Lucy, just FYI, for future reference, I don’t answer rhetorical questions couched in assumptions and insinuation. It’s a waste of time. Should you feel the need, the ignore button is but a few clicks away…
I think you have pistol envy.
I think you have penis envy.
I used the one that was appropriate in response to the statement made, Junior.
If you have a *serious *point to make, it’s about time you made it. At least it’s time you thought of one.
Your approach, the one you advocate for everyone apparently, is to go *into *any situation already fearful. That tends to bring pretty negative results, since you have a much lower threshold for acting on your fear, and you have the means to do so as well. If you somehow hold yourself short, you are quite willing, eager in fact, to congratulate yourself for a successful “defensive” gun use.
So, again, what is it that makes *you *the “good guy”? What would the evidence say to a neutral observer asked to choose which is which?
What, then, distinguishes you from the “swaggering bully” you claim not to be? On what basis can you claim not to have intended to intimidate the legislators who were right there in range?
To repeat: You’re a fucking menace.
Until the day, which for you at least has not yet arrived that we know of, when you get pissed or scared or maybe even drunk, and suddenly stop being a, what is the term you love, oh yes, a “law abiding citizen”.
Yes, you’re completely different from all those others. They’re not “law abiding citizens”, even if they used to think they were. No, you’re different, you’re special, you’re one of the “good guys”, right?
Quit kidding yourself.
Yeah, you really showed them dam’ librul politishuns in the Capitol that, didn’t you? :rolleyes: Buncha gun-grabbin’ Commies.
By the time you show otherwise in a way that is obvious even too yourself, it will be too late for your victim(s), though. How about a little pro-active responsibility, if you can grasp the concept?
Intimidate as in threaten to murder? Grow up.
So everyone is a ticking time bomb waiting to go postal? And you claim I have a poor opinion of humanity?
Well all I can say is that I’ve never robbed anyone at gunpoint or committed aggravated assault. I’m well ahead on points.
We showed them that they may lose the next election if they push through unpopular laws.
I don’t initiate violence against others. Isn’t that pro-active?
Well, so far your argument has been “You aren’t at all considering my thoughts as valid, your thoughts are insane, and despite you expressly accounting for a balance of risk in your statements the fact that you disagree with me obviously means you have never considered my side of it.”
At some point you have to realize you’re making a fool of yourself.
You are fucked in the head. Please stop being on my side.
First, we’re not talking about how many deaths cause in society versus how many deaths are prevented by guns. We are talking about how many deaths would be prevented by passing a law that prohibits guns versus how many deaths are saved because people are armed.
Second, we haven’t really been over this. Other than your assertions, you have provided no evidence that more deaths are caused by the availability of guns than are saved by it. you haven’t really address how many lives are saved by guns at all.
What?!?! I swear, every other post of yours is a non-sequitor. Its like there is some extra text that you thought you posted but actually only exists in your head. WTF are you talking about?
You’re retarded. How do I use law abiding citizen as a synonym for gun owner. We use the phrase law abiding when referring to gun owners to distinguish them from gun owners that are not allowed to own gun. We use this language because there is a huge difference in the likelihood that of felon with a gun committing a crime and a law abiding citizen with a gun committing a crime.
You are a fucking retard. I advocate licensing and registration. I’ve been doing so for a while. I’ve told you this and you keep forgetting because you don’t really care to distinguish between people who support gun rights.
I am one of the good guys. Most people are. I’m just an armed good guy.
Its a bit rich to hear you talking about life being more complicated than it seems.
I think you have an overly romantic view of gun ownership. That and you’re retarded.
I don’t if I buy into the hypothetical you are responding to but its a bit silly to say that having a gun would make you a target. Cops would be getting jacked left and right in these neighborhoods and yet they don’t seem to victimized at higher rates than the average schmo.
Why bother having cops then. I don’t think we need self appointed cops running around but I didn’t think you were arguing against guns for self defense.
He was threatening him with his vote, not his guns. Of course its understandable why someone like you would be cowed by the mere presence of guns no matter who was holding them.
And we know the chances of using your gun in self defense are much higher than your chances of murdering someone with that gun.
I know you don’t give a shit about facts but the fact is that a lot of good is done with guns and you have yet to provide any evidence that the harm that would be avoided by confiscating all the guns from law abiding citizens (because you’re not going to get them from the criminals or you would have them already).
Intimidate as in intimidate, which you’ve already acknowledged was your intent. You have to stop lying to yourself if you’re ever going to stop lying to others.
Potentially. It usually doesn’t happen, but sometimes it does, and there’s no good way for anyone else to be sure who or when. But it could be you, and you have no way to be sure yourself much less assure others.
But you’ve taken a major step in that direction already by preparing yourself to do so, haven’t you?
You threaten it. No, it isn’t.
Something you cannot and will not make any attempt to understand, as evidenced by your inability to summarize it correctly or even coherently. But you can come back with preadolescent nyah-nyahing. So, that’s the level on which you can expect to be engaged, being incapable of no other.
Still with the rubber-glue stuff, huh, kiddo? 
When come back, bring argument.
You have to start with the first point before you can get on with the second. So, uncomfortable as it might be for you, yes, we are.
Sure we have, it just hasn’t made it through your shields. No, I’m not going to try it again.
Every single fucking time you use it, except when claiming that there are, yes, some small minority of “bad guys” who own their guns legally. You even use it to refer to people whose ownership would be outlawed as “law abiding citizens”. You are unaware of how your use of a favorite buzzword signifies the depth to which you have considered an issue. True, your volume of invective shows it even more, though.
Except you also use it for *legal *owners who commit crimes.
You oppose it whenever it comes up. You opposed Manchin-Toomey. You laughed at its proponents. You blame them instead of yourself for its failure. You oppose those things. Your claim to support them is a lie. You are lying. You do not advocate those things, you oppose them. You are fooling no one but yourself. When it’s time to support any measure at all, reasonable or otherwise, you oppose it. You Oppose It.
Clear now? Psychopath.
To repeat the question you’re ducking: What is your definition, and how would anyone else know?
Says the guy who uses the terms “good guy” and “bad guy” unironically. As if they have clear meanings at all.
Says the guy who thinks he’s waving a Magic Wand of Protection and Goodness.
So, you think banning guns would make more of them appear in “these neighborhoods” (watch it now)? And you don’t get that the owners of guns who refuse to comply with the law would then be the violent criminals, not the “law-abiding citizens” you continue to refer to them as? No, gun ownership is the primordial right to you, isn’t it?
You really *believe *that shit, don’t you? He brought his vote with him. So what was the gun for?
See the “we’ve been over that” discussion. :rolleyes:
Is the “You’re going to make me shoot you by disagreeing with me…” a common rhetorical flourish for “Good Guys” ?
By that standard no one should ever learn martial arts, since that makes them “prepared” to beat people up.
It is only in your cowering sheep’s mind that carrying a gun is ipso facto a threat. In fact, now that I reflect on it that seems to be the entire basis of your arguments (such as they are). By that standard, Britain, France, India and Israel are constantly “threatening” to launch a nuclear attack against the United States. The US government has never seriously considered them a threat against the US (as opposed to the Soviet Union/Russia or China) because they’re- dare I say it?- the good guys.
This thread should be titled “The Stupid People with Opinions on Guns Thread.”
(If of course, you insist on using the term “stupid” more appropriately)
No cowering sheep here, but I have had two instances of a handgun being pointed at me with no justification beyond the pointer being irritated.
So you can ID Good Guys/Bad Guys just by looking at them Lumpy? Because lacking the centuries of interaction we’ve had with the countries you’ve cited with someone you’re just meeting, that seems to be the inference…
My condolences to you. Sadly, some jerkasses think that pulling a gun is a way to win arguments, and they ought to be swiftly and brusquely disabused of that notion. Gun ownership is a heavy responsibility, and that responsibility needs to include painful sanctions against misusing guns. Pointing a gun at someone is assault, and whoever did this should have been arrested and charged with a felony. Carrying a gun in a secured holster shouldn’t be a threat however.
Twice? Wow. Either you hang out with some real swaggering bullies or you’re just a total asshole who deserves to have a gun pointed in your face.
How do we know you are one of the good guys?
Yeah, I just can’t get my head around the NRA’s Good Guy/ Bad Guy , everyone needs a handgun argument. People don’t come in just two flavors.
What’s not a threat in one situation could be a whole different ballgame in another when forgetfullness, jealousy, road rage or biggus dickus syndrome kick in.
There was a thread recently discussing a Mountie shooting his wife. I mean, I know I’m playing to stereotype here, but Dudley Do Right for Christ sake? How do you get any more “Good Guy” than that?
The NRA’s push for a handgun in every pocket does nothing to make me feel safer.
If they have the guts to close and do it hand to hand, then maybe you have a point. A gun lets somebody be a coward, do it at a distance, and see the victim as less human, or a “bad guy” who had it coming.
Congratulations on your feelings of masculinity. Some of us don’t need strap-ons for that, though.
Wrong again. A nation with a military controlling nuclear weapons has all kinds of positive safeguards, with many persons involved who all have to participate. It is not possible for a single person who gets angry, or drunk, or scared to launch them. A nation is not a person, and neither is a military.
Try again. Maybe you’ll think of a cleverer retort, although I doubt it.
See, ask almost any person in the world if they’re a good or bad person, and virtually every one will claim to be good. Most will even believe it. But for the name to mean anything, there have to be bad guys, people who are out to get you and your precious bodily fluids, people you need to defend against. They exist in the minds of people who are convinced of that, convinced they are the good guys, convinced they need arms to get the bad guys with. All that’s left is to define the bad guys in such a way that you can tell yourself they’re real, such as **DA **does with his “those neighborhoods” :rolleyes: comment.
But somebody who does not share that childishly-simplistic psychosis has quite a bit of trouble seeing those increasing the danger level as “good”, don’t we?
And thanks for your participation. 