Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Clinton Huxley]

Sometimes, governments should not accede to the wishes of their electorate. Capital punishment, for example, would be re-introduced into the UK (were it not illegal under EU rules) if the people had their way.

The people are cretins. For example, they read The Daily Mail.

Dammit, if that post had not included a Hate Mail reference, it would have been as incomplete as a one-legged man on a unicycle with a flat tyre.

The Daily Mail is poisonous idiocy in potent and concentrated form

[Kristie]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

I'll check later, but if I'm remembering correctly, the vast majority if Americns want stricter gun regulations. I'm thinking I remember something like 85%.

[FBM]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

I'll check later, but if I'm remembering correctly, the vast majority if Americns want stricter gun regulations. I'm thinking I remember something like 85%.

That's pretty much the number I remember and I'm one of them. I'd like to see all of Obama's proposals get put into action. Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban, though, which far, far fewer support. Seems he wants our gov't to be a tyranny where the guys at the top get to make the rules regardless of what the majority says. As long as the US gov't is still (at least pretending to be) a democracy, the only way majority rule can be overruled is, as far as I know, on issues such as race and human rights that are necessary to protect the minorities.

[Woodbutcher]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

I'll check later, but if I'm remembering correctly, the vast majority if Americns want stricter gun regulations. I'm thinking I remember something like 85%.

That's pretty much the number I remember and I'm one of them. I'd like to see all of Obama's proposals get put into action. Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban, though, which far, far fewer support. Seems he wants our gov't to be a tyranny where the guys at the top get to make the rules regardless of what the majority says. As long as the US gov't is still (at least pretending to be) a democracy, the only way majority rule can be overruled is, as far as I know, on issues such as race and human rights that are necessary to protect the minorities.

Again, I agree with brother FBM. No total ban, ever, but more control.

[Blind groper]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

[Jason]

But you can drive a McLaren with a regular driver's license and it's orders of magnitude more hazardous to other people than, say, a Fiat. Bad analogy is bad.

[Woodbutcher]

But you can drive a McLaren with a regular driver's license and it's orders of magnitude more hazardous to other people than, say, a Fiat. Bad analogy is bad.

So, how many people have McLarens killed? Bet you there are more handguns than McLarens. That example makes no sense. Are you on 'shrooms again?

[Jason]

Handguns have killed not a single person. They are mindless. They cannot kill. You seem to be the one on 'shrooms as your argument is tied up in animism.

[Blind groper]

Fakuname

You are playing with words.
Hand guns have no minds, but their wielders do. And handguns, wielded by assorted nasty bastards, kill far more people than all other firearms put together. During the Viet Nam war, when 55,000 American soldiers died, ordinary citizens back in the USA were being murdered at the rate of 2 to 1 for each soldier killed in Viet Nam, and most by hand guns. Am I the only one smart enough to see that this is wrong?

You can argue semantics all you like. At the end of the day, bullets from hand guns kill far more people than all other firearms put together.

[Kristie]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people. Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA. Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions. To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence. I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun. However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people, and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway. A long gun is far more useful.

And, seeing as how the military is much better armed than regular citizens, I can't imagine any type of gun that is obtainable by a citizen is going to help at all. They would need tanks and missile launchers and Black Hawk helicopters and drones. Assault rifles and handguns would be useless.

[Clinton Huxley]

Those kids in Red Dawn took on the Soviets. It can be done.

[orpheus]

Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban.

Not quite.

I was talking of as close to a total ban on hand guns as is possible.
As I said before, I am not really too concerned about even assault rifles, since they kill very few people.    Hand guns kill 8,000 people each year in the USA.   Therefore, to eliminate, or reduce in number, the hand guns, will achieve far more in terms of saving human lives than attacking any other sector.

Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, as far as I am concerned, as long as they are accompanied by rational precautions.   To get the right to drive a car, you have to pass tests, and get a licence.  I see this same precaution as quite OK for a hunting rifle or shotgun.  However, hand guns are inferior weapons for hunting, kill large numbers of innocent people,  and, if restricted to the police, would mean a hell of a lot of human lives saved.

If any American, like Seth and Gallstones, is so damn paranoid as to think they need guns to fend off a totalitarian government, then hand guns are close to useless anyway.   A long gun is far more useful.

And, seeing as how the military is much better armed than regular citizens, I can't imagine any type of gun that is obtainable by a citizen is going to help at all.  They would need tanks and missile launchers and Black Hawk helicopters and drones.  Assault rifles and handguns would be useless.

This point has been made repeatedly. When I said it over on RatSkep I was met with vague boasting that they wouldn't just be lone individuals facing down the government, but were organized. Wowee!

At one point one of the "cold-dead-hands-club", reaching for an example of citizens successfully fighting off the gov't, pointed to Waco. Maybe they forgot that that one didn't work out so well.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Those kids in Red Dawn took on the Soviets. It can be done.

Downgraded to the North Koreans and Chinese in the new one. America is getting soft.

[Woodbutcher]

Handguns have killed not a single person. They are mindless. They cannot kill. You seem to be the one on 'shrooms as your argument is tied up in animism.

Where the fuck did I say handguns have killed anyone? Do you drift in and out of consciousness regularly, or are you influenced by cosmic rays from alien spaceships? At times you make sense, and then you flip by flirting with GS. That's a recipe for disaster, eh!

[JimC]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

I'll check later, but if I'm remembering correctly, the vast majority if Americns want stricter gun regulations. I'm thinking I remember something like 85%.

That's pretty much the number I remember and I'm one of them. I'd like to see all of Obama's proposals get put into action. Blind groper was talking about a total gun ban, though, which far, far fewer support. Seems he wants our gov't to be a tyranny where the guys at the top get to make the rules regardless of what the majority says. As long as the US gov't is still (at least pretending to be) a democracy, the only way majority rule can be overruled is, as far as I know, on issues such as race and human rights that are necessary to protect the minorities.

BG was only advocating a near-total ban on pistols, not hunting rifles, which would be a much better defence against a tyrannical government than any number of hand-guns...