And people routinely shoot next to me at the gun range without putting a bullet through me.
Standing by the target is like you standing in the middle of the road on the lane marker not on the side of the road.
I just spent the entire day around guns and noone shot me and I was a pretty easy target.
Its all he has left. That and his religious belief that guns are evil and must be banned.
He has lost the debate at all levels. Politically we are passing laws that proposed by the pro-gun side and serving up embarrassing legislative defeat to the anti-gun side. Legally we are interpreting the second amendment in a way that is anathema to his position. Public sentiment is moving against total bans on firearms (even ones with scary looking black plastic accessories attached to them). I don’t think there are very many people on this board who became more anti-gun as a result of these debates but there are more than a handful that now think that banning guns is ineffective, stupid or both.
So all he has left is name-calling and stupid word games. He is just spluttering.
YES!!! By definition!!! A clean kill is one where the shooter was clearly justified in in shooting. Even cops are allowed to shoot people that are trying to kill them. The benefit is that the shooter lived.
Then you were just making assumptions about my views on an entirely different topic? Don’t assume that the pro-gun folks worship cops. Bone (another pro-gun poster here) is decidedly not a cop worshipper. Aside from cases like Treyvon Martin (which are vanishingly rare), the standards are pretty high before the law lets you get away with killing someone.
Insults. Its really the only thing that soothes all that butthurt.
He asked, reasonably imho, how many of the “no previous record” homicides were committed by persons with sealed juvenile records. I would suppose there would have to be some. And since your cite covers homicides by all means, I asked if a breakdown by firearms was available. People who don’t own guns commit murders too, and I would intuitively guess (and I admit it is a guess) that a lot of people with no previous felony record who commit homicide are more likely to do it by improvised means- fists, blunt instruments, knives, strangling, etc. rather than guns. I may well be wrong, but I’d like to see more informative statistics.
Well, insults and actual cites and real numbers and logic and a working cortex that isn’t overwhelmed by fear. But you can keep pretending it’s just the first one.
For all I know, you may be an intelligent person with sensible views. But in this particular train of thought you’ve had a huge disconnect. Don’t click reply; instead stop and think about what you’re saying.
The killing of Tamir Rice is considered “justifiable.” Was it “beneficial”? Well, it’s true that the shooters lived, but they would have lived anyway – Tamir Rice was armed only with a toy. Many MANY MANY MANY “justifiable homicides” are similar; they’re “justified” in the sense that shooter was afraid, but were not “beneficial” – the shootee was innocent.
Until now, Damuri Ajashi was just a vague name to me - I’d seen your name in the threads and not noticed views overly extreme one way or the other. But now you’ll need to retract your collosally inane conclusion; otherwise whenever I see your name in future I’ll think “There goes one frightfully confused moron.”
No, it is not. You are building a straw-car, trying to distract with meaningless bullshit because you are struggling with direct argument. Though, I admit, it is helping you, inasmuch as you have people taking the bait.
You realize that politicians can be bought by special interest groups, right?
This is the the statement of yours, with relevant parts bolded, that I’m referring to:
You and I agree that it’s impossible to take everyone’s guns away, despite what some anti-gun people want. Yet the impossible threat of having your guns taken away is used as an excuse to block any gun control measures. “Don’t allow universal background checks because they really want to take all our guns”, even though that’s impossible. And you apparently “understand” that illogical reasoning. I’m asking you to explain how that’s a legitimate argument.
Presumably, that would also be an excuse to block the licensing and registration that you support. What’s the point in advocating it if it’s just going to be summarily dismissed as a trojan horse for taking all your guns. Which is impossible to do.
If you cared about it enough, you’d know that some cars are banned from the road in the U.S., and not just race cars. Where’s the outrage, man? The gummint’s taking away your freedom!
http://gearheads.org/12-vehicles-you-cant-own-in-the-u-s-land-of-the-free/
- Saying “They all agree” is not the same as actually citing a source.
- When a given number is anywhere in the spectrum between X and 20.5X, the last thing that can be said is that “they all agree”.
No mostly just insults. If it was just a battle of the expert opinions, you wouldn’t feel the need to resort to insults in almost every fucking post. Your side of the debate is losing horribly and you have to make yourself feel better about that so you use insults. IOW, insults are the only salve that will ease the pain of all that butthurt.
I can go through this thread and probably pull up dozens of cites but none of them have ever proven to be persuasive to you. You always find some reason why you don’t want to believe a particular cite, not even the ones from the department of justice, that bastion of gun nuts and psychopaths. nope the only cites that can be believed, the only ones worth a damn, are the ones that support your position.
You’re the guy that wants to ban guns based on cosmetic features and you think you have logic on your side? Pffft.
I talk about civilian justifiable homicides and you bring up police shootings. I reiterate that I am NOT talking about police shootings because we are talking about the private ownership of guns, not the use of guns by the government and I even give you an example of one case where justice might not have been served (trayvon martin), and you still insist on bringing up police shootings. f you want to talk about police shootings and disarming the police, then I can have that discussion with you but in the context of private ownership of guns, police shootings are a bit off topic.
Retract what inane conclusion?
Of course it is. You are just refusing to see things from any perspective that might result in a conclusion that cuts against your position.
So where do you think the NRA ranks in terms of political donations?
And if you really think that politicians are so easily bought and sold then why bother voting? Hasn’t democracy failed?
Like I said, I think universal background checks as part of a licensing and registration requirement makes a lot of sense because I think confiscation at the federal level is IMPOSSIBLE. I frequently have arguments with other pro-gun folks on this board about this.
That doesn’t mean that the pro-gun rights people I argue with agree that confiscation is impossible. So they react to gun registration type proposals with that prospect looming overhead. If it was just a few wingnut gun control fanatics that had a desire for banning guns, that would be one thing but there are a LOT of people that feel that way. So I can see why some people are not as confident as i am that gun confiscation will never occur at the federal level. I also think that we are never going to use our guns in defense of tyranny but others vociferously disagree and I have to admit that I thought we might be slipping into tyranny around 2003/2004.
And for the time being the gun control side of the debate has so thoroughly damaged its credibility and political capital that they cannot even pass fig leaf legislation and the gun rights side of the debate doesn’t see any reason to give them that fig leaf.
And some guns are banned too. Would you like a list? That list of banned cars seem mostly like imports, would you like to discuss how hard it is to buy certain imported guns?
Guns are subject to more regulation than many people realize.
I’m tired of looking up all the cites so there is the wiki entry:
They all agree the number is large and significant. A contention that is denied by some people on the gun control side of the debate.
If you can agree with that then we are only left to discuss how large the number is and how that number affects the cost benefit analysis.
Actually, that cite that your provide doesn’t give a range of 100,000 to 2.5 million, but a range of 55,000 to 2.5 million-a far greater gap. Whether the actual number is large enough to be significant remains to be seen.