The Judge <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jl-ZIo-Wztc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jl-ZIo-Wztc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
guns dont kill people.. people kill people. newclear warheads don't kill people people kill people should we ban guns... or people? seems like people are the problem oh man ROFL
Well, what are your thoughts about it? Where are you going with that? How would the assailant(s) possessing guns somehow lend to the argument against a law abiding citizen lawfully owning guns?
It should be obvious. We are supposed to make guns available to people because, god forbid, a 110 lbs woman could get assaulted by a 220 lbs thug. Problem with this scenario is that by making guns amply available we increase the likelyhood of this woman's assailant BEING ARMED WITH A GUN HIMSELF thus making the original intent moot and stupid. Similar reasoning could be applied to burglaries.
like archie bunker said arm EVERYONE then no one will dare pull out no ROD jesus H christ, give everuone a big stick, no one will use it
48 pages into the thread, people forgot to mention one important issue where guns play a seriously negative role ROAD RAGE I will spare people the discussion of various possibilities but it is not hard to imagine various situations where a simple misunderstanding on the road turns deadly (I am not talking about traffic accidents here). What about crimes of passion? A man comes home and sees his wife in the arms of another man and kills them both with a gun. Don't forget school shootings, which are, in essence, a uniquely American experience. I can go on and on but many negative outcomes come from silly statement of "law abiding" citizens needing guns.
But for each of the theoretical scenarios you create, people were killed in each by various types of weapons other than guns or with bare hands. So you aren't making a solid case against lawful firearm ownership. You're just throwing up straw man arguments. The one exception is the rare incidence of school shootings which is NOT uniquely American. Should solving the problem of rare school shootings have to involve disenfranchising the millions of lawful gun owners who have never used their firearms in an unlawful manner? Should we put vehicle start-up breathalizers in ALL cars to prevent the relative rare incidence of drunk driving deaths?
Nothing "strawman" here. This is from real life. Often times people don't know the rules of the road. A good example is when person A has a green left arrow(he wants to U Turn) and the person B has a red light to go forward but chooses to turn right (in some jurisdictions it is forbidden, such as NYC). Person B should yield to person A, yet many times they think it is their road. If you "cut them off" they may shoot you as they are driving away. (with a knife they can kiss my a** in this situation) When I drive around in Orlando, it is constantly in the back of my mind that some idiots can go "crazy with a gun" on me. And I don't like this feeling. No we don't need to put breathalizers in all cars because it is going overboard. Furthermore, people would not lend their car to a drunk driver. However, people easily purchase guns for others since there is no gun registration.
OK, nevermind, you can't see the error in your arguments. I don't think you want to since you probaly feel you're under attack. Good news is that there will always be judges and rational legislators who understand the slippery slope that those kinds of strawman arguments lead to. Whatever your personal issue is with guns... perhaps you were a victim of gun violence or lost someone close to it (if so, I'm sorry).