Probably not exactly.
My point (which I’m sure you didn’t miss) is that a single data point is only a refutation of an absolute argument, which DT’s was not.
This is not your only gratuitous mention of “race” in this thread, but it is your most relevant.
Your logic is impressive: cars are for racing (really? not for travelling to work and school and the Piggly-Wiggly?) and since that is so (?), you therefore own a car, and (?) the make and mileage of your car is a relevant factor in this argument.
I’d stick to the race-based arguments–you’re on much more solid ground there.
Probably a leftover from the Custer debacle. The Sioux carried repeating rifles at Little Bighorn while Custer’s troops were armed with less effective single-shot weapons (Custer could have had a Gatling gun but left it behind, thinking it would slow him down. :rolleyes:)
What, no love for Rosie O’Donnell?
Cite?
True, but I think we have to be especially careful when we’re talking about laws which affect Constitutional rights. We don’t want to keep guns out of the hands of poor people, or racial or ethnic minorities, just out of the hands of the criminally inclined, the reckless, and the careless. So any gun control laws should be examined carefully to make sure they’re not having an unwanted disparate impact on the poor or minorities before they are passed.
How would you address those?
Minority neighborhoods are flooded with guns and the people are killing each other; just not fast enough to make a dent in the population.
…and again you come up with something ridiculous. Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, therefore they are the party of racism. See, I can make stuff up too.
Oh, c’mon, Doors, you know that “the Republicans are the party of white people first,” simply because the Dems ain’t any more and (at this stage of our history) one party or the other inevitably will be.
No, that’s just ignoring history. The Democrats were the party of racism; now the Republicans are the party of racism. And it’s really pretty much the same people (or their descendents) involved anyway; they just switched parties.
I know that, and he knows that the origins of gun control are steeped in racism, he’s just choosing not to look any further back than yesterday so I made fun of him for it. He’s disingenuous in every gun control debate and deserves to be called out on it.
I have a loaded LCP in my pocket as I type. I’m feeling pretty healthy, for a man of my age.
And if somebody breaks into my house, I guess I’ll feel a whole lot healthier than he does.
“In his book Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, civil rights attorney and gun scholar Don Kates found racial overtones in the focus on the Saturday Night Special[16] (“niggertown Saturday night special”). Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”[17]”
Unlikely, given that almost certainly you’ll either be asleep or gone. Burglars break into homes to steal stuff with as little risk as possible; not to challenge the homeowner to single combat. And as far as health goes, you’re more likely to kill yourself with your gun than you are to kill a burglar with it.
And what makes you think that the burglar won’t be armed too, and at least as good a shot?
Ever wonder why burglars break into homes when the occupants aren’t home? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the same reason mass murderers conduct their rampages in “gun-free” zones.
And of course, I consider it likely that any intruder will be armed. There’s a reason why Sam Colt’s revolver was called “the equalizer”. The way I see it, I’ve got two options:
- Be armed, and stand roughly a 50/50 chance of winning. (Probably a bit more, as I’m a fair shot and on my own turf.)
or
- Be unarmed, scream like a girl, and die.
I’ll take option 1 all week long and twice on Sundays.
Because they want to steal stuff with minimum risk and effort.
They don’t. There was just a mass shooting in a police station.
Of course; like most gun owners you don’t care about the greater likelihood that you’ll end up killing an innocent person or yourself. The lives of friends and family don’t matter. Your own life doesn’t matter. Guns; now guns matter.
I was waiting for someone to bring up Don Kates. I’m surprised it took this long.
Which raises two important points:
-
Anti-gunners seriously underestimate the deterent effect of gun ownership. The simple fact that a person may be armed discourages much crime.
-
You’ll have a heck of a hard time convincing guys like me that I’ll somehow be safe if I’m disarmed. I’ve been shooting for 35 years and carrying daily for more than ten years. I’ve walked hundreds of miles in the woods while hunting with a loaded firearm, and probabaly thousands while legally carrying concealed or open for defesvive purposes. No accidents at all. I’ve walked through Detroit City, and into grizzly country. To suggest that I’m safer without a gun than with one is just ridiculous.
This is just stupid. I carry guns to protect my own life, my friends’ lives, my family’s lives, and the lives of innocents. Others lake the fortitude to do so, and voluntarily outsource this duty to armed mercenaries. I don’t. If you’re cowardly and unwilling to protect yourself and your loved ones, that’s OK. Some people are just born weak. But please, don’t try to take the means of defense away from those who are able and willing.
And the police station shooting you’re talking about - is that the one that ended with no deaths and the perpetrator being shot? Just happened today or yesterday?
Nonsense, it just means you have something else to steal; your gun. If a criminal thinks you have a gun it won’t deter them, it just means they’ll make sure they have their gun pointed at you or they’ll just shoot you first. And that they’ll grab your gun for themselves.