So does having a rifle cancel out the handgun? I gotta go get more long guns, I’ve been meaning to get another shotgun after Biden told me to get one.
What I really want is bear arms. We should all have our regular arms surgically replaced with those of a bear. And no, black people don’t just get to choose from black bears, that’s racist
So own a rifle
I’m glad you concede your argument was stupid 
So get another kind instead
What was yours?
There’s this South African girl that would like to discuss your thesis further. Oh wait, she can’t.
But you think rifles should be outlawed and people should only have handguns and shotguns for defense.
I did no such thing. Guns protect against all kinds of homicides including genocides. Probably handguns and shotguns not so much with regards to genocides.
What’s wrong with the uzi pistol? It’s just a handgun which you said people should be able to have for defense. Do you not like it because it is black, or because it’s Jewish, or what?
You mentioned something about law abiding citizens as though it was important. The point I hoped you would see was that law abiding citizens will sometimes commit terrible atrocities if the law tells them to do so.
This one can:
Please, stop talking about gun bans. It will never happen and just leads to endless posts of irrelevant circular arguments.
I have a question for the gun supporters. What would you do if your mental or emotional state changed enough that it was unsafe for you to have guns? For example, if you became depressed or were extremely stressed or angry (discover spouse having affair). Would you remove those guns from your house or restrict your access to your own guns in any way?
The assault weapon ban did happen.
I suppose if it were in my perceived best interest to leave my guns with a friend for a while I would. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t.
When I had a speed freak redneck pull a .40 on me, I personally used a combination of Tae Kwon Do and Krav Maga moves to disarm and disable him.
For a senior citizen I would more suggest Judo, or better, Aikido. They require less brute strength and rely more on redirecting the attackers own momentum and are usable even by smaller and less physically capable people. Brazilian Jujitsu is more of a grappleing martial art and would not be as effective for a sernior citizen in your situation. 
Do you have any systems in place to make sure this happens if you are not mentally competent to make that decision? It’s easy to say you would do this now when you have a clear head, but if you were in a state of depression where you were considering suicide, would you be able to make the same decision?
Yeah, I know those moves. If your attacker knows them too he’ll just shoot you before you come within reach.
You’re dreaming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHwKnXi8J08
No, if it were ever in my perceived best interest to commit suicide I wouldn’t want to lose the ability to do so.
Do you see this as a problem? A person continues having access to their guns even though their current mental state would not qualify them to purchase a gun.
Suppose a gun owner snaps and start wandering the street like a schizo screaming how the CIA is controlling him. He likely would not voluntarily give up his guns even though he is a danger to society. Should there be systems in place to ensure his guns are taken away in this case?
Not at all.
Sure. I think they already take away your guns if you are institutionalized.
It has happened in the past, why couldn’t it happen again? It took a LOT of education on the stupidity of an AWB to avert the proposed AWB. We just had an alection where the president won by a large margin. We just had a school shooting where small children were slaughtered. The media was conflating assault weapons with machine guns. Based on this, people thought that assault weapons were a major source of gun deaths.
It took a concerted effort to educate people of the facts and we had to expose idiots like Piers Morgan as idiots before the majority of Americans realized that an AWB was stupid.
It didn’t happen on its won and there are STILL people who are pushing for an AWB. This is not going away. There is a group of people that want a gun free society but they can’t figure out how to get the guns out of the hands of criminals so they figure they;ll start with taking guns away from the alw abiding citizens and deal with teh criminals later. Fucking retarded.
I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you saying that people shouldn’t have guns because we might flip out one day and commit suicide or kill someone? Or are you asking if we would give up our guns if we thought we couldn’t trust ourselves anymore?
Am I being whooshed? You’re kidding right?
Does this really happen? How do they know if the schizo has any guns? He’s not going to freely give up that info if they ask. The cops can’t search his house just in case he might have some. Without a permanent registry in place, there’s not a reliable way to know if he has guns and that they should be removed.
I don’t know the answer to either.
The latest from Louie the Goober:
Comment is superfluous,
Elucidator, regarding gun control I’m still waiting to hear what you think should be the law of the land. Not what you will grudgingly accept, but what you would really like to see. Do tell.
Don’t have much faith in it, as I’ve said to tiresome length. I very much want to nudge our culture away from gun fetishism, mostly for reasons of mental hygiene, I don’t think its good for you. About the only positive development these legal efforts can accomplish is an expression of societal disapproval, which is a step, but a baby step.
Sure, limiting magazine capacity make sense. And I entirely agree there is no good reason for civilians to issue themselves military weapons, they want one that bad, they can enlist.
But law must be definitive, if it is to be just. It must explicitly and transparently describe precisely what is to be illegal. And as many ballistophiliacs have gleefully pointed out, precisely defining what is and what is not an “assault weapon” is a nitpickers playground, especially a well-paid, professional nitpicker.
(Aside: it brings to mind snide references to “scary guns”, offered in smug tones of testosterone poisoning to nelly nancygirls who cringe at a few little exit wounds. Why, do you think, do they manufacture weapons for sale to civilians that look so much like military weapons? What do they do to attract the customers eye? They could simply make an ordinary hunting rifle, like your Grandads .30-.30, but instead they make something that functions not quite as well but looks like something you get to go hunting free-range kzinti. I don’t think that’s an accident…But I digress…)
Changing laws isn’t likely to help much, we have to change minds, and that is the long, slow, agonizing approach. But there it is.
Now, if it turns out I’m wrong, and it can be done, I’ll be tickled. And I will not discourage anyone from trying. I’m a pessimist, I like being wrong.
OK, so you think much like Feinstein. But why the focus on assault weapons as opposed to handguns. Why are you at the same time anti-gun but pro Everclear?
Military weapons have always been popular among civilians. They are generally very well proven very well state of the art. Why not want one.
Why don’t they attract your eye?
I have a 30-30 and a number of “assault weapons.” What makes you think the 30-30 functions better?
I got it, you are a pessimistic gun grabber.