Here is a reason to own a gun

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

amazing the differences between the left and the right. the right does not mind if you don't want to own a gun, but if you do, they'll help you pick one out.

the left does not want anyone to own a gun, and will help you pick out your jail cell for having one.

A simplification. Actually I don't give a toss if you want to own A gun or many guns. What I object to is the blatant fallacy that it somehow makes society "safer".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm a material being, and as such, need material things to survive. My home: shelter from the elements, natural as well as human; material thing. Food & water: can't live without them; material things. Means to escape a dangerous situation, whether natural or human related, i.e. a vehicle; material thing.

I rather think the people he was talking about were defending their large televisions and compact disc collections

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

some idiot can't read. the supreme court was all over this in Heller, and is about to write the same words in McDonald. somebody gonna fail that citizenship test for sure.

Firstly, the citizenship test has jack $hit to do with case law relating to gun ownership, much as it might grieve you to learn that.

Secondly is this how you subtly hint that you know what is going on in my life? When it comes down to it, you "macho" men are no different to a knitting circle of blue haired old ladies - mindlessly gabbing about old gossip that you think you heard from someone who told someone else who was told. Perhaps. Allegedly.

Little boys (read: Old men who ought to know better) - grow the ** up!

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

A simplification. Actually I don't give a toss if you want to own A gun or many guns. What I object to is the blatant fallacy that it somehow makes society "safer".

obviously, you do give a toss.

"I have a gun (read: small ####### substitute / inferiority complex) you will respect me!"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Charles, I really don't.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

No Charles, I really don't.

do you really expect anyone to believe that after that post of yours?

[NickD 202]

Never read such nonsense in my life about a little pea shooter. The real issue is having a gun large enough to act as a deterrent, one large enough to blow this earth away at least ten times over.

Most of us had a Soviet missile pointed at our heads for most of our lives, but we had bigger and better missiles as a deterrent and paid dearly for them. One guy having a little pea shooter doesn't make a ####### worth of difference, think about the real world and the one we were born into.

I don't want a gun either, I want a nuclear force capable of blowing the world away at least a hundred times over, that will assure peace. And this is more important than letting our infrastructure going to hell as well as fighting a war for freedom for a country that doesn't want it.

[digime 1]

That situation calls for an AR or an AK. My .40 Cal just wouldn't cut it!

[_Simpson_ 250]

No Charles, I really don't.

Wheres the Bullshite button when you need it. You are fooling no one.

[Peikko 1,575]

All I have seen so far is arguments as to how and why the rule of law works better than individual vigilantes in maintaining order in society. As soon as that breaks down there is chaos and the more guns there are available, the more chaotic it is which really is no great argument for the idea that owning a gun and being 'personally responsible' for ones own safety works. What works is having a society that is comfortable with its law enforcement and maintaining that is the key to security.

[_Simpson_ 250]

All I have seen so far is arguments as to how and why the rule of law works better than individual vigilantes in maintaining order in society. As soon as that breaks down there is chaos and the more guns there are available, the more chaotic it is which really is no great argument for the idea that owning a gun and being 'personally responsible' for ones own safety works. What works is having a society that is comfortable with its law enforcement and maintaining that is the key to security.

Why do you assume it would be more chaotic?

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not assuming anything, when people go around looting and breaking the law to solve immediate problems the rule of law has broken down - no matter what the justification. In these instances the problem is not that people are or are not armed, but that there is no procedure in place to provide citizens with basic necessities while the devastation to homes and other structures is cleared up and put right.

Oh, and more chaotic because the more guns there are, the more likely people are to be injured and killed, it's simple math.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'm not assuming anything, when people go around looting and breaking the law to solve immediate problems the rule of law has broken down - no matter what the justification. In these instances the problem is not that people are or are not armed, but that there is no procedure in place to provide citizens with basic necessities while the devastation to homes and other structures is cleared up and put right.

Oh, and more chaotic because the more guns there are, the more likely people are to be injured and killed, it's simple math.

You have pretty much brushed aside the fact that guns can be a deterrent, it worked for this man in this story.

Oh, and more chaotic because the more guns there are, the more likely people are to be injured and killed, it's simple math.

What about the people who die because they didnt have a gun to protect them? Guns dont just kill, they also save lives. Guns in the hands of the right people in a chaotic situation like this is a good thing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

amazing the differences between the left and the right. the right does not mind if you don't want to own a gun, but if you do, they'll help you pick one out.

the left does not want anyone to own a gun, and will help you pick out your jail cell for having one.

That's not true. Maybe a small minority of Lefties, but the Right also has its share of idiots.

[Peikko 1,575]

You have pretty much brushed aside the fact that guns can be a deterrent, it worked for this man in this story.

What about the people who die because they didnt have a gun to protect them? Guns dont just kill, they also save lives. Guns in the hands of the right people in a chaotic situation like this is a good thing.

First off, we don't know that having the gun was the reason why he has not been attacked all we know is that he 'feels' as if this is true. What we do not have is any statistical data to back this up. Are all the unarmed but law abiding citizens being attacked, are they all injured and dead? Are all the looters really interested in attacking the law abiding citizens or are they in fact more interested in attacking property that is not occupied by anyone? None of these questions is addressed or answered in the article, we don't know, we are just left to assume that that might be the case which is not a good basis to make any kind of statement of fact.

What one can be sure that if there are guns, they are not going to somehow magically all be in the hands of the 'right people' and the more guns there are, the less likely they are to all be in the hands of the 'right' people. The fact is that if there are very few guns around, less people will be attacked and injured than if there are more guns, that's statistical probability. What you and the people like you seem to think is that if there are guns, they are more likely to be used by the good guys in an unstable situation, or somehow that the good guys will outgun the bad guys. I don't see how that makes any kind of sense at all.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Madame Cleo