Gun Laws in America

Options
1…1112141617…19

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    fragileblake wrote:
    statisticly its more likely that they will take it from you and shoot you....
    Just sayin'

    That would be impossible, unless they bring their own ammo. Go back a few pages.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Drinking and guns don't mix. But the logic that everyone in a bar is drunk or even drinking also doesn't mix with reality. Furthermore, bars aren't the only place one can get a drink.

    drinking and driving doesn't mix either. do we ban cars? drunk drivers kill more people than guns. i'm with you FFG; but i'm trying to make a point. a drunk person with a gun is as deadly as a drunk person with a car; or even a knife. breaking it down; a drunk is less likely to hit someone with a gun while imparred. people take outside forces and add them to the gun issue to make their point.
  • fragileblake
    fragileblake Posts: 716
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That would be impossible, unless they bring their own ammo. Go back a few pages.

    ah, sorry.
    But wouldn't you be in trouble if the person had a gun of thier own?
    I'm always freaked out about someone breaking into my place but I always thought that a gun wouldn't make me much safer. When I have my own house I'm going to get a bomb security system
    http://blakepnw.blogspot.com/
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok. Perhaps I'm missing something. If a gun's only purpose is killing, and killing is a crime, what are gun-toting cops who kill people protecting you from again?

    I dont have the time to explain how the world works but I'll try. police have the authority to kill those who poses a threat to themselves or others. they are trained, pledge an oath to serve and protect, and if and when they shoot someone, its always investigating to prove it was justified.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Is killing ok when a cop is doing it?

    no, sometimes its necessary

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Is killing ok so long as you're not being killed? I'm trying to find out where the magic happens when my gun is transferred to the police in your confiscation scheme.

    when you stop assuming I want all guns banned is when we can have an adult conversation
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    drinking and driving doesn't mix either. do we ban cars? drunk drivers kill more people than guns. i'm with you FFG; but i'm trying to make a point. a drunk person with a gun is as deadly as a drunk person with a car; or even a knife. breaking it down; a drunk is less likely to hit someone with a gun while imparred. people take outside forces and add them to the gun issue to make their point.

    I totally agree. I'm not advocating getting drunk and wielding a gun. I'm simply rejecting any scheme that labels a gun owner near liquor a drunken murderer.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    onelongsong wrote:
    drinking and driving doesn't mix either. do we ban cars?

    no you ban someone from driving. just like I would want someone banned from having a gun who has committed a crime. get it?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I totally agree. I'm not advocating getting drunk and wielding a gun. I'm simply rejecting any scheme that labels a gun owner near liquor a drunken murderer.


    no one is. but the chances of getting drunk and having a gun and causing a problem is very high.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    fragileblake wrote:
    ah, sorry.
    But wouldn't you be in trouble if the person had a gun of thier own?

    Depends. If someone's pointing a gun at me, I'm not about to reach for mine, if that's what you're asking.
    I'm always freaked out about someone breaking into my place but I always thought that a gun wouldn't make me much safer. When I have my own house I'm going to get a bomb security system

    Do you mean literal bombs? Because I'd advise against that. But hey, knock yourself out.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no one is. but the chances of getting drunk and having a gun and causing a problem is very high.

    Actually, it's not. It's higher than if you weren't drunk, certainly. But everyday in this country drunken gun-toting idiots still manage to not shoot someone far more often than they do shoot someone.

    Your logic here extends out to the absurd. Any situation wherein you have a higher risk of "causing a problem" could be judged illegal. Why not just ban the liquor?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Actually, it's not. It's higher than if you weren't drunk, certainly. But everyday in this country drunken gun-toting idiots still manage to not shoot someone far more often than they do shoot someone.

    Your logic here extends out to the absurd. Any situation wherein you have a higher risk of "causing a problem" could be judged illegal. Why not just ban the liquor?


    we tried to ban liquor. it didnt work.

    lets see, my logic is simple. guns and being drunk dont mix. you wont convince me otherwise. so dont bother breaking down my sentences
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont have the time to explain how the world works but I'll try. police have the authority to kill those who poses a threat to themselves or others. they are trained, pledge an oath to serve and protect, and if and when they shoot someone, its always investigating to prove it was justified.

    So if I am trained, pledge a similar oath, and any situation wherein I shoot someone is investigated, am I too allowed to carry those guns?
    no, sometimes its necessary

    Now do you understand why people want to own guns for self-defense?
    when you stop assuming I want all guns banned is when we can have an adult conversation

    I'm not assuming you want all guns banned. You've proposed confiscating guns in this thread. And you've basically acknowledged that you're going to use guns to accomplish that confiscation. It just seems conflicting on a lot of levels to me.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we tried to ban liquor. it didnt work.

    No, it didn't. We also tried to ban assault weapons and machine guns. That didn't work either. Noticing a trend?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So if I am trained, pledge a similar oath, and any situation wherein I shoot someone is investigated, am I too allowed to carry those guns?

    no you have to be a police officer. I can stand on the corner and tell everyone im the president. doesnt mean I am


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Now do you understand why people want to own guns for self-defense?

    news flash, far. I never said there should be a ban on ALL guns. certain people like yourself, should be allowed to have a gun because you are so afraid and need defense.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm not assuming you want all guns banned. You've proposed confiscating guns in this thread. And you've basically acknowledged that you're going to use guns to accomplish that confiscation. It just seems conflicting on a lot of levels to me.


    well you think on too many levels. come back down to earth
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    fragileblake wrote:
    statisticly its more likely that they will take it from you and shoot you....
    Just sayin'

    statisticly??? show me the stats. with over 75 million gun owners in the US; show me where those used for protection are taken away and used on the owner. you will find a few; but of those; most will be because the victim hesitated to shoot. if you're not prepared to use a gun; you have no business owning one.

    to FFG: dude; the most dangerous weapon in the world is an unloaded gun (if you're carrying). if we were in a situation and you brandished a gun; i would kill you and the supreme court would back me up. a reasonable person would assume it was loaded; therefore; a reasonable person would assume they were in imminent danger. even if i were trying to rob you; brandishing that firearm puts my life in danger and i can then protect myself. unless i display a weapon; or give you reason to believe you are in imminent danger of bodily harm; you are not allowed to brandish that weapon. robbery isn't life threatening.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    down_ski wrote:
    Guns dont kill people, People kill eachother....

    So you give people guns, which are instruments made for killing, gotcha!
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, it didn't. We also tried to ban assault weapons and machine guns. That didn't work either. Noticing a trend?


    the ban expired. prohibition was repealed. but I'm sure you knew the difference
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Which is it? Can I have a gun without being a cop or can't I?
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no you have to be a police officer. I can stand on the corner and tell everyone im the president. doesnt mean I am
    news flash, far. I never said there should be a ban on ALL guns. certain people like yourself, should be allowed to have a gun because you are so afraid and need defense.


    well you think on too many levels. come back down to earth

    I'm never going to apologize for thinking, if that's what you're asking for.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the ban expired. prohibition was repealed. but I'm sure you knew the difference

    The actions of expiring and repealing have no bearing on the dismal failures of both bans.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    to FFG: dude; the most dangerous weapon in the world is an unloaded gun (if you're carrying). if we were in a situation and you brandished a gun; i would kill you and the supreme court would back me up.

    Yes, they certainly would. But since I'd be dead, I don't really think the Supreme Court's opinion would matter much to me.
    a reasonable person would assume it was loaded; therefore; a reasonable person would assume they were in imminent danger.

    A reasonable person, when given a reasonable choice to leave or face the logical end of their very poor assumption, would be much more likely to choose the former.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    I think it's important that you try to remember no one here is calling for a total ban, ok. Farfromglorified, you think it's necessary to protect yourself so what would be wrong with tougher gun laws? Instead of twisting everyone's words and drawing wrong conclusion why don't you just answer that?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední

Categories