Another school shooting

[DQ12]

Because those guys never lose it.

When was the last time a police man went on a 10+ person suicide mission while he was on duty?

[Dugout DickStone]

The straw men are taking a beating

[doom]

Because those guys never lose it.

When was the last time a police man went on a 10+ person suicide mission while he was on duty?

They have off duty weapons, and a year or so ago in Omaha a kid killed the principal with his father's off duty gun.

Police men.  The military. 

Because those guys never lose it.

no, they do. but they are the only people that can actually utilize guns for a beneficial purpose. you have to weigh the benefit to society and make the choice that provides the greatest benefit and least detriment.

I see your point, but for me personally, my father was killed in a mass murder suicide by a member of the armed forces who took his weapons from the armory.  I personally want to be able to defend myself.

And are you wanting to ban handguns altogether or just new sales?  How will you get the millions of handguns already out there?  And while I wait for you to collect them, or for them to be weeded out, I and the rest of the citizenry should just be lambs to all the people who don't give them up?  We should hope the police can read the precogs and get there in time?  It all just doesn't seem grounded in reality. 

[DQ12]

The straw men are taking a beating

Some one asked who should have guns.  I answered that the people whose job it is to protect the general public should have guns.  Doesn't seem at all controversial to me.

Because those guys never lose it.

When was the last time a police man went on a 10+ person suicide mission while he was on duty?

They have off duty weapons, and a year or so ago in Omaha a kid killed the principal with his father's off duty gun.

...And are you wanting to ban handguns altogether or just new sales?

Maybe they shouldn't have off duty weapons. 

And I'm advocating for the prohibition of bullets as we know them, and advocate producing bullets that don't immediately kill.

[steve dave]

I see your point, but for me personally, my father was killed in a mass murder suicide by a member of the armed forces who took his weapons from the armory.  I personally want to be able to defend myself.

And are you wanting to ban handguns altogether or just new sales?  How will you get the millions of handguns already out there?  And while I wait for you to collect them, or for them to be weeded out, I and the rest of the citizenry should just be lambs to all the people who don't give them up?  We should hope the police can read the precogs and get there in time?  It all just doesn't seem grounded in reality.

that's awful and I feel really bad for you because nobody should have to have that happen to them. it will be nearly impossible to end all gun violence. there will be those that get access to guns even with the strictest controls. but, just because it would be nearly impossible to end all gun violence doesn't mean we shouldn't do absolutely everything we can to diminish as much gun violence as possible. and I do think banning all handguns outside of military and some police use is the best option. I realize that won't be done soon, but I think it should be the ultimate goal. I would go as far as making it all guns, not just handguns.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

[steve dave]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

yeah, you should probably be on the initial cut list for gun ownership.

[Paul Moscow]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

Never the intent of the second amendment, dumbf*ck

[steve dave]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

I mean, this just has that mass shooting at the capital building feel to it and I think you should probably get some help

[Dugout DickStone]

Yeah, some pud and his glock will stop the gov if they want to suppress them.

[doom]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

I mean, this just has that mass shooting at the capital building feel to it and I think you should probably get some help

I read JohnTMHTD's post as criticizing conspiracy theorists and gun nuts.  Note the word perceived. 

[nicname]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

Never the intent of the second amendment, dumbf*ck

Kind of is actually.  In fact the original intent of the second amendment wasn't only that citizens, individually or collectively, should have the right to be armed, but that their level of armament should allow them a defense equal to that of the government. 

Keep in mind that I do not now, and have never owned a gun.

[doom]

I see your point, but for me personally, my father was killed in a mass murder suicide by a member of the armed forces who took his weapons from the armory.  I personally want to be able to defend myself.

And are you wanting to ban handguns altogether or just new sales?  How will you get the millions of handguns already out there?  And while I wait for you to collect them, or for them to be weeded out, I and the rest of the citizenry should just be lambs to all the people who don't give them up?  We should hope the police can read the precogs and get there in time?  It all just doesn't seem grounded in reality.

that's awful and I feel really bad for you because nobody should have to have that happen to them. it will be nearly impossible to end all gun violence. there will be those that get access to guns even with the strictest controls. but, just because it would be nearly impossible to end all gun violence doesn't mean we shouldn't do absolutely everything we can to diminish as much gun violence as possible. and I do think banning all handguns outside of military and some police use is the best option. I realize that won't be done soon, but I think it should be the ultimate goal. I would go as far as making it all guns, not just handguns.

 

I agree that the ideal is no access to guns, but while everybody else gets one, I want them too.  Because I don't want my wife to live through what my mother had to. 

[doom]

Yeah, some pud and his glock will stop the gov if they want to suppress them.

No, but millions of puds with glocks, and ar-15's theoretically could. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

Never the intent of the second amendment, dumbf*ck

JFC, don't you guys understand what the word "Perceived" means? I didn't say it was correct perception, but this is what you are up against, and it's getting worse.

[steve dave]

I see your point, but for me personally, my father was killed in a mass murder suicide by a member of the armed forces who took his weapons from the armory.  I personally want to be able to defend myself.

And are you wanting to ban handguns altogether or just new sales?  How will you get the millions of handguns already out there?  And while I wait for you to collect them, or for them to be weeded out, I and the rest of the citizenry should just be lambs to all the people who don't give them up?  We should hope the police can read the precogs and get there in time?  It all just doesn't seem grounded in reality.

that's awful and I feel really bad for you because nobody should have to have that happen to them. it will be nearly impossible to end all gun violence. there will be those that get access to guns even with the strictest controls. but, just because it would be nearly impossible to end all gun violence doesn't mean we shouldn't do absolutely everything we can to diminish as much gun violence as possible. and I do think banning all handguns outside of military and some police use is the best option. I realize that won't be done soon, but I think it should be the ultimate goal. I would go as far as making it all guns, not just handguns.

 

I agree that the ideal is no access to guns, but while everybody else gets one, I want them too.  Because I don't want my wife to live through what my mother had to.

the odds of that happening are much higher with everyone having easy access to guns

[p1k3]

we need to ban fertilizer too. Remember that one physco that killed people with a fertilizer bomb? People just can't handle fertilizer any more. Only policemen and the army should have fertilizer

[MakeItRain]

Because those guys never lose it.

When was the last time a police man went on a 10+ person suicide mission while he was on duty?

They have off duty weapons, and a year or so ago in Omaha a kid killed the principal with his father's off duty gun.

Yes, another sound argument for less guns around.  GJ doom!

[Dugout DickStone]

Yeah, some pud and his glock will stop the gov if they want to suppress them.

No, but millions of puds with glocks, and ar-15's theoretically could.

Lol.  No.  You really don't understand what our military is capable of.

[nicname]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

[MakeItRain]

we need to ban fertilizer too. Remember that one physco that killed people with a fertilizer bomb? People just can't handle fertilizer any more. Only policemen and the army should have fertilizer

The problem with this conversation are many are too stupid to have it intelligently.  Not only has this exact talking point been used about 5 times in this thread but it is a talking point completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

There isn't a conversation to be had to outlaw every single way to kill someone, we are talking about gun violence only.  If you can't discuss that shut the eff up.

[MakeItRain]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

[Dugout DickStone]

Go try and buy 1000 lbs of fertilizer.

[nicname]

Doom, am I correct in believing that your rationale for gun ownership is something to the effect of:

Though a gunless world is preferred, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible.  That being the case, it is logical that in a world where guns exist that those who would be most likely to procure them would be individuals or groups with ill-intentions.  As such, it is necessary for others to arm themselves in response to that threat?

This is everyone's rationale for non-sporting gun ownership, there isn't another rationale to be had.  It's astonishing that people don't see the obvious logic flaw.

What is the logic flaw?

[_33]

I hate when people pretend there aren't two sides to an argument.