Can we please stop the 'good guy with a gun fallacy'?

[Moon]

You know where they have the most guns? Battlefields. No thank you we don't want to turn the country into a giant battlefield.

You want self defense? No one needs anything more than a small revolver for that.

What are your qualifications for determining what others need in regards to self defense?

 

[Lursa]

What are your qualifications for determining what others need in regards to self defense?

I ask that all the time. And how would they feel if strangers determined their needs and restricted or took away some of their choices? The strangers dont pay the consequences.

 

[ataraxia]

I ask that all the time. And how would they feel if strangers determined their needs and restricted or took away some of their choices? The strangers dont pay the consequences.

Strangers determine your needs all the time: from what kind of cars you can drive which are considered street legal, to how much you can drink before you drive. Balancing your needs with public safety: It’s called living in a civil society.

 

[zsu2357]

No one is obligated to use their firearm to protect others,

Even if it's just to hold someone for police, it happens.

not even cops.

Unfortunately you are correct. However they are obligated to draw lines good.

People can choose to help others, put themselves at risk,
any time they want and that is up to them.

When you start carrying that's the risk. Protect yourself and family sure, but how about the other family that by simply turning and going the the other direction you may put in harms way? Okay for example going out the backdoor letting them/him do his thing and leave and go elsewhere.

It really doesnt even have anything to do with guns IMO.

Ah don't follow.

Nah.

Christmas list?

 

[zsu2357]

These days you have about as much chance being helped by a "good guy with a gun" as winning the lottery. It may happen, but odds are you are dead. Just ask the families of all those kids in Uvalde. A whole mess of "good guys with guns," but they waited for a few kids to literally be dismembered by being shot up close by a lunatic.

Yeah. "A whole mess of good guys with guns" sitting on their hands doing nothing. Still say they should have give their weapons and equipment to the citizens that wanted them.

 

[zsu2357]

Parents tried to get in, police detained them. Try harder.

Score 1 for parents and 0 for police. Well until it was over.

 

[zsu2357]

It is likely the driver would be insured-lessening the financial damage caused and/or would face restrictions on his use of the next vehicle. I wish gun owners followed the same model.

Sure his insurance is going too go way up (assuming) if it's his fault but will he be denied his privilege to drive I doubt it. Let that happen with a firearm and you're probably ****ed.

 

[zsu2357]

Tell yourself whatever you want, the parents detained were not armed. Get better.

And they were pissed and wanted the cops guns to go in. And would've.

 

[Lursa]

Strangers determine your needs all the time: from what kind of cars you can drive which are considered street legal, to how much you can drink before you drive. Balancing your needs with public safety: It’s called living in a civil society.

And yet, no one denies you use or ownership of what you need, do they? And drinking and driving is about self-induced reduced mental capacity, it's not comparable.

Tell me...why are the individual lives of gun owners and their families of less value than those of non-gun owners/families?

And for that 'public safety?' 2/3 of them CHOOSE to end their lives. I agree it's sad but can you tell me why those not that sick or not that selfish should be punished for their choice?

 

[zsu2357]

Your worse post ever.

Pretty damned good post.

Hey we don't agree on much but I know you are a good man.

And do you know what's ironic? Since Daddyo probably doesn't know you from shit he would probably save your ass. Then maybe kick his own afterwards, but I doubt it.

But this post is positively convoluted.

Convoluted because you don't like it.

 

[ataraxia]

And yet, no one denies you use or ownership of what you need, do they? And drinking and driving is about self-induced reduced mental capacity, it's not comparable.

Sure we do.

Tell me...why are the individual lives of gun owners and their families of less value than those of non-gun owners/families?

What, so you want a Howitzer and attack helicopters for self-protection too, otherwise your life is in danger?

And for that 'public safety?' 2/3 of them CHOOSE to end their lives. I agree it's sad but can you tell me why those not that sick or not that selfish should be punished for their choice?

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Lursa]

Sure we do.

Examples and sources?

What, so you want a Howitzer and attack helicopters for self-protection too, otherwise your life is in danger?

Hyperbole...so you have no further rational arguments? You did not refute mine, you resorted to hyperbole

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

www.scientificamerican.com

So does self-defense with firearms. Why did you avoid directly answering my questions?

 

[ataraxia]

Examples and sources?

I get denied buying my own chemical weapons and nuclear arms. How do people think they can dictate what I need to defend myself? Maybe that's what I need.

Hyperbole...so you have no further rational arguments? You did not refute mine, you resorted to hyperbole

You know what's hyperbole? Telling everyone you need assault weapons for personal defense.

So does self-defense with firearms. Why did you avoid directly answering my questions?

I did. Lack of any regulation on potentially hazardous tools is never a good idea. Firearms are no exception. You want self-defense? Get yourself a revolver. Anything more than that, and it doesn't matter if it's an assault weapon or chemical weapons or nuclear arms.

 

[RF667799]

Sure we do.



What, so you want a Howitzer and attack helicopters for self-protection too, otherwise your life is in danger?

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

www.scientificamerican.com

How about for hunting? I bet they aren't using revolvers.

• Helicopter Hog Hunt & Safety Course​

• Upgrades – shoot full-auto from the helicopter​

• Video Service – record the helicopter hog hunt​

• Night Vision and Thermal Guided Ground Hog Hunt​

http://www.helibacon.com/book-a-trip/

 

[Lursa]

I get denied buying my own chemical weapons and nuclear arms. How do people think they can dictate what I need to defend myself? Maybe that's what I need.

Are you? You can create any you want. And if you have to go as far as nukes for debate, you've already failed. All you are doing is avoiding the debate.

You know what's hyperbole? Telling everyone you need assault weapons for personal defense.

I didnt 'tell anyone that,' but again...you didnt refute a single thing there.

I did. Lack of any regulation on potentially hazardous tools is never a good idea. Firearms are no exception. You want self-defense? Get yourself a revolver. Anything more than that, and it doesn't matter if it's an assault weapon or chemical weapons or nuclear arms.

Of course guns are potentially dangerous. So are hammers, cars, knives, jetskis, etc etc etc. Guns are regulated.

It's hard to imagine you avoiding direct argument harder than you just did. What an empty, cowardly post from you.

 

[RF667799]

Are you? You can create any you want. And if you have to go as far as nukes for debate, you've already failed. All you are doing is avoiding the debate.



I didnt 'tell anyone that,' but again...you didnt refute a single thing there.



Of course guns are potentially dangerous. So are hammers, cars, knives, jetskis, etc etc etc. Guns are regulated.

It's hard to imagine you avoiding direct argument harder than you just did. What an empty, cowardly post from you.

I lost track of how many times that poster has claimed or implied that guns are unregulated. He knows it isn't true.

 

[Lursa]

Even if it's just to hold someone for police, it happens.

That makes no sense. I said they're not obligated. If they choose to do so, that's different.

Unfortunately you are correct. However they are obligated to draw lines good.

I dont know what that means or how it's relevant to what I wrote.

When you start carrying that's the risk. Protect yourself and family sure, but how about the other family that by simply turning and going the the other direction you may put in harms way?

How is my retreat putting anyone else in danger? Esp. since I said I'd help anyone else that wanted to go with me? Explain.

Okay for example going out the backdoor letting them/him do his thing and leave and go elsewhere.

Oh well. Again, I am not obligated to stop 'them/him.' (attacker) And I'm not stopping anyone else retreating.

Ah don't follow.

Choosing to help others in a time of emergency has nothing to do with firearms. You can do so with or without having one, as can others.

Christmas list?

 

[ataraxia]

How about for hunting? I bet they aren't using revolvers.

• Helicopter Hog Hunt & Safety Course​

• Upgrades – shoot full-auto from the helicopter​

• Video Service – record the helicopter hog hunt​

• Night Vision and Thermal Guided Ground Hog Hunt​

http://www.helibacon.com/book-a-trip/

So get yourself a hunting license.

 

[ataraxia]

I lost track of how many times that poster has claimed or implied that guns are unregulated. He knows it isn't true.

Straw man. I have never claimed they are not regulated. It’s not regulated enough.

The consequences speak for themselves.

 

[ataraxia]

Are you? You can create any you want. And if you have to go as far as nukes for debate, you've already failed. All you are doing is avoiding the debate.



I didnt 'tell anyone that,' but again...you didnt refute a single thing there.



Of course guns are potentially dangerous. So are hammers, cars, knives, jetskis, etc etc etc. Guns are regulated.

It's hard to imagine you avoiding direct argument harder than you just did. What an empty, cowardly post from you.

Not regulated enough, obviously.

 

[RF667799]

So get yourself a hunting license.

I have a hunting license. What's the relevance?

 

[ataraxia]

I have a hunting license. What's the relevance?

With a proper license, you can have your AR15. I am OK with that.

 

[RF667799]

Straw man. I have never claimed they are not regulated. It’s not regulated enough.

The consequences speak for themselves.

Who wrote this:
Lack of any regulation on potentially hazardous tools is never a good idea. Firearms are no exception.

 

[ataraxia]

Who wrote this:
Lack of any regulation on potentially hazardous tools is never a good idea. Firearms are no exception.

Thats not what I say. That’s what most gun advocates want. Just ask them.

 

[RF667799]

With a proper license, you can have your AR15. I am OK with that.

Yeah? A license that doesn't have anything to do with an AR15, and is obtainable simply by paying a nominal fee and signing my name is good enough?

Damn. I had to do way more than that to buy my AR.