Women Should Be For Gun Rights

[Rich2018]

All I can say to him is...

I suspect our criteria for "reason" may fundamentally differ

You have repeatedly shown deep flaws in your reasoning.

 

[Daddyo]

Like I said. I know you all lack the guts to own it.

That likely explains why you all need a bang-bang on you to buy a ****ing Big Mac.

I carry while purchasing a big Mac to protect myself and family from the demons you have created via liberalism and allowed to live amongst us!

And you don't know crap about us! The conservatives on this board are twice the men and women as any of you liberals guaranteed!

Take TurtleDude. A constitutionalist! A man willing to educate himself in this countries history. Someone who accepts responsibility for his own safety and welfare and that of his family. Willing to train to insure he is able to do so efficiently and safely. Someone able to think logically and debate free of emotion and peer pressure. IOW the opposite of a liberal!

A true American not a typical liberal ashamed to be called American.

 

[Daddyo]

Did you vote for Obama?

Rucker lol did you need to ask lol?

 

[RF667799]

So it is not the concept of a right to kill that you disagree with. Just the minor and irrelevant point that I used rabbits as an example. By all means pick any animal you like it does not change my point. People buy a gun for a particular purpose. and if the purpose in mind is that of self defense then one would hope that the person has stopped to consider the obvious point that they may just have to kill a person.

Since your example was completely wrong, it could hardly serve as good illustration.

"Just may have to kill.." is not the same as a right to kill. Stating "right to kill" alone is devoid of context.

Anyway, by your argument, someone who takes a class in unarmed self defense also assumes he has a right to kill. So your argument isn't specific to guns.

 

[RF667799]

I carry while purchasing a big Mac to protect myself and family from the demons you have created via liberalism and allowed to live amongst us!

And you don't know crap about us! The conservatives on this board are twice the men and women as any of you liberals guaranteed!

Take TurtleDude. A constitutionalist! A man willing to educate himself in this countries history. Someone who accepts responsibility for his own safety and welfare and that of his family. Willing to train to insure he is able to do so efficiently and safely. Someone able to think logically and debate free of emotion and peer pressure. IOW the opposite of a liberal!

A true American not a typical liberal ashamed to be called American.

I've known many liberals who are staunch supporters of civil rights. Gun rights being among those.

 

[iguanaman]

How are they measuring "benefit"?



Nice of you to post a reference that we can't actually access. What is the true risk increase of death in the home for a law abiding citizen not engaged in criminal activity, who doesn't associate with criminals, doesn't live in a neighborhood plagued by criminal activity, who is not suffering from any mental illnesses, who is trained, experienced, and uses a gun safe to store their firearms? Any number that doesn't reflect this exact case group in meaningless in trying to convince this case group that guns in their homes represent any measurable increase in risk.

How is anyone sure of any of those things in your mythical group? Less than half of gun owners secure their guns when not in use for example. It is far easier to say that statistically guns do not make you any safer and any risk at all is not worth the return. That is the real truth.

National survey finds just 46 percent of gun owners report safely storing all of their firearms. More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns, according to a new survey of 1,444 U.S. gun owners conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2018/survey-more-than-half-of-u-s-gun-owners-do-not-safely-store-their-guns#:~:text=National survey finds just 46,Bloomberg School of Public Health.

 

[RF667799]

How is anyone sure of any of those things in your mythical group? Less than half of gun owners secure their guns when not in use for example. It is far easier to say that statistically guns do not make you any safer and any risk at all is not worth the return. That is the real truth.

National survey finds just 46 percent of gun owners report safely storing all of their firearms. More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns, according to a new survey of 1,444 U.S. gun owners conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2018/survey-more-than-half-of-u-s-gun-owners-do-not-safely-store-their-guns#:~:text=National survey finds just 46,Bloomberg School of Public Health.

It might be easier to say, but that doesn't mean more accurate.

General statistics such as that, don't apply at the individual level. To claim they do is to assume that everyone has the exact same risk.

 

[Rucker61]

How is anyone sure of any of those things in your mythical group? Less than half of gun owners secure their guns when not in use for example.

I'm in the half that does.

It is far easier to say that statistically guns do not make you any safer

Easier to say, sure. Find a study that shows this to be the case for my group.

and any risk at all is not worth the return. That is the real truth.

You must live a very sheltered life - no baths or showers, no furniture in your home, eat only blended foods, and only take the bus for transportation.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm in the half that does.



Easier to say, sure. Find a study that shows this to be the case for my group.



You must live a very sheltered life - no baths or showers, no furniture in your home, eat only blended foods, and only take the bus for transportation.

There is nothing sheltered about my life. But at least I have one less thing to worry about. That is the problem with most gun owners they don't see it as a risk at all. They only see the supposed benefits that are drilled into their heads daily by gun makers through NRA and people like you. It is a shame really. This level of gun violence does not need to be. The bright side I suppose is that the number of homes with guns continues to decline.

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline​

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/

 

[Rucker61]

There is nothing sheltered about my life. But at least I have one less thing to worry about. That is the problem with most gun owners they don't see it as a risk at all.

What is the actual increase in risk to the group I described earlier? When you wrote "any risk at all is not worth the return", does that apply to everything in life?

They only see the supposed benefits that are drilled into their heads daily by gun makers through NRA and people like you.

I'm pretty sure my audience is limited.

It is a shame really. This level of gun violence does not need to be. The bright side I suppose is that the number of homes with guns continues to decline.

This isn't actually the case.

 

[RF667799]

What is the actual increase in risk to the group I described earlier? When you wrote "any risk at all is not worth the return", does that apply to everything in life?

I'm pretty sure my audience is limited.



This isn't actually the case.

It almost sounds like the argument has become that less guns lead to more shootings.

 

[Rich2018]

There is nothing sheltered about my life. But at least I have one less thing to worry about. That is the problem with most gun owners they don't see it as a risk at all. They only see the supposed benefits that are drilled into their heads daily by gun makers through NRA and people like you. It is a shame really. This level of gun violence does not need to be. The bright side I suppose is that the number of homes with guns continues to decline.

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline​

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/

A little good news for us all.

 

[iguanaman]

It almost sounds like the argument has become that less guns lead to more shootings.

I didn't say there are less guns only less homes with guns. The rise in the number of guns comes from fewer gun owners buying more guns. 3% of the population own half the guns in the country.

Nearly Half Of Guns In U.S. Owned By 3 Percent Of Population, Study Finds​

 

[RF667799]

I didn't say there are less guns only less homes with guns. The rise in the number of guns comes from fewer gun owners buying more guns. 3% of the population own half the guns in the country.

Nearly Half Of Guns In U.S. Owned By 3 Percent Of Population, Study Finds​

Wouldn't that equate to less people with access to guns?

 

[Rucker61]

I didn't say there are less guns only less homes with guns. The rise in the number of guns comes from fewer gun owners buying more guns. 3% of the population own half the guns in the country.

Nearly Half Of Guns In U.S. Owned By 3 Percent Of Population, Study Finds​

According to Statista, the gun ownership rate in the US is 42%. That number is within a percentage point of the gun ownership rate for 20 of the last 21 years. It's equal to or higher than the gun ownership rate for 16 of the last 21 years.

Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2023 | Statista

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent.

www.statista.com

 

[Rich2018]

"The number of American households with guns has dropped 19 percentage points from 50 percent in 1977 to 31 percent in 2014 according to the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, which has surveyed about 2,000 Americans on the same set of questions since the early 1970's. "

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline

Half of all guns are concentrated among 3 percent of Americans

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Bum]

.

 

[RF667799]

"The number of American households with guns has dropped 19 percentage points from 50 percent in 1977 to 31 percent in 2014 according to the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, which has surveyed about 2,000 Americans on the same set of questions since the early 1970's. "

Despite mass shootings, number of households owning guns is on the decline

Half of all guns are concentrated among 3 percent of Americans

www.cbsnews.com

So less and less people have guns, yet mass shootings are going up? Am I characterizing the position correctly?

And given that, the solution that will reduce mass shootings is to allow less people to have guns?

Isn't there a rather glaring disconnect in that rationale?

 

[Rich2018]

so what, overall firearms violence is decreasing. Notice the line from your own cite. "SINCE RESEARCHERS began thoroughly tracking the subject following the shooting at Sandy Hook"

there is a political agenda to label more things "mass shootings"

Not that "Christian Evangelist" straw-man again:

"Atheists don't believe in god because they want to sin"
"Atheists believe life evolved from rocks"
"Gun banners want to seize our guns so they can install a socialist dictatorship"

When are you going to shake off your zealot-like fundamentalism and actually listen to the gun control lobby and their arguments ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Not that "Christian Evangelist" straw-man again:

"Atheists don't believe in god because they want to sin"
"Atheists believe life evolved from rocks"
"Gun banners want to seize our guns so they can install a socialist dictatorship"

When are you going to shake off your zealot-like fundamentalism and actually listen to the gun control lobby and their arguments ?

most of your posts contain really silly stuff. this is a real winner. the gun control lobby is among the most dishonest political movements in the country.

 

[Rich2018]

most of your posts contain really silly stuff. this is a real winner. the gun control lobby is among the most dishonest political movements in the country.

Says the man who talks about the "political agenda to label more things "mass shootings"

And the "real reason" the gun control wants to ban guns

And that if guns were banned there'd be a CIVIL WAR!!!
And you talk about "Silly Stuff" ?

 

[TurtleDude]

Says the man who talks about the "political agenda to label more things "mass shootings"

And the "real reason" the gun control wants to ban guns

And that if guns were banned there'd be a CIVIL WAR!!!
And you talk about "Silly Stuff" ?

gun banners realize that constantly talking about inner city gang shooters does not help their jihad against gun rights. most gun murders involve felons (people already banned from owning guns) shooting mostly other felons, in about 5% of the counties-almost all run by Democrats (and living under Democrat gun laws).

so they hype and accentuate stories of "mass shootings" that involve white males without records to argue that since these shooters didn't have records, if only the guns were banned, the mass shooters couldn't have murdered people

 

[soylentgreen]

Since your example was completely wrong, it could hardly serve as good illustration.

"Just may have to kill.." is not the same as a right to kill. Stating "right to kill" alone is devoid of context.

Anyway, by your argument, someone who takes a class in unarmed self defense also assumes he has a right to kill. So your argument isn't specific to guns.

The decision on a right to kill should come at the time a person is deciding to buy a gun for the single purpose of self defense. It's a bit to late to decide whether you have this right when your at the point of using a gun. So that is not out of context just something you had yet to realise.

Where as your "Just may have to kill.." is simply a cop out. And is not true. If a person has bought a gun for the purpose of self defense then they have moved pass the limit of "may have" and on to "will". Otherwise they have just wasted their money buying a gun.

You have forgotten what this thread is about. Any woman or any man has a right to self defense by learning a martial art or just attending a self defense class. The right of self defense is not dependent on the existence of the 2A. Women owe no real allegiance to the 2A unless they choose that line of defense.

 

[Rich2018]

gun banners realize that constantly talking about inner city gang shooters does not help their jihad against gun rights.

"Jihad" huh ?

Gang shootings are just as much of the problem as the Vegas shooter
Why are you so quick to dismiss it - do you think the victims either don't matter or deserved it ?

And in any case fostering such a violent culture in our cities CANNOT by healthy for society as a whole.

...most gun murders involve felons (people already banned from owning guns) shooting mostly other felons, in about 5% of the counties-almost all run by Democrats (and living under Democrat gun laws).

Well democrats tend to be elected in urban areas - which makes sense. They're hardly likely to vote for a party that share similar views to you and doesn't give a damn about them.

...so they hype and accentuate stories of "mass shootings" that involve white males without records to argue that since these shooters didn't have records, if only the guns were banned, the mass shooters couldn't have murdered people

Correct, if guns were banned, we'd see a hell of a lot less mass shootings
Not that you're interested, you wouldn't give up your guns even if doing so eradicated gun crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

The decision on a right to kill should come at the time a person is deciding to buy a gun for the single purpose of self defense. It's a bit to late to decide whether you have this right when your at the point of using a gun. So that is not out of context just something you had yet to realise.

Where as your "Just may have to kill.." is simply a cop out. And is not true. If a person has bought a gun for the purpose of self defense then they have moved pass the limit of "may have" and on to "will". Otherwise they have just wasted their money buying a gun.

You have forgotten what this thread is about. Any woman or any man has a right to self defense by learning a martial art or just attending a self defense class. The right of self defense is not dependent on the existence of the 2A. Women owe no real allegiance to the 2A unless they choose that line of defense.

Right of self defense. there is no right to kill