- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
It doesn't seem like a major restriction to me. Hunting won't really be effected, and I don't think self defense will either.
more silliness
if we have less than the cops do then we are restricted. and there is no evidence the restrictions will do anything other than set a precedent for further restrictions like NYS
and where do you get off telling people what they need?
You don't need a gun to not be a victim. That's your first mistake. Like I said, our love affair with guns takes on an almost magical element when too many believe the tool is a solution to all problems.
Nonsense. Sounds like you learned a new talking point and can't shake the script. You don't have the same job or responsibility as cops. I'm sorry, but you have not effectively answered my point.
No, but it is the great equalizer in that with a gun an 80+ year old frail woman could stand almost equal chance against even a trained killer.
Next, no, not a solution to all problems, However, guns do serve mainly as a deterrent to crime, mostly the crimes we encounter on the streets, next to deter the crime of invasion, and finally it deters a president from becoming a dictator. Though the main use for the legitimate owner will be either hunting or target practice.
The only thing you can bring up are the exceptions and gang violence.
No, not the same as a cop in that you won't be getting any search warrants for yourself, but if you see a crime in the act you have the capacity to place the person under arrest. (there are precautions though, ex; you can't use any more force than what it takes to subdue the person)
Though, as a society we delegate that responsibility to uniform police.
Your example is also false. She must be able to get the gun out and use it effectively. It is unlikely that she could. As once proved to my brother in law, the advantage I would have knowing I was coming would be too great from him to overcome. Nor do they deter crime as they are largely not known who has and hasn't.
And no, I have brought up the factual statistics. But realize, no one is losing the right to hunt or target practice. No one is even not allowing you to carry a weapon for self defense. Guns have not been universally banned.
Your example is also false. She must be able to get the gun out and use it effectively. It is unlikely that she could.
Still, better odds than if the person was sitting there defenseless, and that's the point...
The deterrence comes from having to weigh the odds that their crime will see resistance... I don't have the stats, but I'm sure that rural texas has a minute fraction of the home invasions as you'll see in Chicago... I live in a heavily armed area, and home invasions are almost unheard of here as well.
The fewer people are armed, the less of a deterrent effect is created.
Now, since obama, the worlds greatest gun salesmen was elected, had made a surge in gun sales, and over that time there's been between 20-40% drop in different crime stats, that's according to FBI stats.
No, this was more like when smokers got pushed into the sealed smoking sections of restaurants.
Next is to push them outside, then down the street and so on....
What like this 71 year old man vs two teens/twentysomethings?
I'm not sure nothing from nothing is better odds. But when you add on the likelihood that she may shoot herself or someone else accidentally, well, not sure if its really worth it.
Nor is it quite like smokers. There is virtually no chance the law will allow guns to be banned.
Ya, I hear that's a problem where guns get angry and get up and shoot their owners.
No, it's exactly like what happened to smokers, the smokers tried to appease the liberals until smoking is barred most everywhere.
Very different situation, but even here, he fires a lot. what is the risk one of those shots could have hit someone not a criminal?
Very different situation, but even here, he fires a lot. what is the risk one of those shots could have hit someone not a criminal?
Bullets shoot in a straight line (true enough at those distances), and he made sure that others were out of his way...
But the issue is not one of safety entirely, but whether there can be limitations. I believe that precedence has already been set. The only question is where the line is.
That's an easy one....
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is your line.
Nonsense. Sounds like you learned a new talking point and can't shake the script. You don't have the same job or responsibility as cops. I'm sorry, but you have not effectively answered my point.
that has nothing to do with what weapons are useful for self defense
your statist spewings to the contraryo
in reality we civilians need MORE than they do
1) we don't choose when a confrontation occurs
2) we don't have back up readily available
3) we aren't planning to be attacked
your constant intellectual dishonesty on this is premised by the argument that
a) honest citizens an be trusted to own 10 round magazines but not 12 round magazines
b) but you can never make a rational argument why any line drawing is rational
either people can be trusted to own guns or not
And you rarely if ever have confrontations requiring deadly force. I always have back up, you should too. And in most cases, I have no obligation to stay. Sorry, you're just off on this.
how many cops do you think do? and when citizens are attacked they can only react
and your moronic claim that a cop's duty means they can be trusted with more dangerous (LOL) weapons shows how little you know about self defense in a civilian environment.
They do a lot more than I do, and anyone I know. I'm sorry TD but I see nothing to back your claim.
The trouble is the courts have looked at both parts. Precedence tells us two things: 1) limitations can be placed. 2) but there are limitations on how far they can go.
LOL, you don't know squat about this. I was a prosecutor for years. I know what cops do-most of them never fire a shot other than at the range
In your opinion then, how far is too far?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?