he legally permitted to return fire? Should he?
ETA: Tennessee has had a Stand Your Ground law since 2007
“Pro-confiscation brigade”? “Cannot be analogized to any other thing ever”? Hyperbolic as ever, I see.
If certain pro-gun folk wouldn’t drag out these ridiculous analogies without consideration for whether they are actually reasonable, we wouldn’t have to shoot them down [sic]. Here’s a popular one: “Cars kill lots of people, therefore by your reasoning we should ban cars too!” No, the analogy is “cars have the potential to kill lots of people accidentally when used irresponsibly, therefore we require training and licensing before we allow people to use them, require regular equipment safety checks and monitor usage heavily. Guns have the potential to kill lots of people accidentally when used irresponsibly, therefore it is not unreasonable to consider whether there should be some restrictions on their use.”
Or another one I hear often: “You can kill someone with a knife or bat too, therefore only banning guns would achieve nothing!”, which ignores the fact that guns kill people with greater ease and are harder to defend against (yes, even with another gun) than knives or bats, or that where people have attempted massacres with edged weapons the results have been considerably different than those with firearms. You’d have a better argument comparing guns to other ranged weapons (I dunno - bows and arrows or crossbows or hand grenades) than something that requires the wielder to be within grapple distance.
And of course there’s the scissors analogy, which is simply ludicrous.
So in short, guns can be used in analogies quite effectively. Apparently just not by you.
And maybe someday you’ll be able to back that up with a credible cite. Perhaps right after you cite your remarkable explanation of the Manchin-Toomey filibuster. IOW I’m not waiting.
So, anyway: Your view is that, since other deaths happen too, we should not bother to do anything to prevent some of them? That’s what you call “responsible”? :rolleyes:
Is it more than zero? If so, what are the consequences to you of that fact?
What militia are *you *a member of? What tyranny have you and your binkies resisted lately?
It’s obvioulsy zero. If they commit a gun crime, then they are not law-abiding.
This is an interesting fellow.
“Mark Kessler, police chief of Gilberton Borough and a member of the North Schuylkill school board, caught the attention of viewers earlier this month with profanity-laced videos blasting “libtards” and Secretary of State John Kerry for supposedly wanting to take away his guns.”
I would like to think that as a police chief, Mr. Kessler might have been able to better frame the concerns he has regarding gun registration, the UN arms trade treaty, and the actions of the Obama administration. Still, he did offer an apology of sorts and the mayor does not seem too upset about it.
Unless the driver’s car can go faster than a bullet, I think the driver ought to be permitted to return fire.
I don’t know enough about the situation but it seems to me that if someone fires at me and hits my car full of kids, then unless my car is bulletproof, I should either run over the bitch or shoot her in the head. Or I guess I could drive down the log road hoping that she won’t keep firing as I drive away?
What scissor analogy? The original poster of the scissor reference seemed to be poking fun at the nanny state mentality of some gun grabbers :
"Of course to hear some tell it, the general public shouldn’t be allowed to run with scissors let alone own guns. "
This was not analogizing guns with scissors, in fact it seems to rely on the stark difference between guns and (relatively harmless) scissors to portray gun grabbers as nannies
WTF!?!?! I provide this cite every 6 or 7 pages. Your memory is like a seive.
Here’s one. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2472
It does not segregate the gun murders from murdes generally but there is no reason to believe that the there would be uneven distribution between the rate of felonies among gun people who commit murder with guns versus people who commit murder by other means. When you add underage kids, people subject to a restraining order, wifebeaters, the mentally ill, and others who are not leaglly allowed to posses guns you get all but a slim minority of gun murders being committed by people who are not allowed to possess a gun.
This is a variant of “if it can save even one life” argument. You assume the equation is entirely one sided, there is nothing that you lose or no harm done when you get rid of guns in private hands. Given how many times guns are used in self defense (and any deterrent effect an armed populace might have on crime), I don’t think we can assume that it would be a net positive to get rid of guns from the hands of the law abiding citizen, even if you could get around the constitutional issues.
Why do I need to be a member of a militia to think that a constitutional right provides a strong argument for the continued private ownership of firearms?
Why is the constitution important to you only when it comports with your liberal views?
“Previously law-abiding” cop commits felony with gun:
Clearly, this shows that cops can’t be trusted with guns.
You’re right, some can’t. There are numerous people in police departments who are, shall we say, temperamentally unsuited for the responsibilities that go along with the job’s power, and should have been screened out. Glad we agree on that.
Care to be more explicit about what circumstances you deem to be “exceptional” enough for prior restraint?
'Course there is. We’ve been over that before. A murder (or suicide, or “tragic accident”, whatever you want to call it) is more likely to occur when the means for it to happen are right at hand. Duh.
It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact. Yes, sometimes guns get used to prevent deaths. They get used far more often to *cause *them. To repeat for your benefit: Duh. So what should a responsible, “law abiding” citizen conclude?
Because that’s what it says. Duh.
WTF are you talking about?
I provide a cite for the notion that the vast majority of murder suspects have criminal records and I infer that this means that the vast majority of people who commit gun murder are also criminals and you respond by saying this? What does your comment have to do with this inference that I make?
Do you understand what you are reading?
Really? By law abiding citizens? You got a cite for that or do you just believe it deep down in your heart?
Do you understand why it is important that we compare defensive gun use only against gun crime by lpeople who are legally permitted to own guns when we are discussing a who may legally own a gun?
I’ll let you know when you provide that cite
No it doesn’t.
It says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This has been interpreted by the supreme court to confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
At least you know you’re a hypocrite. I suppose that puts you a bit above most Republicans, but talk about damning with faint praise.
You’re really not capable of understanding the concept of the value of human life, or you wouldn’t even ask. That’s a symptom of your psychopathy, of course, not really your fault but it does mean we need to take measures to keep ourselves safe from you.
You can’t even understand that more deaths occur when there are deadly weapons available than when there aren’t. That could be your unfortunate psychopathy again, or it could just be simplemindedness.
And you can’t even understand what “law-abiding” even means (and probably not “citizen” either), since to you it includes murderers.
Maybe someday you’ll read the entire *Heller *decision, as you’ve been urged multiple times without effect. Or maybe you’re simply incapable of comprehending something that makes you uncomfortable.
Bottom line is still that, in combination with being an ideologue and a fetishist, you’re a demonstrated psychopath, you’re a danger to everyone around you, and you need to be contained.
You’ll need guns to do that. 
Fortunately we’re well-regulated.
The “unorganized militia” as defined by Federal law. (Militia Act 1903)
There’s this thing called “responsibility” that people are usually expected to exercise, especially with regards to guns. So prior restraint on people who seem to have none (the adjudged mentally deficient, children, and felons) is reasonable.
For those who missed the thread in Mundane Pointless, Texas police go to wrong house and shoot homeowner holding gun. I assume there’s no problem – it was night-time in Texas. The anti-gun crusaders will try to point out that the 72-year old man would still be alive if he didn’t have a gun, but I think gun liberals know the moral is that the man was right to stand his ground, but should have drawn and fired more quickly.
I.e. none. You’re not well-regulated if you’re not even fucking organized.
Good, glad we agree.
I’d write a much more inclusive list, but that’s a start. The question is why there is so much resistance from the “law abiding citizens” contingent even to *that *much, though.