The case against guns

[Kristie]

Neither, because I do not, and never will own a hand gun. However, in that situation, I would tackle the asshole and try my best to clear the threat. If I die, I die. Accepting that risk is called courage. Having a gun instead is called cowardice.

It's a hypothetical which you try to evade. It's not about whether you die, it's about whether your wife and daughter die horrible deaths while you ignore an effective tool that could save their lives.

And I say you're lying. I've encountered many people who claim to be "pacifists" but every single one of them has a limit where their pacifism ends, usually at a deadly threat to their wife or children. Most of them are like you when they are trying to defend their position on the web...they lie about their true feelings, or they simply don't think carefully about the scenario and make knee-jerk responses that try to save their egos and their arguments but which do not reflect what they would truly do in such a situation.

I'm confident in saying that if such a thing happened, you would use ANY object at hand that was useful as a deadly weapons, from a table lamp to a cricket bat to a kitchen knife...to a readily available firearm...to protect your loved ones. Not doing so would be cowardice of the highest order.

You should watch the original "Straw Dogs" with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George for an interesting look into what actual human beings will do in order to survive and protect their families.

You just don't want to admit that you would use the handgun because it makes your anti-gun diatribes hypocritical in the extreme. Like most hoplophobes, the gun debate is academic. It's dry statistics viewed from ten thousand miles away.

For people like me, it's not in the least bit academic, it's very real and having witnessed the glistening, jelly-like congealed blood from the victims of violent crime covering the floor and the waxy white skin and dull eyes of the dead, people like me have greater moral authority to judge your arguments than those who have never suffered a violent criminal attack or had to deal with the aftermath hands-on.

Anyone who would NOT use maximum lethal force to end the life of an attacker in the situation as presented is the coward in this debate.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, nor will you listen to those who do.

But you have him a hypothetical dituation that he would never find himself in. He, and I, would never own a gun. So, a gun just sitting on the table would never happen. If that situation were to occur and a gun magically appeared in front of me, I would probably shoot the fucker. But, magic is fake, so tackling the dude is a whole lot more likely.

[MrJonno]

One dead rapist justifies everyone being armed in lawful self-defense

Nothing that benefits you personal justifies anything, society does not revolve around you. If 10000 lives are saved at the cost of yours, tough shit.
Society has already decided on that a long time ago, at its very basic it justifies conscription

[Seth]

Neither, because I do not, and never will own a hand gun. However, in that situation, I would tackle the asshole and try my best to clear the threat. If I die, I die. Accepting that risk is called courage. Having a gun instead is called cowardice.

It's a hypothetical which you try to evade. It's not about whether you die, it's about whether your wife and daughter die horrible deaths while you ignore an effective tool that could save their lives.

And I say you're lying. I've encountered many people who claim to be "pacifists" but every single one of them has a limit where their pacifism ends, usually at a deadly threat to their wife or children. Most of them are like you when they are trying to defend their position on the web...they lie about their true feelings, or they simply don't think carefully about the scenario and make knee-jerk responses that try to save their egos and their arguments but which do not reflect what they would truly do in such a situation.

I'm confident in saying that if such a thing happened, you would use ANY object at hand that was useful as a deadly weapons, from a table lamp to a cricket bat to a kitchen knife...to a readily available firearm...to protect your loved ones. Not doing so would be cowardice of the highest order.

You should watch the original "Straw Dogs" with Dustin Hoffman and Susan George for an interesting look into what actual human beings will do in order to survive and protect their families.

You just don't want to admit that you would use the handgun because it makes your anti-gun diatribes hypocritical in the extreme. Like most hoplophobes, the gun debate is academic. It's dry statistics viewed from ten thousand miles away.

For people like me, it's not in the least bit academic, it's very real and having witnessed the glistening, jelly-like congealed blood from the victims of violent crime covering the floor and the waxy white skin and dull eyes of the dead, people like me have greater moral authority to judge your arguments than those who have never suffered a violent criminal attack or had to deal with the aftermath hands-on.

Anyone who would NOT use maximum lethal force to end the life of an attacker in the situation as presented is the coward in this debate.

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, nor will you listen to those who do.

But you have him a hypothetical dituation that he would never find himself in. He, and I, would never own a gun. So, a gun just sitting on the table would never happen. If that situation were to occur and a gun magically appeared in front of me, I would probably shoot the fucker. But, magic is fake, so tackling the dude is a whole lot more likely.

Make it a knife, or a baseball bat then. The core question is whether or not you would use deadly physical force in defense of your loved ones. I've not met one single person who would not. And if you are willing to use deadly force in defense of your loved ones, then there is no reason why you should not use the most effective weapon available to apply that force so that the attack is ended as quickly as possible and with as little harm to innocents as possible.

Again, IF you found yourself in that situation (let's say you were visiting someone's house and the gun was on the coffee table), would you pick up the gun and use it or would you say "My moral stance on handguns is such that I'm willing to sacrifice the lives of my spouse and daughter in order to remain ethically consistent with my arguments on an obscure and worthless discussion board" and watch your daughter be raped and murdered?

Answer the fucking question and quit trying to evade it with pettifoggery and obfuscation.

[Seth]

One dead rapist justifies everyone being armed in lawful self-defense

Nothing that benefits you personal justifies anything, society does not revolve around you. If 10000 lives are saved at the cost of yours, tough shit.

That's why we don't put shitheads in charge around here.

Society has already decided on that a long time ago, at its very basic it justifies conscription

Excluded middle fallacy. We're not talking about the extremes, we're talking about ordinary everyday situations faced by people in daily life.

And just because society does not "revolve" around the individual doesn't mean that society can morally or ethically do whatever it wants to the individual in the interests of the collective...except in Marxism.

[Jason]

Case against guns: I'm fucking blitzed.. I fired 8 shots off. Suck on that.

[Collector1337]

Having a gun instead is called cowardice.

So, are cops, bodyguards, service members, etc. cowards then too?

What about women who carry to defend themselves? Also cowards?

[aspire1670]

One dead rapist justifies everyone being armed in lawful self-defense

Nothing that benefits you personal justifies anything, society does not revolve around you. If 10000 lives are saved at the cost of yours, tough shit.

That's why we don't put shitheads in charge around here.

Ah, the tragedy of the excluded Seth.

[aspire1670]

And just because society does not "revolve" around the individual doesn't mean that society can morally or ethically do whatever it wants to the individual in the interests of the collective...except in Marxism USA/Guantanamo.

Poor Seth, every time he sees one of his feet he has to shoot a hole in it.

[Gallstones]

And just because society does not "revolve" around the individual doesn't mean that society can morally or ethically do whatever it wants to the individual in the interests of the collective...except in Marxism USA/Guantanamo.

Poor Seth, every time he sees one of his feet he has to shoot a hole in it.

FFS, you are tired, old, predictable, uninspired, uncreative, stale, tiresome, pathetic, pitiful (if I gave a shit, which I don't) and a cure for insomnia.
Fucking-A you are lame.
A slime mold is more intriguing than you.

None of us get much life--get some; off line. Holy crap you are a retard.
Fucking snore.
Get it?



Oh, and when you post your reply, just insert this in response: Blah, blah, blah fucking worthless blah.

[aspire1670]

And just because society does not "revolve" around the individual doesn't mean that society can morally or ethically do whatever it wants to the individual in the interests of the collective...except in Marxism USA/Guantanamo.

Poor Seth, every time he sees one of his feet he has to shoot a hole in it.

FFS, you are tired, old, predictable, uninspired, uncreative, stale, tiresome, pathetic, pitiful (if I gave a shit, which I don't) and a cure for insomnia.
Fucking-A you are lame.
A slime mold is more intriguing than you.

None of us get much life--get some; off line. Holy crap you are a retard.
Fucking snore.
Get it?



Oh, and when you post your reply, just insert this in response: Blah, blah, blah fucking worthless blah.

Thank you for taking time out from your life to reply to my post, Gallstones; you are to be applauded for being the gift that keeps on giving. I think you're being overly hard on yourself by describing your post as 'blah, blah, blah fucking worthless blah. But I guess you're best placed to know how many blahs your contribution contains. I also thank you for demonstrating your superior knowledge of poor impulse control, slime moulds and irony. Toodle pip.

[Hermit]

If you were a pretty girl, leaving your door unlocked would be an invitation to rape.

Why stop there, Seth? Logically speaking, even girls who dress up to look pretty invite being raped. It's much safer for them to be garbed with a burqa, and never venture into public view unless accompanied by a husband, father or brother.

What a wonderful world yours is.

[FBM]

FFS, you are tired, old, predictable, uninspired, uncreative, stale, tiresome, pathetic, pitiful (if I gave a shit, which I don't) and a cure for insomnia.
Fucking-A you are lame.
A slime mold is more intriguing than you.

None of us get much life--get some; off line. Holy crap you are a retard.
Fucking snore.
Get it?



Oh, and when you post your reply, just insert this in response: Blah, blah, blah fucking worthless blah.

Gallstones, staff would like to remind you that the above post contains a personal attack on another member and thereby contravenes the Rulez. Please take care to attack ideas rather than individuals. Thank you.

[Seth]

If you were a pretty girl, leaving your door unlocked would be an invitation to rape.

Why stop there, Seth? Logically speaking, even girls who dress up to look pretty invite being raped. It's much safer for them to be garbed with a burqa, and never venture into public view unless accompanied by a husband, father or brother.

What a wonderful world yours is.

I said it was an invitation to rape, not a justification for rape. This is true, and the Islamists have a point, although their solution to lust in men is ass-backwards as is everything they do. But it is a fact of nature that if a woman dresses or acts in a sexually provocative manner, she will very likely attract unwanted (and wanted) attention from males. After all, that's WHY they dress provocatively...they are INTENDING to attract sexual attention. And they do. But because a) not everyone they attract is an acceptable candidate; and b) some of them are violent sexual predators, it behooves women to be prepared to defend themselves against those who would attempt an uninvited entry.

You mistake my comment, as many ''feminists" do, as being an expression of support for rape, which it's not, or an expression of support for mandatory female modesty, which it's not.

What I'm calling for is for women to be freed from burkas and the unwanted sexual advances of sexual predators by arming them with handguns which they can use to dissuade or dispose of anyone who might presume to have sexual contact with them without consent.

Women can walk around naked as far as I'm concerned (and I wish the pretty ones would), and the worst thing I'll do is appreciate their natural beauty...and perhaps look for signs of mutual sexual interest and attraction in a respectful manner...because I don't want to get shot, but I might like to get fucked...if she's interested.

[Hermit]

You mistake my comment, as many ''feminists" do, as being an expression of support for rape

I did no such thing. Go to remedial reading comprehension class, Seth.

[FBM]

If it's an invitation, then how can it be rape?