While we are doing things like this, count the number of legally owned firearms in the hand's of law abiding citizens in he US, now count the instances that those legally owned firearms were used to commit a crime by their owners. You'll find that the former number is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. Now do the same thing again using the number of legally owned so called "assault weapons" my guess is your end result will be only a fraction of the previous number which was already so small as to be statistically irrelevant.Katatori-kun said:
Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...
- Thread starter mattttherman3
- Start date
Ehm, law abiding citizen, that's an expression that gets tossed around a lot. How do you tell a law abiding citizen from a criminal? The criminal had broken the law at some point. Before they broke the law, everyone was a law-abiding citizen. Nobody is a "born" criminal.Raytan941 said:
So, what does that mean? That right up until the owner of a firearm committed a crime with it, they were quite likely a law-abiding citizen. The only law-abiding citizens that you can trust will never cross the line to criminal are the deceased ones.
So guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens actually (and this sounds slightly scarier than it should be, for which I apologize) equal guns in the hands of potential future criminals.
Or well, I dunno, if you know of a sure-fire way to tell which law-abiding citizen will never become a criminal with 100% certainty, well, no objection against them owning a firearm from me. I do not know any way to determine.
That seems irrelevant. It seems to me that you've turned to ill-fitting condescending mocking as a substitute for arguing against me. You didn't have to start this argument, or reply, as the only thing that would warrant such a response would be your own over-defensiveness. And being over-defensive implies that you know your cause to be wrong. And you are wrong. You are very wrong. Not in your original frustration that the post you responded to was a repeat, but in your attempt to justify attacking someone trying to sympathize with someone who was really taking an undeserved amount of heat for an action that was not as unreasonable as it was made to sound, coming from someone who wasn't acting out of line in neither sentiment exaggeration nor grammatical illness nor trolling. Not to mention, your quip was really not as comedic as you probably thought it was, possibly because of its lack of necessity, but mostly because you probably aren't that witty and shouldn't be making short peanut-gallery flings. Especially not to make a point, and have it be at best tangential to the defendant's line of speech. Also, my mother doesn't tell me I'm a special snow flake, partially because I'm mature/smart enough to know that snowflake is one word, and partially because there'd be no point in saying anything at all if my fingers were stuck in my ears. I think we both know that you're struggling to find a reason to continue your poorly rationalized argument, but hopefully this paragraph will give you something else to respond to, and perhaps you can use the opportunity to practice your ability to create witty banter, or at the very least, clarity and common sense, such that when you want to state a case, you don't instead seem to be attempting to divert the conversation elsewhere. If nothing else, it'll give the other people that were mentioned in that array of quotations something to judge.TornadoADV said:
In this case (and I thought it was rather obvious) a law abiding citizen is anyone who can legally purchase a firearm. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum that are totally ignorant on US gun law (probably cause they don't live in the US) and they have this idea that anyone can just walk right into a gun store throw some cash on the counter and walk out armed to the teeth 30 seconds later. Sorry to burst your bubble folks it does not work like that. With almost all felony conviction's (including non violent convictions) you lose the right to own or purchase firearms for extended periods of time or even for life. You can also lose the right to own firearms if a restraining order is issued on you.Vegosiux said:
So, in NY, non-lethal methods of self-defense are illegal, while lethal methods of defense aren't?Ryotknife said:
...
It's easy to see why people are annoyed with US gun obsession.
(I just checked, actually, and where I live, the tasers and Mace are also illegal. HOWEVER, you can keep a can of pepper spray on you if it's labeled "Bear Spray" and you convince any questioning cops that you use it for self-defense against bears. Still better than NY policy!)
EDIT: Actually, might not be better than NY policy. How do you get around pepper spray bans in NY?
Especially if we take into account that some of them will have been paid to mule and are bullshitting to try and save their arses.Katatori-kun said:
You know what disgusts ME? Your flagrant disrespect for established code of conduct and unreasonable insistence that you're beyond everyone else.TornadoADV said:
See? You can't respond without immature insult. YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT. Not only that, but you are in imminent danger of mod wrath. I may not have read every last word of the thread (I think six pages is enough to see how most any gun argument is going, seeing how they're almost always the same with minor permutations), but you can't even keep track of the RULESET of the thread.TornadoADV said:
Oh, and if you must respond, please point a finger at where my "soiled aura of self entitlement" is. Here's were YOU showed yours:
Your move.TornadoADV said:
Right. Maybe you could read my post again and you'll maybe notice that I said nothing about the availability of guns to convicted felons, now have I? I'm not sure which bubble you're bursting, but it sure as hell ain't mine.Raytan941 said:
What I said is that everyone is a law-abiding citizen right up to when they commit a crime, so every law-abiding citizen that's not died yet has the potential to become a criminal at some point in the future for whatever reasons. So when you're selling a gun to a law-abiding citizen, you're still selling a gun to someone who might become a criminal in the future, potentially using that very gun in the crime they commit.
Now what's quite interesting here, "You can never be too careful" can go both ways, can't it? I mean, that previous paragraph of this post looks a little...paranoid, no? I mean I look downright scared that everyone who's buying a gun is going to shoot up some place the first chance they get. Quite paranoid, I admit. Almost as paranoid as expecting a killer around every corner (that you allegedly need a gun to defend yourself from) and a child molester in every bush (that you allegedly need a gun to defend your children from).
...That would be a rather excellent, if unorthodox, method of self defense. I like!RhombusHatesYou said:
Unless you lock yourself in a steel vault for the rest of your life it's not possible for you to prevent yourself from being the victim of anything so whats your point? Unfortunately we don't live in a utopia we live in the real world and even if you could flip some magic switch and suddenly make all the guns go away noting is really gonna change. There's still gonna be people that will exploit, manipulate, coerce, hurt, maim, and kill other people to get what they want.Katatori-kun said:
lacktheknack said:
"Well, I didn't get a real good look at him officer but he'll be stinking of bear piss for the next few days if that helps."
So wait a minuet, your argument seems to be that most of the time bad things don't happen so no one needs to bother being prepared if they do happen? That may very well be the most illogical argument for gun control I have ever heard, congratulations. Most of the time car accident don't happen so no one should wear a seat-belt because its pointless. Most of the time the power is on so no need to own a flashlight or candles or an emergency radio.Vegosiux said:
Why don't you tell these people how most of the time people don't break into your house or try to rape you and they shouldn't own a gun to defend themselves with.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/01/05/woman-hiding-in-attic-shoots-intruder-5-times-to-protect-her-children-n1479445
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10451493/
It would totally work, too. Ever smelled bear urine? I have (don't ask). It's like putting your face in a three-week-buried coffin after heavy rains.RhombusHatesYou said:
I'd hide them. Then I'd take to carrying a brace of knives or a blowgun like the one in Assassins Creed Liberation. The criminals will still have theirs', so my "umbrella" would have to step in for personal defense(I carry concealed as of now).
well, guns are heavily restricted in NY (requires just about everything but an anal probe). As to why tasers and other non lethal methods are illegal...shrugs. Although, tasers are not very effective in NY during a good chunk of the year due to heavy clothes.lacktheknack said:
tasers and pepperspray is better than nothing, but not by much.
never been shot at either (in NY or alabama), according to your argument guns are not a problem then. glad that we agree.Katatori-kun said:
Oh, but i have almost been killed by deer numerous times due to there not being many hunters in my state (thanks to strict gun control) and the deer population becoming rampant.
Oh, was almost killed by a few tons of scafolding nearly falling on top of me, but that has nothing to do with guns or police.