I seriously wonder how many of the gun nuts ITT have accidentally blown out parts of their brains, their logic is that bad.

We do with the exception of p2p sales. I am excluding illegally obtained fire arms ldo.

Kiddie porn

CuseRounder, thank you for engaging in reasoned discussion with me instead of simply flaming. I appreciate that.

I agree that there could have been people who were armed and who, like the one we know about, chose to engage only if directly threatened without any choice to run. If I were in that situation, that is the choice I would have made, too. (In fact, I have made that choice in life, twice.) I definitely do not advocate armed citizens taking offensive action unless there's no other option.

Rather poor, which is why I say above that I'm not advocating for people to run toward the shooter and engage. Run away and hide ought to be the first option taken, if available.

My position is that the government should not deprive its citizens of the right to defend themselves, and therefore as long as guns exist, law abiding citizens ought to be able to make the choice of owning a gun if they want to do so. I am not in any way saying or implying that people should shoot back, but I do want them to have that option if it appears to be the best chance they have to live.

For the simple reason that when only one or two are injured or killed before being stopped, the media does not generally report on it, and certainly doesn't report "potential mass murder stopped." Why not, I don't begin to guess.

I agree.


Ignoring the seeming condescension, I'll answer that while I would like to think so, I am competent enough and experienced with weapons to know that (a) my shooting isn't what it once was when I was younger, and, (b) under extreme stress, everyone's shooting degrades. Given this self-knowledge, I would choose (and as noted above, have chosen) to run and hide instead of engaging unless I had no better option. Having been shot at, and having shot back, I know firsthand that a pistol is a close quarters, last ditch, no other option weapon. Even from just a few feet away, I'd rather use a rifle than a pistol if possible. Obviously, in most non-combat situations, this is not possible.

So, yes, I run and hide until that's no longer a viable choice. At that point, I'd want the ability to shoot my attacker rather than being able to do nothing but beg for my life.

I am well aware of these points; another reason why "run and hide" is my choice until forced to do otherwise.

We both know that it is not possible to have perfect safety, or perfect protection, and I'm not asking that we do. All I want is for other people (fellow citizens and my government) to not tell me that I do not have the right to protect myself or my family.

I know better than many -- and certainly better than many who believe the fantasy that if only we got rid of the guns, everything would be okay -- how gunfights work in real life, having experienced them.

Of course not, and it's beneath you to imply such. No one who understands the reality of firearms, and fights involving firearms, wants kids or anyone else unqualified to walk around with one.

Nope, that's not my argument. My argument is that every human being has a right to defend their life, and no other human being has a right to tell them they can't. The choice of how to defend oneself is a very personal choice that should be approached with the gravity it deserves.

I don't know why you think that I don't understand this. To me, it is axiomatic that if you're randomly killing people, you are a mentally unstable bad guy. If we could devise a reliable way to keep such defectives from obtaining firearms without preventing stable citizens from doing so, I'd be for it.

Again, CuseRounder, thank you for civilized exchange rather than the "shouting past each other" that seems to characterize so much of the debate on this issue.

So "no", gotcha

lol

We see this a lot with gun nuts. They are very simple people and they literally do not understand that unlike movies, there are no easy categories of "good guys" and "bad guys". I'd like to imagine I'm a safe driver, but they still made me take a driving test, they still make my register and insure my car.

We don't -- at least on the federal level. Some states require gun registration and maintain a database, but many don't.

http://britishshooting.org.uk/

CuseRounder, I don't think it's that simple. Knives are not banned in the US, but there aren't many mass killings in the US with knives. There are in China, however.

If human beings have proven one thing over and over again, it's that if one person tells another they can't have something, a portion of the population (sometimes a significant portion of the population) will find a way to get it.

Governments ban all sorts of things that their citizenry wants, and usually gets. Narcotics come to mind immediately. Alcohol fell under this category, too, in the US, even rising to the level of a ban voted into the Constitution. That didn't last more than a few years, nor (in my opinion) should it ever have gotten that far.

Why are people so quick to allow other people (via government) to tell them what they can and cannot do, save for those things that are a direct threat to the lives of its citizens and their personal property? Please don't follow up with, "guns are just such a threat" because the gun is an inanimate object; it's the person wielding it that is the threat.

this is my personal favourite of all the pro-gun arguments

How's that working out for you?

Queue that prosecutions are down. You know, because mass murderers who shoot themselves would be deterred by longer sentences.

This is the most tilting argument from these ****ing gun nut morons. Bruce Willis is one them the dick.

What a ridiculous country, I'm just grateful I'm thousands of miles away from it.

Jfc cite this **** please

Cars aren't a threat just the person driving it - car lobby against airbags

Nobody is under the impression that a gun ban would take away guns from everybody, and that there are people who would end up getting them. The impression that we are under is that it would GREATLY reduce the number of deaths by firearm in the country. Do you disagree?

You do realize how inflammatory the phrase "gun nuts" is, don't you? Of course you do, so I can only assume that you are using it purposefully. Why do you think that someone who wishes to defend themselves is "nuts?"

I certainly understand that there are no easy categories. I simply asserted that by definition, you are a bad guy if you intentionally seek to kill another human being who has not proven themselves, through their actions, to warrant such treatment.

Many states require some level of firearms training before issuing a permit to carry a gun in public. I certainly believe that if you are going to use a firearm you ought to know what you are doing.

Automobile registration is required for taxation purposes (registration fees, license plate fees, personal property taxes [in some jurisdictions], etc.) not because the government is making you register the car as a weapon. Insurance is required so that if you cause damage or injure someone with your vehicle, you are able to make restitution.

As a law abiding citizen who does not intentionally harm someone with his car, you comply with these rules. There are many (non-law-abiding) drivers who do not, which is the reason your auto insurance has a component called "uninsured motorist" protection.

I think that everyone who owns a gun ought to carry insurance against accidental injury. I do, and it specifically excludes coverage if I intentionally injure or kill someone.

Your car insurance will still pay off if you intentionally hit someone. I find that strange...

Tigger, why should I believe that you aren't a "defective"? You write like a weirdo, you're way into guns, you say **** like this

You seem like a defective to me.

Here are a few links to info about mass attacks with knives:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/...ailway-attack/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School...010%E2%80%9312)
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/04/a-n...knife-attacks/

I'm not bringing this up to draw attention away from shootings. I raise it to illustrate the notion that banning firearms (which they do very effectively in Communist China) does not stop crazy people from killing and injuring others en masse.

I do not disagree. Where I take issue with it is in the notion that by doing so, the government is essentially saying that the life of the person who manages to evade the ban and/or confiscation is more important than the life of the people who comply.

I'm not comfortable with anyone telling me that my life is not important. It may not be to anyone else but it is to me, and I believe I should be able to defend it.

People with weapons are a direct threat to the lives of citizens and their property, both by accident and design. This is why it should be ridiculously hard to own and use a weapon.

Yes, but it lessens their fatality rate. Alao, knives have a function other than brutal murder,whereas firearms do not.

Got to love 'communist China'. As opposed to the capitalist democratic republic China next door that people always confuse it with.

You are entitled to think what you want.

What does this mean, "You write like a weirdo...?" You mean, I write like the highly educated person that I am?

Making personal attacks is the hallmark of a person who either cannot think logically, cannot write well enough to express clearly what they are thinking, or both.

Ad hominem arguments are how this issue (among many; the problem isn't limited to debates about guns) devolves into a shouting match rather than reasoned, logical argument. I'm interested in understanding points of view other than my own. I am not at all interested in trading insults.

Actually, to refer to the People's Republic of China, and not some of the territories (such as Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China) where the laws, and the approach to the rights of its citizens, are not nearly as draconian as in the People's Republic.

We had to beg, literally, just last month for gun-loving Alabama republicans to fund mental health services at the pathetically inadequate "level funding".

Mental health is used as a scapegoat and a stigma on this issue. I would welcome signs that gun advocates have a serious interest in addressing an adequately funded public mental health system. So far most of what I see, at least locally, is barely the minimum combined with poorly-informed lip service.