Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[DWise]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

To answer the original quoted post - I will back my original statement. Nobody needs to carry a gun with them for self defense. There are many types of hand-to-hand self defense methods that work at a close range. If it came to a shootout, hell yes give me a gun. As a normal sane citizen though, my first instinct is to get out of the line of fire or even prevent it from coming to a shootout in the first place.

So you're saying it's best if we politely ask someone that is intent on causing trouble to drop his weapon and "let's fight it out"? I'm sure that would go over as well as a lead-balloon. I'll keep my gun(s)... just in case.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

So you're saying it's best if we politely ask someone that is intent on causing trouble to drop his weapon and "let's fight it out"? I'm sure that would go over as well as a lead-balloon. I'll keep my gun(s)... just in case.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying within certain circumstances a person trained in self-defense techniques would and should be able to disarm someone with any form of firearm or weapon at close range. If you're far enough away to get shot and not defend yourself, either you shouldn't have been in that circumstance in the first place, or you have the right to protect yourself with your own gun should you be carrying it.

I didn't think I would have to spell out common sense and a bit of logic and problem solving, but I'm beginning to wonder... As I said in my previous post, there are always hypotheticals and exceptions to any given rule. So can we quit focusing on them?

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

One of the points I failed to clarify myself on, you're completely right. The system is based on the premise of innocence until proven guilt. Violence is random unless you're doing something to attract its attention, which is another point I had tried and failed to make evidently. One of the majour problems I'm attempting to point out, is tied in with your closing statement. Everyone feels like they have cause to believe they need a firearm presently, for those "just in case" scenarios, and it's creating a flood of excess firearms making their ways to uneducated masses where they'll get to "normal" "sane" people who couldn't be approved for a firearm because of a past criminal offense from 20+ years ago, then said "normal, sane" person snaps and it's a vicious circle that keeps repeating itself, and we find ourselves right back where we started.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'd rather go to my grave without ever needing my guns, than because I didn't have them.

We're back into that vicious cycle where I have to admit people do snap, but you have to admit those "snapped" people are put to rest with a lot fewer body bags when there's an armed citizen in the mix vs. waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.

We've also fairly well covered the premise that "normal sane" people don't want to start trouble, but will certainly end it. It's the people who want to start trouble who will find a way regardless of the restrictions placed on "normal sane" people.

How many guys keep a condom handy "Just in case?"

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I didn't think I would have to spell out common sense and a bit of logic and problem solving, but I'm beginning to wonder... As I said in my previous post, there are always hypotheticals and exceptions to any given rule. So can we quit focusing on them?

We could if there weren't so many hypotheticals and exceptions, and if those situations didn't speak so much louder than a bunch of "not going to do a thing to solve the real problem" new regulations.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

We could if there weren't so many hypotheticals and exceptions, and if those situations didn't speak so much louder than a bunch of "not going to do a thing to solve the real problem" new regulations.

Does addressing all of these hypotheticals and exceptions not make anyone else feel like we're back in elementary school however? I remember when I was younger it was always a story, followed up by a half a billion "Yeah but what if..." scenarios that made no sense and only got dumber and dumber and more specific as they went on to try to lay out every single loop hole in every single conceivable possibility? It's just a waste of time and adds nothing to the discussion.

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'd rather go to my grave without ever needing my guns, than because I didn't have them.

We're back into that vicious cycle where I have to admit people do snap, but you have to admit those "snapped" people are put to rest with a lot fewer body bags when there's an armed citizen in the mix vs. waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.

We've also fairly well covered the premise that "normal sane" people don't want to start trouble, but will certainly end it. It's the people who want to start trouble who will find a way regardless of the restrictions placed on "normal sane" people.

How many guys keep a condom handy "Just in case?"

Bolded the first line because it's an expression I've used myself many times over. 'Tis better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Actually, for the sake of discussion I agree with the entirety of the second quote. Haven't kept a handy rubber since the wedding though... My wife knows her place.

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Does addressing all of these hypotheticals and exceptions not make anyone else feel like we're back in elementary school however? I remember when I was younger it was always a story, followed up by a half a billion "Yeah but what if..." scenarios that made no sense and only got dumber and dumber and more specific as they went on to try to lay out every single loop hole in every single conceivable possibility? It's just a waste of time and adds nothing to the discussion.

I guess that's part of my point - there are so many exceptions in this case that there's no point in having the rule. At least not the new rules that are currently being pushed.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

originalassault rifle.jpg

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I guess that's part of my point - there are so many exceptions in this case that there's no point in having the rule. At least not the new rules that are currently being pushed.

It kind of makes sense from that perspective. I can see the valid point behind that argument. Though, is that not why our legal system has established precedence? Every case is different, but from precedence we can determine a reaction appropriate to past events. Why worry about the exceptions now, when it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis based off precedence?

[Shadow1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

In this case, the devil is in the details - the liberals are using the actions of a nut case to push an agenda that will not change any of the factors that contributed to those events. In fact, all evidence shows that instituting their agenda will make matters worse. It's not about guns - it's about control.

I've posted the conditions where I would support new legislation - you've agreed with it... in fact, I haven't seen anybody disagree with it (at least not without disagreeing with the entire 2A)

I guess the entire discussion boils down to it you support this gun control farce that's being hefted upon us as "feel good measures," or if you want to do something to address the real issues behind the violence.

[mjarbar]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19277[/ATTACH]

They do say history repeats itself and unless you learn from it the outcome will be the same!!!

[fixthecopier]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I think Cris Rock came up with a solution years ago... Give everybody a gun, but make the bullets cost $500 each. That way somebody would have to really piss you off to make you waste a bullet.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I think Cris Rock came up with a solution years ago... Give everybody a gun, but make the bullets cost $500 each. That way somebody would have to really piss you off to make you waste a bullet.

A very viable alternative. I thought that was funny when I first heard it, kinda surprised I forgot about it.

Shadow1, I support the control aspect of the gun control, where there is a system in place to prevent any unnecessary accidents and to educate the uneducated. There are a large number of underlying factors behind the acts themselves that do need to be addressed as you stated in closing.

This goes to show there is a happy medium with this that seems to be overlooked. Everyone on either side of the argument seems to be arguing for absolute extremes of either guns for all or guns for none. It's a shame the medium is not being addressed properly.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

They do say history repeats itself and unless you learn from it the outcome will be the same!!!

Exactly!!!

[jose antonio]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Guns are not manufactured and sold with the specific intention of killing (Bambi may take exception to that, but we're talking about humans) but rather guns are intended to protect their owner from other people and things that would do them harm. A car's primary purpose is to transport it's owner, but also of primary importance is the car's ability to protect it's owner from other people and things that could do them harm. Both can be misused. Neither are responsible for the actions of their owner, but an AR-15, or even 1911 .45 will protect its owner better than a .22 derringer - just as a Hummer protects its owner better than one of those little cracker box Smart Cars.

Guns are not manufactured with the intention of killing people, human beings?

To protect from other things?? human beings maybe?, protect in what sense? by killing another human being that is.

If you shoot some body dead to protect your self than you are a killer murderer too.

Police officers are trained to serve and protect, everybody including the criminals themselves.

Police officers are trained to use deadly force as an ultimate resource, are you as a citizen trained for that??

I believe guns should be in the hands of well trained law enforcement personnel only !!

Another thing, a gun in your home ( supposedly to protect you) can be used by a criminal to kill you in your own home.

[HenryT2]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Guns are not manufactured with the intention of killing people, human beings?

To protect from other things?? human beings maybe?, protect in what sense? by killing another human being that is.

If you shoot some body dead to protect your self than you are a killer murderer too.

Police officers are trained to serve and protect, everybody including the criminals themselves.

Police officers are trained to use deadly force as an ultimate resource, are you as a citizen trained for that??

I believe guns should be in the hands of well trained law enforcement personnel only !!

Another thing, a gun in your home ( supposedly to protect you) can be used by a criminal to kill you in your own home.

Guns are not manufactured with the intention of killing people, human beings?
Guns ... In my opinion , Hand Guns ( these are registered, by the way ) are for personal protection ( your family and yourself ) ... Long Guns , such as rifles, shotguns, etc are for P E T A ( NO !!! Not that weird group of movie stars...PETA is actually short for " People Eating Tasty Animals " .

To protect from other things?? human beings maybe?, protect in what sense? by killing another human being that is.
If you shoot some body dead to protect your self than you are a killer murderer too.
Did you ask the family member you just saved from a criminal if they think you needlessly murdered someone?

Police officers are trained to serve and protect, everybody including the criminals themselves.
Police officers are trained to use deadly force as an ultimate resource, are you as a citizen trained for that??
I believe guns should be in the hands of well trained law enforcement personnel only !!
Yes, they are trained to serve and to protect, and you can be trained as well; you can join the military: and/or you can get weaponry training by the same people that train law enforcement personnel; you can also get personal hand to hand combat training from the same people that train law enforcement personnel. And, don't forget that if a criminal threatens you or your family; you are there already...not 'just a phone call away' .

Another thing, a gun in your home ( supposedly to protect you) can be used by a criminal to kill you in your own home.
That is a true statement.
However ; if someone breaks into my home while I am there , they can try to get past me, and if they do get past me and somehow manage to crawl to where my personal weapons are kept, it won't matter very much 'cause by then my other family members will have had time to get their weapons and take care of this criminal.

But, you do not have to complain about my GUNS ... ADD THIS TO YOUR LIST ... I also have baseball bats, sling shots, bows, and cane poles that can be used for personal protection.