Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Tero]

It wouldn't matter if the number murdered with handguns every year was 800,000, each and every other individual among the 292 million remaining citizens has a complete and absolute right to keep and bear arms...and USE them in a lawful manner, that is not disparaged or impeached by the malfeasance of the few.
.

Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...

hehehehe hehe hehehehehehehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehe....

You said "800 000 for 8 million"... hehe hehe hehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehehe hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe....

[Seth]

The rights of the individual are not to be infringed based on a statistical analysis of anything. Just because 8000 people misuse handguns in no way impeaches the right of the other 300 million or so to have and use their handguns lawfully.

Damn right they should be, others screw up and your life gets restricted thats how civilization works. We make rules bases on how the most incompetent act not how the most skilled do

I guess Seth didnt get many class detections at school, one kid misbehaves and the entire class is punished by having stay behind. It's an important lessons that he obviously didnt pick up

Also, to use his analogy, you can't legally drive a car until you can prove that you can do so safely.

But driving a car on a public highway is not a fundamental constitutional right. The power to license is the power to destroy, and thus we do not require licenses or permits for exercises of free speech, free religious exercise, or gun ownership.

Aaaand we're back to that amazing finger-pointing trick I mentioned up above.

Seth, it was you who suggested cars as an analogy.

Yes, I did. But don't strain the analogy. The point is not whether or not driving cars is regulated different or not because owning guns is regulated too...heavily and intensely regulated in quite literally every single aspect of gun ownership. The point of the analogy, which was again utterly evaded by BG, is to examine his reasoning and logic in re the notion that just because some small number of people misuse an object resulting in some deaths that this rationally justifies the complete banning of whatever that object is for everyone else. Never yet has BG had the courage to actually address this point. All he does is endlessly repeat his opinion that the death rate from handguns is too high and that therefore they should all be banned. That's his opinion, but it's an ignorant and irrational one I'm afraid, in no small part due to the fact that he's been consistently evading actually addressing any of the numerous rebuttals and critiques I and others have offered in response to his claims. He just blabs out the same tired rhetoric time and time again. It's frankly quite boring.

[Blind groper]

just because some small number of people misuse an object resulting in some deaths that this rationally justifies the complete banning of whatever that object is for everyone else.

It is not, and never has been a small number.

Every year in the USA, 100, 000 people receive a bullet (almost always from a hand gun) through some part of their anatomy. 22, 000 die, and a large fraction of the rest are permanently disabled, including often severe brain damage. In fact, taking into account the average American life span of 79 years, one person in 50 will received such a bullet some time in their lives.

It is only in Seth's weird mode of thinking that this can be considered a small problem.

[Seth]

just because some small number of people misuse an object resulting in some deaths that this rationally justifies the complete banning of whatever that object is for everyone else.

It is not, and never has been a small number.

It is compared to the 300 million people you propose to negatively impact.

Every year in the USA, 100, 000 people receive a bullet (almost always from a hand gun) through some part of their anatomy. 22, 000 die, and a large fraction of the rest are permanently disabled, including often severe brain damage. In fact, taking into account the average American life span of 79 years, one person in 50 will received such a bullet some time in their lives.

It is only in Seth's weird mode of thinking that this can be considered a small problem.

Yada yada, blah, blah, blah. Same tired old evasive pettifoggery and obfuscation. You know damned well you don't have a rebuttal so you just go right on ignoring the real issue.

[Blind groper]

Seth

One person in 50 getting shot is not a small issue. That is a total of more than 7.5 million Americans over the average 79 year lifetime.

To stop people owning those essentially useless (except for murder) things called hand guns is a tiny price to pay to prevent 7.5 million people getting shot.

[Seth]

Seth

One person in 50 getting shot is not a small issue. That is a total of more than 7.5 million Americans over the average 79 year lifetime.

Not relevant. Also a bullshit statistoid. Go do a survey and see if one person in 50 you interview has ever been shot. The answer will be no, because once again you grossly misuse statistics and data. For one thing, certain segments of society are much more likely to be shot multiple times in their lives, which skews your statistoid from the get go. Then there's the issue of whether or not the person shot deserved to be shot, which happens rather a lot too. It's not as simple as adding 1 + 2 and getting 12 as you have.

To stop people owning those essentially useless (except for murder) things called hand guns is a tiny price to pay to prevent 7.5 million people getting shot.

See, instead of actually putting forth a rational argument you engage in fallacious logic and irrationality. YOU may think it's a "tiny price to pay," but WE do not. Therefore your OPINION is noted, and rejected as being both ill-formed, irrational, and irrelevant.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I have not suggested you give up your other weapons. It is just the one kind that does all the damage, that is used to murder 8, 000 people each year, and kill via suicide 12, 000 more and wound the best part of another 80, 000. Hand guns.

Hand guns are nothing to worry about losing, if you are thinking rationally instead of emotionally. They are pretty much useless for anything other than murder or suicide. Even shooting at targets can be done using all sorts of other toys, including air pistols.

I have pointed out, with back up references, that hand guns are counter productive for self defence, since owning one increases, rather than reduces, your chances of being killed.

In short, if you are not responding emotionally, there is no downside to getting rid of hand guns, and there are millions of Americans who will not get shot if those murder tools are removed.

[Jason]

First they came for the slings,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use a slingshot.

Then they came for the airguns,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use an airgun.

Then they came for the crossbows,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use a crossbow.

Then they came for my handgun.

[JimC]

Collector 1337 wrote:

You can enjoy your tyranny and oppression. Fair enough?

Do you know anything at all about NZ?

You know, the place where BG lives?

What utter and absolute bullshit.

Clearly, the world for you ends at the borders of the good ol' USA...

Your posts are like an ad for the Ugly American...

[Clinton Huxley]

Collector 1337 wrote:

You can enjoy your tyranny and oppression. Fair enough?

Do you know anything at all about NZ?

You know, the place where BG lives?

What utter and absolute bullshit.

Clearly, the world for you ends at the borders of the good ol' USA...

Your posts are like an ad for the Ugly American...

Not for nothing has New Zealand been called the "North Korea of the South Pacific", principally by me, just then.

[Blind groper]

What Jim said also applies to Australia, which is a free democracy with excellent human rights. Also Canada, Britain, Germany etc. etc.

The definitive list of human rights is that produced by the United Nations, and that says nothing about bearing arms.

Only in weirdsville is bearing tools for committing murder seen as a human right.

[Clinton Huxley]

Meanwhile in the non-tyrannical USA......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22793851

Mass surveillance, ordered by a secret court. Not much a gun can do about that, except maybe shoot up the telephone exchange.

[MrJonno]

No, it's not, because none of the above are fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights which interference with is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

And obviously that's the source of all that is good and right in the world

[MrJonno]

I am not responsible, nor can I control any of the other students. How is it other students' fault when 1 misbehaves? What absurd rationale are you using to punish the whole class? To punish the entire class is just insane. YOU ARE INSANE

It teaches people that their is a collective responsibility something that will come in useful later in life and obviously a lesson that obviously hasn't been learnt by a few

[MrJonno]

That being said, there is nothing wrong, and much right with making firearms training mandatory in our schools, starting in the first grade and extending through high school graduation in a graduated and age-appropriate manner, culminating in the issuance of a government-owned pistol and rifle and a CCW permit to each successful graduate at their graduation ceremony.

I believe that's how the Hitler Youth was run. Well, I guess by late-war they were just issuing government-owned pistols and rifles to anyone old enough to carry them.

I did rifle shooting at school, it wasn't compulsory but it was that or rugby and rifle shooting was a lot less stressful and to be honest less dangerous. The first thing any tyranny does is put people in uniform and give them as many guns as they can handle, its a boost for the ego