My problem with guns has nothing to do with criminals...
Why not, do they not exist in your world? How have you been insulated to be desensitized...so far? Do you not care if the criminal population is diminished?
they will get them regardless.
Made my point for me, thank you. Not only guns, but any tool that will give them advantage.
My problem has to do with the fact that ordinary people will use guns instead of fists to settle ordinary arguments.
So, is it okay for a 6 ft 200 lb. man to choke the life out of a 5 ft 100 lb. Woman (or man) in order to "win" the argument? Physical size and fitness is the standard determining factor in argument winning?
Expecting your opponent to limit the use of force to "fists only" requires that limitation agreement by both parties as well as the assumption that one is not intent on killing the other. I’m rather appalled that you believe the use of violence is a proper way to resolve ANY argument. Once violence is accepted as the means, you’re right though, ANY powerful tool available might be used to "win" the battle, including knowledge of how to crush the windpipe, and starve the brain of blood flow with arterial compression. Or, are you trying to say that only physically large, fit, burley persons should win arguments, and "lessers" should simply know their place when told. Isn’t that how slavery began?
In addition, aren’t our police and military made up of ordinary people? Why haven’t they killed each other off at a greater rate than the general populace? Have they not had arguments within? Do they not have ready access to guns? Are these people born with other than ordinary sensibilities? Does the badge or uniform automatically make them immune from escalated acts of violence? Why does the presence of a gun within these organizations not tip the statistics? Is it simply because they are elite?
A bruise is better then a hole anyday.
This depends solely on hole placement, bruise placement, as well.
A drug crazed advancing man (or two) brandishing a knife (or club) toward my wife, while I sit with my leg in a cast, desperately requires at least one ventilation hole. All of society will benefit from this, I think. Or, do you think that the distribution of our property after our deaths is of better benefit to society?
I suspect you're more likely to be shot by your children or wife then you are by a criminal.
This is a repeated anti-gun saw that is been debunked as false for many, many years. If your wife or children need to shoot you to avoid being beaten by fists, you ARE a criminal and deserving of being shot.
When people get upset they do things that they totally regret the next day or the next minute.....including shooting people...and thats hard to undo.
Agreed. So it would be with any number of heinous acts than can be devised. And, such acts should be punished. But, righteous self-defense or criminal intervention does not need to be undone. In fact, a healthy society benefits greatly.
People who don't own guns will never understand the reason why people are so attached to them, and people who own them will never give them up...as has been illustrated many times on this and other forums so the whole argument is moot.
Not true, I used to be anti-gun and didn’t, wouldn’t, own one. I’m just but one example of a convert who has learned about gun’s true function, value, and benefits to society, as well as the individual. It was quite an eye opener to finally understand the lies, propaganda, and training I had been subjected to for so many years that formed my anti-gun assumptions. But, they simply didn’t stand up to objective analysis. I’m convinced that objective analysis can only lead to a pro gun stance.
Further, there is a group of gun owners who are anti gun because they want guns only for themselves. They know it is an effective, powerful tool and wish not to share that power and use it as they would a bigger fist.
So long as one group is attempting to restrain the other, the argument on gun control is NOT moot. You seek to remove an effective tool for my, and society’s, survival. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Someone can always site a specific example where having a gun was a lifesaver and others where it got the owner killed.
This is so true. But, a preponderance of the facts will lead to the former being more prevalent and of greater benefit to society as a whole.
Having been involved in one robbery at a restaurant..walked in on it...I'm thankful I had no weapon as I would have probably tried to use it and be dead now.
And you didn’t use your fists to settle the argument because…?
A) You don’t care about crime?
B) Their fists were bigger than yours?
C) It wasn’t your job to ensure a crime free society?
D) It wasn’t your money or property that were being threatened?
E) Life and limb wasn’t being threatened?
F) Your life and limb wasn’t being threatened?
G) You were rendered impotent by the criminals?
H) You got a cut of the take afterwards? <-- (Sorry, joke and a cheap shot, I know. Just trying to end with a bit of humor.)
Cheers,
