Gun politics thread

[LeVeL]

...the incident in France proved you don't need a gun to stop an armed criminal.

I don't even know what to say to you. Because of this one example of three trained soldiers managing to take down a lone gunman (who, by the way, managed to seriously hurt one of the three in the process), you are negating every single example of a criminal performing a violent act. I guess the Charlie Hedbo employees should've stopped the jihadists too, right? What's isn't at all surprising in your argument is that, much like other anti-gunners, you leave no room for disagreement - your opinion must be the correct one and anyone that disagrees is automatically wrong, despite the facts not really being on your side. Congratulations, you've managed to out-dumb the other ignorant antis on this board, and within just a few posts to boot.

 

[Lurch0001]

I don't even know what to say to you. Because of this one example of three trained soldiers managing to take down a lone gunman (who, by the way, managed to seriously hurt one of the three in the process), you are negating every single example of a criminal performing a violent act. I guess the Charlie Hedbo employees should've stopped the jihadists too, right? What's isn't at all surprising in your argument is that, much like other anti-gunners, you leave no room for disagreement - your opinion must be the correct one and anyone that disagrees is automatically wrong, despite the facts not really being on your side. Congratulations, you've managed to out-dumb the other ignorant antis on this board, and within just a few posts to boot.

Did you even read what I wrote? Where did I say that this one example negates every other? I didn't say you would NEVER need a gun. I used the situation to DISPROVE the pro-gun addage that you NEED a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

As for leaving room for disagreement, that comment coming from you is laughable. Any time someone posts some pro-control arguments you immediately attack, belittle and ridicule them as ignorant and stupid, all while falling back on your same old position that any form of gun control is bad.

 

[prizrak]

Gun politics thread

No, they are not. Also: black market.

Which is really my point as far as legality of guns is concerned.

 

[LeVeL]

Did you even read what I wrote? Where did I say that this one example negates every other? I didn't say you would NEVER need a gun. I used the situation to DISPROVE the pro-gun addage that you NEED a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

What exactly does that achieve? I never said that you cannot possibly stop a bad guy if you don't have a gun. Oftentimes having one helps; obviously it won't help 100% of the time. No shit?

As for leaving room for disagreement, that comment coming from you is laughable. Any time someone posts some pro-control arguments you immediately attack, belittle and ridicule them as ignorant and stupid, all while falling back on your same old position that any form of gun control is bad.

Oh please. I must have posted dozens, maybe even hundreds of times, factual data backing up my opinions and refuting the gun control bullshit. This is the kind of response I always get, in a nutshell:

 

[prizrak]

I used the situation to DISPROVE the pro-gun addage that you NEED a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

It doesn't actually, it only shows that if the cards are just right three unarmed soldiers can take out one idiot. Yet any small change in circumstances (say those guys sitting a row or two farther away) would end up with a lot of hurt people.

Btw it's not a pro-gun adage it's something an NRA spokesman said. Gun gives you a fighting chance when faced with someone either armed or physically superior to you with bad intentions. It's not end all be all solution to all the world's problems or a 100% guarantee of never being victimized.*

*That's of course besides the actual reasons for 2A as outlined in the Federalist papers.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Which is really my point as far as legality of guns is concerned.

It is as well one of my main points: with off-record gun sales from one private party to another, there's always going to be a thriving black market. That "heaven forbid" thing from way back, remember?

Heaven forbid that you face some mild inconvenience during the sale of a potentially lethal weapon.

 

[LeVeL]

Btw it's not a pro-gun adage it's something an NRA spokesman said.

But... but... anyone that supports gun rights is an NRA puppet, right? I've gotten called an "NRA spokesman" several times in this thread, despite never referencing the NRA or openly supporting them. Go figure.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Gun gives you a fighting chance when faced with someone either armed or physically superior to you with bad intentions.

...and yet, those men on the train in Belgium overcame the terrorist who was actually already using his gun without having any themselves.

 

[prizrak]

It is as well one of my main points: with off-record gun sales from one private party to another, there's always going to be a thriving black market. That "heaven forbid" thing from way back, remember?

It's more that it's really not feasible to police private sales. Though really black market doesn't arise from private sales of law abiding individuals, if for no other reason than the fact that they are not likely to know where to actually sell them.

- - - Updated - - -

...and yet, those men on the train in Belgium overcame the terrorist who was actually already using his gun without having any themselves.

And how many examples of something like that can you cite really? Think about it this way, what are the odds of an unarmed person taking down an armed assailant? This is really all we are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

But... but... anyone that supports gun rights is an NRA puppet, right? I've gotten called an "NRA spokesman" several times in this thread, despite never referencing the NRA or openly supporting them. Go figure.

We all know your name is Wayne LaPierre!

 

[LeVeL]

Though really black market doesn't arise from private sales of law abiding individuals, if for no other reason than the fact that they are not likely to know where to actually sell them.

What about the gun show loophole?

You know, the one that doesn't actually exist but nevertheless gives the antis sweaty nightmares.

 

[calvinhobbes]

And how many examples of something like that can you cite really? Think about it this way, what are the odds of an unarmed person taking down an armed assailant? This is really all we are talking about.

same argument as yours: It's really not feasible to create statistics for that because attacks that are fought off are not reliably recorded.

 

[prizrak]

same argument as yours: It's really not feasible to create statistics for that because attacks that are fought off are not reliably recorded.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. However we do have statistics telling us how many unarmed people are killed/injured so even there you don't have much of an argument.

And really how do you propose in person private sales are policed?

 

[DanRoM]

Re the Thalys attack: As much as I am opposed to free (as in free speech, not as in free beer) gun-ownership, the fact that two trained, but at the time unarmed professional killers managed to take down an inexperienced guy with a malfunctioning gun this one time is really not suited to be used as an argument in this discussion.

 

[prizrak]

Re the Thalys attack: As much as I am opposed to free (as in free speech, not as in free beer) gun-ownership, the fact that two trained, but at the time unarmed professional killers managed to take down an inexperienced guy with a malfunctioning gun this one time is really not suited to be used as an argument in this discussion.

Please don't call servicemen killers, that ignores a whole lot of what the armed forces do.

 

[calvinhobbes]

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know.

Re the Thalys attack: As much as I am opposed to free (as in free speech, not as in free beer) gun-ownership, the fact that two trained, but at the time unarmed professional killers managed to take down an inexperienced guy with a malfunctioning gun this one time is really not suited to be used as an argument in this discussion.

The radicals' "argument" against gun control is usually that without a gun, they're defenceless against someone who does have one. No further criteria. In that light, it is very much an argument: two (wasn't it three, actually?) people with no guns take down a well-armed would-be terrorist, nobody dies and the perpetrator is available for questioning. That is exactly the kind of scenario which, as we keep getting told, simply does not happen.

 

[prizrak]

Interesting, thanks for letting me know.

So you are saying that a single example of everything going right for the good guys (with special training) can be used as a legitimate argument that unarmed people do fine against armed people? If that is indeed the case I have a bridge in NY to sell you.

The radicals' "argument" against gun control is usually that without a gun, they're defenseless against someone who does have one. further criteria. In that light, it is very much an argument: two (wasn't it three, actually?) people with no guns take down a well-armed would-be terrorist, nobody dies and the perpetrator is available for questioning. That is exactly the kind of scenario which, as we keep getting told, simply does not happen.

You must work in PR, from using the word "radical" from the get go, which completely dismisses any possibility of discussion, and to completely ignoring what I said 10 posts ago (hell it's not even the previous page) https://forums.finalgear.com/political-discussion/gun-politics-thread-56070/page-79/#post2317218.

But lets forget private gun ownership, or us "radicals" or anything else, every single LEO in this country is issued a firearm. It's pretty clear that what you call "radical" thinking is a matter of policy for every single law enforcement agency in US (and many other countries actually).

P.S. I would also suggest you actually look into origins of 2A, including the Federalist Papers, it's really not about self defense from criminals.

 

[DanRoM]

Please don't call servicemen killers, that ignores a whole lot of what the armed forces do.

The purpose of the military is to kill people. That makes every soldier either a killer or an assistant to killers - and even those in an assisting role go through basic training, which makes them trained killers. And please note that I use that term on a purely technical level, that's why I didn't say "murderer" - that would indeed include a moral judgement that I do not make.

 

[calvinhobbes]

So you are saying that a single example of everything going right for the good guys (with special training) can be used as a legitimate argument that unarmed people do fine against armed people?

No. I'm saying that this case disproves once again that not having a gun does not necessarily leave people defenceless.

You must work in PR, from using the word "radical" from the get go, which completely dismisses any possibility of discussion,

There wasn't one to start with. As for "radical", what else are you? You dismiss any suggestion for gun control, call those who support it every name in the book and when asked to provide one or some of your own mysterious ideas for "sensible gun control", you don't. You want your guns, no strings attached, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it - if that's not radical, I don't know what is.

completely ignoring what I said 10 posts ago (hell it's not even the previous page) https://forums.finalgear.com/political-discussion/gun-politics-thread-56070/page-79/#post2317218.

So sorry for not having read that. I really must sit in the naughty chair.

But lets forget private gun ownership, or us "radicals" or anything else, every single LEO in this country is issued a firearm. It's pretty clear that what you call "radical" thinking is a matter of policy for every single law enforcement agency in US (and many other countries actually).

Many German policeman also carry guns and it is the same in lots of countries that control guns. What's your point?

P.S. I would also suggest you actually look into origins of 2A, including the Federalist Papers, it's really not about self defense from criminals.

Yes, it was about defending the nation from invading armies. As such, it is a complete anachronism, which is another one of my points about the Second Amendment.

 

[Cl0ckwork]

No. I'm saying that this case disproves once again that not having a gun does not necessarily leave people defenceless.

Of course not having a gun doesn't necessarily leave you defenseless, all you are arguing is the fact that 3 guys surprised and overcame a different guy. You're argument doesn't disprove anything.

 

[Cl0ckwork]

There wasn't one to start with. As for "radical", what else are you? You dismiss any suggestion for gun control, call those who support it every name in the book and when asked to provide one or some of your own mysterious ideas for "sensible gun control", you don't. You want your guns, no strings attached, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it - if that's not radical, I don't know what is.

What is "sensible gun control" in your eyes? After you explain yours I'd love to explain mine.

And obviously everyone has a different idea of what "sensible" is but we'll get the idea.