If they only had a gun...

[MrT]

Over the past week, there have been numerous shootings (unsurprising), but two in particular have stood out because they are a perfect example of liberal gun grabbing policy resulting in death or severe injury. If only these two had a gun, then perhaps all of this might have been avoided.

South Carolina 2-Year-Old Shoots Grandmother in Back With Revolver - NBC News
Deputy shot, killed by suspect at Minn. hospital

Wait...****...my bad. They were hurt specifically because they were armed. Good guys with guns can only do so much, am I right?

And then, sometimes, they do too much.

Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Death Of Husband, Stepdaughter | Liberaland

 

[Lutherf]

OK. I'll play.

What law do you propose that will prevent a 2 year old from finding a gun and using it? What law do you propose that would prevent a criminal from stealing a gun and using it in another crime? Are you suggesting that we disarm the police? Are you suggesting that we allow the cops to make random stops of citizens and check them to insure they aren't doing something stupid?

 

[phattonez]

I thought that gun laws were supposed to prevent this.

Police officer shot during anti-gang operation in east London | UK news | The Guardian

Peckham shooting: Man in hospital with leg wound after gunfire in south London street | Crime | News | London Evening Standard

 

[catch22]

There are benefits to gun control like preventing some shootings and there are benefits to less control like a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy. When either side points out anecdotal, individual examples it does nothing to strengthen their argument. Look at it on a more meta scale then make claims.

 

[Gaius46]

OK. I'll play.

What law do you propose that will prevent a 2 year old from finding a gun and using it? What law do you propose that would prevent a criminal from stealing a gun and using it in another crime? Are you suggesting that we disarm the police? Are you suggesting that we allow the cops to make random stops of citizens and check them to insure they aren't doing something stupid?

I think he might be suggesting the complete confiscation of all firearms except those in the hands of government agents.

 

[TurtleDude]

There are benefits to gun control like preventing some shootings and there are benefits to less control like a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy. When either side points out anecdotal, individual examples it does nothing to strengthen their argument. Look at it on a more meta scale then make claims.

the problem is-most ardent gun banners are not truly motivated about crime control
they thus really aren't going to be persuaded even if the facts demonstrate convincingly that guns owned by honest people stop more crime than is caused by honest people being able to easily own guns

so its pretty worthless to argue public safety is not increased by gun control laws to them

That's why I hit at what really motivates most ardent gun restrictionists-that being harassment of lawful gun owners for political reasons and to pander to the people who are stupid enough to actually believe criminals will obey say "gun free zones" or "magazine restrictions"

 

[Gaius46]

I thought that gun laws were supposed to prevent this.

Police officer shot during anti-gang operation in east London | UK news | The Guardian

Peckham shooting: Man in hospital with leg wound after gunfire in south London street | Crime | News | London Evening Standard

You know what? It's sad. It sucks. So do 30,000 or so are road deaths every year. If your cure is the removal of the individual right to self defense, let alone the Constitutional right, your cure is too excessive.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think he might be suggesting the complete confiscation of all firearms except those in the hands of government agents.

he is on record wanting a complete ban on all private citizens owning handguns
thus, any incremental measure he suggests is designed to achieve that total ban

 

[Gaius46]

he is on record wanting a complete ban on all private citizens owning handguns
thus, any incremental measure he suggests is designed to achieve that total ban

It's an intellectually lazy and childish approach to dealing with a problem. Some small percentage of people who have X do the wrong thing so the solution must be to take X away from everyone. Simply brilliant.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's an intellectually lazy and childish approach to dealing with a problem. Some small percentage of people who have X do the wrong thing so the solution must be to take X away from everyone. Simply brilliant.

well lets think this through

your position is obviously correct if crime control is the real motivation

It is not for the hard core gun haters

if the goal is to disarm honest people, then their scheme makes sense

 

[Lutherf]

I think he might be suggesting the complete confiscation of all firearms except those in the hands of government agents.

If that's his plan he's going to fail there too.

We put people in prison for various crimes. When we do that we take away pretty much all of their rights. We control who they can talk to, when they can leave their cell, what items they can possess, etc, etc. yet every year we STILL have inmates killing each other.

There is no Utopia and especially not when one chooses to force their vision of it on everyone else.

 

[LagerHead]

Over the past week, there have been numerous shootings (unsurprising), but two in particular have stood out because they are a perfect example of liberal gun grabbing policy resulting in death or severe injury. If only these two had a gun, then perhaps all of this might have been avoided.

South Carolina 2-Year-Old Shoots Grandmother in Back With Revolver - NBC News
Deputy shot, killed by suspect at Minn. hospital

Wait...****...my bad. They were hurt specifically because they were armed. Good guys with guns can only do so much, am I right?

And then, sometimes, they do too much.

Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Death Of Husband, Stepdaughter | Liberaland

I watched a documentary last night about an extreme skier/parachutist. He had literally hundreds of successful jumps out of planes, off bridges, antennas, buildings, etc. Then one day the unthinkable happened. While performing a ski/parachute jump he was unable to deploy his parachute. He was not the first to die in a parachuting accident due to a total malfunction.

I also know that almost everyone these days keeps a fire extinguisher in their home, yet homes continue to burn down.

People sometimes die in car accidents even while wearing their seat belt and when their airbags properly deploy.

Using your rationale, we should jump out of airplanes without parachutes because they sometimes fail; we should discard fire extinguishers because homes still burn down; we should drive without seat belts and disable our air bags because people still die.

Or, we could look at the preponderance of evidence and conclude that whatever is most likely to accomplish the greatest good is the wiser course. I know which option I would choose, and I suspect I know what you would do too in all cases except where firearms are involved. Funny how that little piece of metal and plastic causes logic and common sense to just fly out the window, is it not?