Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

First of all, you're full of shit. Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people. That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either. So what difference does that statement make? And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, you're full of shit. Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people. That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either. So what difference does that statement make? And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?

 

[Bumberclyde]

So then you're admitting [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] that you don't give a damn about human life? For you, it's all about control and the ability to dictate to companies what they must do?

Why does it matter to you that "cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures...."? I thought you were so distraught over the loss of human life? And if that's the case, wouldn't any normal, rational adult focus their efforts on stopping what causes more death rather than what causes less death?

Where is the demand to outlaw automobiles? Help me to understand...

Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?

It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

You're assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Fact: More guns equal less crime.

Fact: Violent crime worse in Britain than in US.

Fact: Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list.

 

[kaz]

Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

Strawman and red herring. I didn't say that, in fact I said I am intereted in the techology and it has zero to do with the discussion which is how do you keep guns away from criminals and isn't answered by your snarky and factually wrong statement.

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

Suuurrrreeee they were. That they are "gun free" zones had nothing to do with it. The Washington Navy Yard having guns restricted was just coincidence. I have land in Florida you might be interested in buying. I'll offer you a twofer with the Brooklyn Bridge...

 

[kaz]

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?

It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.

Bad hair day Lonestar? You're not usually such a moron. He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making. He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point. And it did so effectively. And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this. Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings. It was a life lesson for me. When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong. That was the last time I fell for their crap. I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture. And then, they are always wrong. Not usually, always.

 

[kaz]

I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.

I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.


NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control

Following the devastating mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., support for stricter gun control laws is now the highest it's been in a decade and has surged 18 points since the spring of this year, according to a new CBS News poll.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict, according to the poll, conducted Dec. 14 - 16.
Poll: Support for stricter gun control at 10-year high - CBS News
You lose.

Still not hearing your plan that you promised us. So what is it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?

It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.

Bad hair day Lonestar? You're not usually such a moron. He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making. He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point. And it did so effectively. And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this. Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings. It was a life lesson for me. When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong. That was the last time I fell for their crap. I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture. And then, they are always wrong. Not usually, always.

That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO

 

[kaz]

It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.

Bad hair day Lonestar? You're not usually such a moron. He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making. He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point. And it did so effectively. And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this. Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings. It was a life lesson for me. When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong. That was the last time I fell for their crap. I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture. And then, they are always wrong. Not usually, always.

That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO

You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it. If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.

I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point. However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever. You way over reacted to it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Bad hair day Lonestar? You're not usually such a moron. He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making. He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point. And it did so effectively. And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this. Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings. It was a life lesson for me. When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong. That was the last time I fell for their crap. I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture. And then, they are always wrong. Not usually, always.

That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO

You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it. If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.

I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point. However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever. You way over reacted to it.

If you draw it, use it. Hesitation could cost you your life.

You're telling me you would draw your weapon in hopes that it will scare the attacker into submission? Or make him runaway to rob and/or kill another day?

The point he tried to make had no bearing on guns, karate is not comparable to a .45 colt. Regardless of what you think, you do not buy a gun to NOT use it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, you're full of shit. Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people. That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either. So what difference does that statement make? And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Actually...

The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Actually...

The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.

That's not the message I got from it.

I can't think of anyone law abiding or otherwise that wants to get robbed and/or killed either. I do believe if they have a choice they would probably rather kill than be killed.

If I draw my weapon that means I'm in fear for my life thus I will take immediate action, which is to say I will fire until there is no longer a threat. I will not and I do not suggest a person draw their weapon in hopes of scaring away the attacker and give the attacker a chance to draw his weapon or any number of things that he could do while you HOPE you don't have to kill him.

Seriously, if you draw your weapon for the purpose of intimidation or to demotivate the attacker. Just how afraid for your life are you?

 

[Bumberclyde]

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

Strawman and red herring. I didn't say that, in fact I said I am intereted in the techology and it has zero to do with the discussion which is how do you keep guns away from criminals and isn't answered by your snarky and factually wrong statement.

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

Suuurrrreeee they were. That they are "gun free" zones had nothing to do with it. The Washington Navy Yard having guns restricted was just coincidence. I have land in Florida you might be interested in buying. I'll offer you a twofer with the Brooklyn Bridge...

So you're for my fingerprint idea to make guns safer? Cool.

There's no such thing as a gun free zone in the US, someone's going to always have a gun. If you need an armed guard in every school, I say go for it. Use excess troops, one in each school.

 

[RKMBrown]

It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.

Bad hair day Lonestar? You're not usually such a moron. He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making. He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point. And it did so effectively. And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this. Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings. It was a life lesson for me. When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong. That was the last time I fell for their crap. I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture. And then, they are always wrong. Not usually, always.

That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO

You still don't get it. First, my use of a popular folklore was just a vehicle, no different than any other use of language. Everything we read or say is based on experience, shared or not. Would you think better of me if I quoted Shakespeare instead? Or are you saying we should never cite popular examples. lol...

Anyhow... back to you not getting it. Take away every good person's weapons and you will do nothing but embolden criminals, roving gangs of well armed criminals will go home to home taking your stuff and raping your women folk. That's what we are talking about. You appear to have bought weapons just to shoot things.. interesting viewpoint. While I would admit to having bought weapons to hunt, and defend my home. I would not say that the purpose of my guns is to kill criminals. Quite the opposite. This is the type of concept authoritarians never get. They don't appear to have the faculty to understand solutions that do not require the use of force.

Criminals and other predators are usually cowards, if given the choice they will usually avoid injury. Thus pass over the home of the gun nut. Nah, what they will do instead is look for easy prey... you know.. "gun free zones."

 

[Brain357]

Nonsense. In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting. This has been well covered.

It's also irrelevant. You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

First of all, you're full of shit. Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people. That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either. So what difference does that statement make? And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.

None of those things are necessary. You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks? Nobody can be that stupid.

 

[kaz]

That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO

You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it. If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.

I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point. However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever. You way over reacted to it.

If you draw it, use it. Hesitation could cost you your life.

You're telling me you would draw your weapon in hopes that it will scare the attacker into submission? Or make him runaway to rob and/or kill another day?

The point he tried to make had no bearing on guns, karate is not comparable to a .45 colt. Regardless of what you think, you do not buy a gun to NOT use it.

I answered that question. If I draw a gun, I am willing to shoot. The idea that you only draw your gun if you ARE going to shoot is irresponsible and sick.

 

[Brain357]

Nonsense. In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting. This has been well covered.

It's also irrelevant. You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

Defending oneself is not necessary?

Are you really that stupid?

What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?

I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.

My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know. Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening. So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary. Try an alarm system, much more effective.

 

[kaz]

You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.

Actually...

The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.

That's not the message I got from it.

I can't think of anyone law abiding or otherwise that wants to get robbed and/or killed either. I do believe if they have a choice they would probably rather kill than be killed.

If I draw my weapon that means I'm in fear for my life thus I will take immediate action, which is to say I will fire until there is no longer a threat. I will not and I do not suggest a person draw their weapon in hopes of scaring away the attacker and give the attacker a chance to draw his weapon or any number of things that he could do while you HOPE you don't have to kill him.

Seriously, if you draw your weapon for the purpose of intimidation or to demotivate the attacker. Just how afraid for your life are you?

No one is arguing for that. If someone is on your property and you can see their hands, you may pull your gun and tell them to slowly walk away and leave your property and keep their hands in plain site. You are not "intimidating or demotivating them," you are protecting yourself. I seriously doubt you ever took a gun class.

 

[kaz]

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

First of all, you're full of shit. Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people. That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either. So what difference does that statement make? And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.

None of those things are necessary. You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks? Nobody can be that stupid.

Strawman and irrelevant. I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant. So is that the standard you practice in your life? Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can? Oops, is your trash can more important than your car? I hope so, otherwise you won't have one. What a stupid argument.

And you are still evading the question. None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work. How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns? We can't stop teenagers from getting pot. Stop dancing.