sort by best latest
Best Answer junkseller says
http://www.rationalityrebooted.com/ has thousands of stories of everyday people defending themseves from "evil" with their firearms. This outright denial of reality is the reason the public doesn't trust the gun bigots and why they get no traction.
I have had to discgarge my weapon once, why because this so called "evil" broke into my house and was holding a knife to my wife trying to rape her, if not for my weapon she could be dead or scared for the rest of her life.
georgepjr, you are not one of those people for whom all discussion is off the table (e.g. your hub saying banning large mags would be ok). Rationally valuing and utilizing a tool is different than worshiping that tool. I was addressing the latter.
No, junk, you were giving your typical bogus information. It didn't take much to show that to the Dear Readers, eh.
No what? No I wasn't addressing the latter? I think I know what I was doing. Thanks as always though for your low brain-power efforts. The "here is what so-and-so actually meant" argument is astonishingly stupid. Try an adult argument once in awhile.
The readers are quite capable of seeing for themselves your inability to post the truth if they have the correct info. Which my link provided. And you can't dispute. So which is the "adult"? You, who constantly provide bogus into? I don't think so...
The adult is the one who will offer their opinion and discuss it, not the one who comes in as a name-calling attack dog. You claim I deny a reality that I said nothing about, offer bogus info when I did no such thing...
One of us posted about the imagination of guns protecting from evil. It wasn't me who did it.
Yes, guns protecting us from evil is imaginary, hence not reality, hence not an issue of me denying reality.
Well, here's another one of the "imaginary" stories that the media just made up...
And poor ol' junk actually wonders why he gets no respect on hubpages.
The imaginary part isn't the use of a gun in self-defense it is the characterization of that being defense against evil. You're the only one I know of who gives me no respect, and believe me, I don't wonder or care at all about that.
There ya go, Dear Readers. Those stories about social deviants at the earlier link were really about people who had "love" in their hearts and were only trying to "help innocent people" through preying on them. And this is "reasonable" to believe, e
I don't define evil the same as you, nor do I have to. Mock it if it makes you feel better. I Wouldn't expect more from you.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Fine then, I don't categorize evil the same as you. Does that satisfy your pedantry?
JS when that imagined evil is standing in front of you armed and ready to crush your life, as it has stood before me on several occasions, you will suddenly know the difference between imagination and criminals.
Fortunately my gun wasn't imaginary.
Borsia, I do live in this world. I'm not out on some remote desolate island. I know what a criminal is, I just don't call it evil.
- See all 17 commentsHide extra comments
I think responsible gun ownership, like you mention for yourself, is all gun control advocates are asking for.
Dremer, here is a lengthy article laying it out in detail exactly why educated and thoughtful gun owners simply don't trust those who call themselves "gun control advocates"
Gun control advocates usually desire to ban all guns. Which is extremely frightening. Most of them have never been in the situation where they needed a gun but didn't have one. For that, I feel sorry for them because they won't have one when needed.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Except the government has tanks, jets and nuclear bombs. Even if we stock pile pistols and assault weapons, we still wouldn't stand much of a chance.
Would YOU drop a nuke on your fellow citizens. Then why do you believe anyone in the military would? And just who do you think sits in those tanks and jets? People just like me an you. It only takes a few dissidents in the ranks to neuter an army.
Then why do we need guns if we trust our military not to turn on us?
You have it exactly backwards. We trust our military not to turn on us BECAUSE we have guns.
The soviets had tanks jets and helicopters and were beaten by the Afghan people on horseback with rifles and no formal training. All throughout history poorly armed opressed people have defeated more advanced armies.
We are losing a war in Afghanistan just as we did in Vietnam to lightly armed resistance. A powerful mechanized military only works against the same type of force.
LMAO on this conversation. "Why do we have guns?" This has got to be a joke... right? Re-read LandmarkWealth's answer again. But, then there are other reasons such as hunting, sport, protection, etc.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
Jack Burton says
I wasn't implying we had lawless gun distribution now, I was implying that the argument about gun laws not working (a frequent point for gun owners) suggests we shouldn't have gun laws at all.
We have a "gun law". It is called the 2nd Amendment. And why pass a gun law you know will not work? Can u possibly justify that with any kind of logic or common sense?That's like lowering the speed limit to prevent speeding. Just arrest the speeders
How can we know the gun laws wont work if we haven't tried them? There are examples in the world where gun control has worked. And the second amendment wasn't written with today's weapons in mind.
The 1st A wasn't written with radio, TV and the "net in mind also. You want to make that argument? And a bad law is a bad law... we don't need to "pass it" to find out it's a bad law. Yes, the Soviet Union had gun laws that "worked". A good model.
The first amendment does need help because bills like CISPA are threatening internet privacy. And I was referring to Australia as a positive example for gun control.
You mean the uber-violent Australia that is dangerous to even live in?
Since the 'net was not invented in the 1780s what difference does it make what restrictions are put on it?
Maybe you could cite an article from after the gun control laws were enacted: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-au...
You mean one such as this...
Which shows with the other article that the "gun ban" has done nothing to reduce the violence in a nation. Nothing. Violent before... violent 20 years after. And this is "reasonable" eh?
Great Jack. The only statistic mentioning historical changes in violent crime is that homicides have dropped 12% since 2006. Yet you use this to somehow establish that violence hasn't been reduced. Brilliant.
The article you cited also confirms that Australian crime rates and gun deaths are down overall. What happened to those people is tragic, but nothing will ever prevent crime 100%. Gun control is about preventing as many deaths as possible.
No, gun control is about controlling people. 99.999 percent of gun owners do no harm to anyone. Using the 0.0001 who do harm as an excuse to put a burden on gun owners is the same as monitoring all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists.
If you're going to buy into wild conspiracy theories then we're done here.
So far the only one who has mentioned the concept of "wild conspiracy theories" is YOU.
- See all 13 commentsHide extra comments
I think the frustration comes when measures like limited gun clips and tighter background checks are thrown out because they're interpreted as an attack on the right to own a gun.
Because we know that these "limited measures" will do NOTHING to stop people, and therefore when the next incident happens you'll be back wanting MORE, and then MORE again, and then MORE again as each proves a failure. We are tired of it.
You imply that pro-gun-control advocates have an end game of a total gun ban. I've never met one that wanted to do away with guns entirely.
Open your ears then, because they are all around. Obama supported the total gun ban in Chicago and Washington DC. Did you know that? Did you know that Ted Kenndy proposed a total gun ban? There are many, many more examples for those who actually look
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Bryant E. Kibby Jr. says
So true, Boom-an.
I believe a lot of frustration comes when gun advocates argue against a gun ban, when no gun ban is presented. I'm not saying that gun bans weren't proposed, but why can't we pass non-ban related measures?
Because we don't trust you. The gun banners demonize gun owners in every possible way then turn around and say, "trust us, we are going to be satisfied with ~this~ law and no further." Until the next tragedy that is, then they want more and more.
You say gun control advocates keep asking for more and yet gun laws are expiring and nothing is passing. It's easier than ever to get and use a gun and you suggest we're asking for too much? Why should we trust a man with a gun in his hand?
Isn't it great that the gun control advocates are failing. But they keep trying. And you really don't know about the legal history of buying and selling guns but you comment anyway. If you can't trust your fellow citizen then insist he be locked up.
Well said, George.
Really the only thing is history likes to repeat itself, so if we give our 20 round magazines up, then the anti-gun activist will push it further until we have nothing left. That's my only complaint
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
It's true that guns don't kill people. But can you agree that they were designed to kill and they are exponentially more efficient at killing large amounts of people than say, a knife or a rope.
Would you agree that sometimes innocent, law abiding citizens have a legitimate need for a tool that is exponentially more efficient at killing people than say, a knife or a rope?
So long as those citizens submit to a background check and classes, then I have no problem with them owning a tool that is exponentially more efficient at killing people. Like we don't trust just anyone to drive a tank.
What other constitutional freedoms do you want people to have to submit to a background check and licenses? The freedom of religion? Speech? And you really don't know that it is perfectly legal for citizens to own and drive tanks, do you.
I see tanks driving on the road almost every single day.
I agree, taburkett! And, amen, Jack! People are the killers, not the guns. If our gun rights are taken away, what will be next? Knives? Sledgehammers? Hammers? Trophies?
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
99.999% of gun owners hurt no one... I think we can tell who is 'paranoid" and who isn't.. and it starts with those who accuse lawabiding citizens of being "paranoid." And when your background checks don't work.... we know you will want more and more
Yes, we can definitely tell who is paranoid and who isn't.
Yeppers... those that fear the law abiding 99.999 percent because of the actions of the criminal 0.0001 percent certainly fall into that category. I am glad you gave me a chance to emphasis that again.
I presume that would apply to Muslims and terrorism too?
When you see hordes of people demanding that mosques be closed and Islam outlawed then get back to me with that question.
The difference between paranoia and reason tends to be experience. It is paranoia until you experience it first hand.
Many gun owners are not paranoid. LOL. Some of us actually like them for sport, but they can also be useful for protection if the time should arise. Background checks are already the law in most states. Crime will always happen by idiots.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
There ya go, dear readers. The exact reason why those who wish to "control" guns cannot be trusted. The very best he can do is come on and hurl meaningless, base insults with no concept of reality behind them. And we are to "trust" him, eh
True, but there are many responsible gun owners who also support gun control.
Lot's of folk in history who have always been willing to hand the hangman the rope.
Demonize the people who want to compromise; that's productive.
I do believe in a certain amount of gun control. It is contained in the thousands of laws already on the books.
No government will ever get their hands on the hundreds of guns many Carolinians own. That's right! Hundreds to one owner. We got the south!
Dremer is making the huge leap in logic that "compromise" is automatically a good thing.
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments