156 replies to this topic

[shakey]

SupportGeek, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:

Back again with your lies and circular logic I see.
You claim he cant predict the future, yet neither can you, despite your claims that he and every other gun owner is going to snap and kill someone.
In fact he is a far better advocate for his future than you ever will be, he controls his actions, I believe him far more than anyone else when it comes to "predicting" his future actions.


Or you could just learn something and take his.


I wont commit to trying to comb through all of his posts, but I don't believe KingCracker or anyone here advocates outright killing someone as a goal in a self defense scenario, in any situation where a firearm is used in self defense, you shoot only with a goal of stopping the threat, nothing more.


From what I can understand the lack of public resistance was from multiple factors, multiple decades of government encroachment and restriction of firearms ownership, and massive government propaganda campaigns in the 70's to late 80'S depicting overly graphic portrayals of gun violence and hyperbole regarding gun ownership. A brief read through your own history shows that for the most part, you have never really had access to anything meaningful, and your right to defend yourself was stripped away a long time ago.
Actually after reading that history of how the British government orchestrated what they did, I can appreciate how you came to your point of view a little better, If I had grown up in the UK and had it hammered in to me for all my life how terrible firearms and defending myself was, I would probably think I was right when I repeated everything the government told me to as well.
Your version of civilized means that bands of thugs are allowed to freely rob, assault, rape and murder whoever they wish with no fear of reprisal...doesnt sound terribly civilized at all.

That is only if the rest of society is a bunch of do nothing ******* who wont help their citizens. When group of thugs with nothing but fist and maybe a knife assault a person, another group of citizens with the exact same defense can come about.
You should really start looking into all the posibilities that can come from something, instead of trying to fear monger your position.

[Richteralan]

Matrix XII, on 07 December 2012 - 21:17, said:

Wow, that is a seriously scary response.

And those kind of people are the kind who likes to own gun(s).

[FlintyV]

SupportGeek, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:

From what I can understand the lack of public resistance was from multiple factors, multiple decades of government encroachment and restriction of firearms ownership, and massive government propaganda campaigns in the 70's to late 80'S depicting overly graphic portrayals of gun violence and hyperbole regarding gun ownership. A brief read through your own history shows that for the most part, you have never really had access to anything meaningful, and your right to defend yourself was stripped away a long time ago.
Actually after reading that history of how the British government orchestrated what they did, I can appreciate how you came to your point of view a little better, If I had grown up in the UK and had it hammered in to me for all my life how terrible firearms and defending myself was, I would probably think I was right when I repeated everything the government told me to as well.
Your version of civilized means that bands of thugs are allowed to freely rob, assault, rape and murder whoever they wish with no fear of reprisal...doesnt sound terribly civilized at all.

Didn't think a person could be so ill-informed but you've proven me wrong.

[Matrix XII]

Richteralan, on 07 December 2012 - 21:29, said:

And those kind of people are the kind who likes to own gun(s).

I know, that's exactly what I've been thinking.

Yikes.

[Charisma]

Richteralan, on 07 December 2012 - 21:29, said:

And those kind of people are the kind who likes to own gun(s).

*facepalm*
Just... no.

[Enron]

TheLegendOfMart, on 07 December 2012 - 13:51, said:

So that justifies letting everyone have a weapon?

What scares me more is you think killing someone is justified in most situations.

Someone breaks in. Kill them.
Someone mugs you. Kill them.
Someone tries to rape you. Kill them.

There are alternatives, rape alarms, pepper spray, etc..

It's a rather cost effective way to remove criminals from society. Or maybe we should live in another world.

Someone breaks in. Serve them cookies and assist them with a cart.
Someone mugs you. Ask them if they'll give you a ride to the hospital.
Someone rapes you. Give them your phone number.

[+littleneutrino]

i honestly believe anyone that shoots someone over an argument other than having the privilege of weapon ownership taken away should be required to seek psychological help.

[Richteralan]

Enron, on 07 December 2012 - 21:32, said:

It's a rather cost effective way to remove criminals from society. Or maybe we should live in another world.

Someone breaks in. Serve them cookies and assist them with a cart.
Someone mugs you. Ask them if they'll give you a ride to the hospital.
Someone rapes you. Give them your phone number.

And
Someone applies for a job. Put them in binders?

Charisma, on 07 December 2012 - 21:30, said:

*facepalm*
Just... no.

Just no what? facepalm what?

[Enron]

Richteralan, on 07 December 2012 - 22:49, said:

And
Someone applies for a job. Put them in binders?

Depends on if the applicant is female.

[Ryan Hoffman]

This guy went to my high school. I don't know him, but a bunch of my friends do.

[Javik]

Enron, on 07 December 2012 - 21:32, said:

It's a rather cost effective way to remove criminals from society. Or maybe we should live in another world.

Someone breaks in. Serve them cookies and assist them with a cart.
Someone mugs you. Ask them if they'll give you a ride to the hospital.
Someone rapes you. Give them your phone number.

Nobody's saying that you have to be nice to them, but the point that's lost on a lot of gun nuts is that just because you can legally take someone's life in that situation doesn't mean you have to. For many gun nuts, extreme violence seems to be seen as a first resort when to any reasonable person it should be a last resort.

[nekkidtruth]

SupportGeek, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:

Back again with your lies and circular logic I see.
You claim he cant predict the future, yet neither can you, despite your claims that he and every other gun owner is going to snap and kill someone.
In fact he is a far better advocate for his future than you ever will be, he controls his actions, I believe him far more than anyone else when it comes to "predicting" his future actions.

I can't decide whether you fail at reading or just have the comprehension skills of a 5 year old. Of course I can't predict the future, I never said I could. The difference between King and I is, I'm aware I can't predict the future and know that anything can happen.

SupportGeek, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:

Or you could just learn something and take his.

Or he could learn something and take mine? Grow up.

SupportGeek, on 07 December 2012 - 20:58, said:

I wont commit to trying to comb through all of his posts, but I don't believe KingCracker or anyone here advocates outright killing someone as a goal in a self defense scenario, in any situation where a firearm is used in self defense, you shoot only with a goal of stopping the threat, nothing more.

I beg to differ. It's actually quite clear that most (not all) gun nuts around here would immediately shoot to kill and have no qualms claiming as such. For a variety of reasons including but not limited to, breaking into their homes, attempting to mug them, attempting to take away their firearms (even if it's agreed by law they are no longer a "right")...the list goes on and on.

Javik, on 08 December 2012 - 00:22, said:

Nobody's saying that you have to be nice to them, but the point that's lost on a lot of gun nuts is that just because you can legally take someone's life in that situation doesn't mean you have to. For many gun nuts, extreme violence seems to be seen as a first resort when to any reasonable person it should be a last resort.

DING DING DING! Thank you for finally stating the obvious. I was waiting for one of the gun nuts to figure it out and maybe actually say "Hey look, this is a last resort for me!" but they never do.

I apparently give them way too much credit!

[KingCracker]

Ding,ding? Let me enlighten you all on why Javik is completely off the mark. First of all Responsible gun owners are taught not to use deadly force unless they absolutely need to. Secondly he triesd to paint us as crazy people thatwill shoot first and ask questions later no matter the situation which is hyperbol at its greatest. He'll point to news stories and he'll call us nuts but the reality is that there are at-least 84,000,000 legal gun owners in the U.S now if we really all nuts and blood thirsty the U.S would make a bad day in iraq look like a picnic. Wouldn't we all be shooting it out on the streets?But that simply doesnt happen. Not to mention states with the fewest gun laws have a lower crime r
rates. Washington DC's crime rate fell after the hand gun ban was lifted. Javiks flawed logic is flawed.

[z0phi3l]

It's idiots like this that makes the lives of us Pro gun types hard, there's no excuse for him shooting his girlfriend, no Castle Doctrine is going to override sense and logic in this situation. I would love to be on the jury to make sure this idiot goes to jail and never is legally able to own a firearm, he's too stupid to own a cap gun, let alone the real thing

[nekkidtruth]

KingCracker, on 08 December 2012 - 01:38, said:

Ding,ding? Let me enlighten you all on why Javik is completely off the mark. First of all Responsible gun owners are taught not to use deadly force unless they absolutely need to. Secondly he triesd to paint us as crazy people thatwill shoot first and ask questions later no matter the situation which is hyperbol at its greatest. He'll point to news stories and he'll call us nuts but the reality is that there are at-least 84,000,000 legal gun owners in the U.S now if we really all nuts and blood thirsty the U.S would make a bad day in iraq look like a picnic. Wouldn't we all be shooting it out on the streets?But that simply doesnt happen. Not to mention states with the fewest gun laws have a lower crime r
rates. Washington DC's crime rate fell after the hand gun ban was lifted. Javiks flawed logic is flawed.

Except that it's not flawed and nothing you said enlightened anyone. You and the others constantly bip off about how you would shoot on sight the second anyone does anything you believe is a threat to you. This "blood thirsty" paintbrush you keep talking about is something you guys have painted yourselves with. No one did it for you. What is enlightening though, is watching you go from spastic "DON'T TOUCH MY GUNS!" to "Let me enlighten you guys..." like someone with bipolar disorder. Sounds to me like you should own a gun...*nod*