NRA is for banning the sale of guns

[EgonSpengler]

You missed the point.
She didn't have a gun, therefore she was unable to equalize her position.
Clearly I don't support that guy blowing her away. He should be imprisoned for murder. I'm unfamiliar with the case.

He blew her away. He's being imprisoned for murder. What good would having a gun have done her? The problem was that he had a gun, not that she didn't.

Bring your evidence to his trial no? Why force it upon everyone?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Put in em prison then. He's a black guy. Should be easy...

No, he's White. But yes, he's going to prison for a long time.

 

[kochman]

FB, you're ruining his egotistic rant though! It made him feel so morally superior.

 

[kochman]

He blew her away. He's being imprisoned for murder. What good would having a gun have done her? The problem was that he had a gun, not that she didn't.

Ok, so, what the hell is your point?
So guy did something bad with a tool?

She probably had no idea it was coming. He got the drop on her.

Had she known, and been armed, liked oh, when someone breaks into your house and you know it... she would be alive and he would be dead instead of in prison.

 

[EgonSpengler]

In what world are base freedoms ever not paid for in human lives?

What I meant was that McBride paid for someone else's right to own a gun.

 

[kochman]

What I meant was that McBride paid for someone else's right to own a gun.

Dude it was a terrible crime...
Should we make pools illegal for all because someone was strangled in one unjustly?

Not to mention, a pool isn't an enumerated right.

 

[Farm Boy]

What I meant was that McBride paid for someone else's right to own a gun.

And I might pay tomorrow. I know.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Who's on trial? Millions of gun owners or this guy?

No, he's White. But yes, he's going to prison for a long time.

Great!...erh no he's not! Everyone who owns a gun gets a freebie! Or so they say...or who knows, don't we have laws against murder and stuff?

Oh... If he didn't own dat dern assault hi capacity military-style thing-over-the-shoulder shotgun...?? then he would have cleaved her through the head with a crowbar instead? What? What is the argument here?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unless you can show me how you can stop them from getting them illegally, it should.


No, because I reject the premise that making them illegal will significantly hinder criminals from gaining them.


Actually... people do make guns themselves, illegally... such as zip guns, etc. They aren't as effective, but they are guns.

A shotgun shell in a piece of pipe with the right triggering mechanism is far more effective than the average self defense handgun...and if done properly can be fixed mounted and triggered remotely to boot.

That said...there are very strong arguments about how making guns illegal across the board won't significantly impact the number of guns used by criminals in the short term. You came up with the best one already...there's just too many guns already out there. However, the primary and very nearly exclusive source of illegally used guns is in fact legally bought guns, so eventually if that supply was removed they would run out. I'm not advocating that course, just pointing out that it isn't as obviously ineffective as 'if guns were against the law only criminals would have them' makes it out to be. A Chinese gun used in a crime was almost certainly imported legally, not smuggled in with the criminal market in mind.

There is no way to stop legally purchased guns from turning into criminally used guns that does not make some large demand on legal gun owners...that's the bulk of the problem, and since I am neither a legal gun owner nor someone that cares much about guns, legal or otherwise, it certainly isn't my problem. But if I were really committed to protecting the 'right to bear arms' I would be looking really closely at what parts of that large demand I could live with.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh... If he didn't own dat dern assault hi capacity military-style thing-over-the-shoulder shotgun...?? then he would have cleaved her through the head with a crowbar instead? What? What is the argument here?

Well, no. He would have had to open the door to do that, and if he hadn't had a gun he'd have been too busy cowering in terror because someone knocked on his door. The problem with guns is exactly what we have here...an 'I was just scared' defense for using deadly force against someone the shooter couldn't even see. Same as the Pretorious case, btw, so let's not pretend this is an isolated one time thing we can just ignore.

When you arm people who are afraid of things they can't even see this is the results you should expect. By the way, this guy would have had no particular reason to be afraid of you either, but probably would be...and you would have no particular reason to think he was afraid of you so no likelihood that you would shoot him first. Does that make you feel safer?

I'm a very large human being...the thought that any punk runt can gun me down walking down the street and say 'he was big and he scared me' doesn't make me feel particularly safe...even if I maintain a fair degree of confidence he 'wouldn't get away with it' I'd still be just as shot. So I personally think gun control to keep guns away from cowardly punk runts would be a good thing, though I can't be bothered working out the mechanism to make such compatible with the second amendment.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's essentially the same last paragraph as "she was hot and I was drunk," we can even stipulate that he probably won't get away with it. And I can't figure out a way, even though I'm bothered by it, to figure out a mechanism that's compatible with multiple amendments.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, no. He would have had to open the door to do that, and if he hadn't had a gun he'd have been too busy cowering in terror because someone knocked on his door.

How do you know, have you tried it lately?

f he hadn't had a gun he'd have been too busy cowering in terror

Who's to say he wouldn't have had a gun regardless of what the law says, especially if. as you say, his intent was to murder someone that night?

When you arm people who are afraid of things they can't even see this is the results you should expect.

Who armed him? Certainly he acquired the weapon under his own cognitive knowledge with his own money from a willing vendor who ostensibly wasn't privy to his intent maybe?

ame as the Pretorious case, btw, so let's not pretend this is an isolated one time thing we can just ignore.

Well, each case is a case. You can throw out hundreds of cases regarding individual crimes but do you have evidence on the ALL the millions and millions of people who own a lethal weapon for self-defense purposes? I'd assume and hope that you'd need strong evidence if you'd intend to deprive ALL of them of their rights and property with in the USA.

By the way, this guy would have had no particular reason to be afraid of you either, but probably would be

Who can say. Though, I generally don't bang on random doors at night.

O'm a very large human being...the thought that any punk runt can gun me down walking down the street and say 'he was big and he scared me' doesn't make me feel particularly safe.

Are you really afraid of this?

So I personally think gun control to keep guns away from cowardly punk runts would be a good thing,

Feel free to point out such characters if you think they're here. Otherwise, I'd might say you're just straw-manning.

though I can't be bothered working out the mechanism to make such compatible with the second amendment.

Me, neither. though I rarely cite it in any of my own gun ownership arguments.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Who can say. Though, I generally don't bang on random doors at night.

We assume you wouldn't need to. If your car were disabled on the side of the road you could just flag someone down, shoot them, and take their car.

 

[IglooDame]

As soon as a substantial majority of US police departments switch 100% over to smart guns for their officers, I will consider it as a feasible option.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"You just shot an unarmed man."

"He shoulda armed himself...

"... if he's going to decorate his saloon with my friend."

As they say, big if.

 

[Akka]

It's a weapon, it's a tool, it's a right. It is only my business, as well. You pointing it out that it is a weapon doesn't change that on any level. Please, try to defend it.

Captain Obvious : a firearm is, by design, lethal and dangerous. As such, Captain Obvious two, it's not just "a tool" like a spoon is. It's perfectly normal to be subject to additionnal regulation.
Exactly like a car is subject to plenty of special regulations - regardless of it being your property, you can't lend it to your underage nephew to have fun with, and you can't drive it without a licence.

Guns are the great equalizer. They are the triumph of the thinking man over the brute.

This is one of the most insane thing to ever be said.
Being able to kill with a press of a button is not a triumph of the thinking man over the brute, it's a triumph of the brute himself.
Equating "being able to kill easily" with "thinking man against brute" is so broken and twisted I don't know where to even begins.

Guns are "equalizers" only in a madman mindset where people are ready to kill each other. They are just enhancing the lethal power of the "brute" in most case, as said brute is the one the most actually willing to use lethal force.
In other words : guns don't equalize all people. They give the ability to kill easily to whoever use them. In practice, it means it tends more to empower people willing to kill than it empower stable people who just want to go on with their life.
This romanticization of the gun just feels like a creepy fetish.

 

[bhsup]

Actually, you can on your own property. It's just that most folks don't have 50 acres to play around on.

 

[Akka]

Actually, you can on your own property. It's just that most folks don't have 50 acres to play around on.

Well, if you want another more relevant example then, you can't spill poisonous and lethal material on your land.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As soon as a substantial majority of US police departments switch 100% over to smart guns for their officers, I will consider it as a feasible option.

Since the cost would be carried by taxpayers it would not surprise me in the least if this happened...and that is the lucrative market that will drive production high enough to get unit costs down to the point there will be a real choice for the average gun buyer as to whether they want to get this additional safety device on their purchase.

 

[kochman]

Captain Obvious : a firearm is, by design, lethal and dangerous. As such, Captain Obvious two, it's not just "a tool" like a spoon is. It's perfectly normal to be subject to additionnal regulation.
Exactly like a car is subject to plenty of special regulations - regardless of it being your property, you can't lend it to your underage nephew to have fun with, and you can't drive it without a licence.

This is one of the most insane thing to ever be said.
Being able to kill with a press of a button is not a triumph of the thinking man over the brute, it's a triumph of the brute himself.
Equating "being able to kill easily" with "thinking man against brute" is so broken and twisted - I don't know where to even begins (CLEARLY!).

Guns are "equalizers" only in a madman mindset where people are ready to kill each other. They are just enhancing the lethal power of the "brute" in most case, as said brute is the one the most actually willing to use lethal force.
In other words : guns don't equalize all people. They give the ability to kill easily to whoever use them. In practice, it means it tends more to empower people willing to kill than it empower stable people who just want to go on with their life.
This romanticization of the gun just feels like a creepy fetish.

Why are you so rabidly anti-gun?

Anyway, your arguments are so replete with pointless, out of context, emotionally driven dribble I won't even address them directly.

I will address one point... because it is the epitome of not paying attention while foaming over the issue:

Captain Obvious two, it's not just "a tool" like a spoon is. It's perfectly normal to be subject to additionnal regulation.

"Captain Obvious", it is regulated, and no one I know, even us "madmen" who consider our freedom worth more than others self-inflicted emotional instability over the topic, is saying it should be without limit. It would help if to stay within the parameters of the debate, rather than launching into fictitious areas.

One thing you clearly need to be reminded of in...
Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, like car ownership. Therefore legislation/regulation are to be considerate of that fact.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gun ownership is a right, so lets abandon all rational though and hyperbole the hell out of any attempt to discuss any sort of restriction.

Cars >>>>> guns