2 guys, 2bats, one woman with a gun...guess who won?

[ChrisL]

It is our right to defend ourselves against predators. Just because other people might abuse their rights, does not mean the law-abiding citizens should lose any of their rights.

Murder by gun rates are higher in the US because of our drug and gang violence problems. WHY do we have such a problem with drugs and gang violence, because somebody had the BRIGHT idea to ban drugs, and now there is a black market for them along with the violence that goes along with it. This is the SAME thing that will happen if they ever try to ban guns. There already is an underground market and demand for weapons and that would grow exponentially if they were banned.

 

[2aguy]

apparently some people think we buy things to make us feel manly and powerful...do those two fire extinguishers make you fell manly and powerful?

 

[ChrisL]

apparently some people think we buy things to make us feel manly and powerful...do those two fire extinguishers make you fell manly and powerful?

That is such a ridiculous comment. There are PLENTY of women who own guns too. I currently do not, but if I did, I would consider it an equalizer.

Edit: Just to clarify, I mean the other poster's comment is ridiculous, not your post.

 

[Rotagilla]

apparently some people think we buy things to make us feel manly and powerful...do those two fire extinguishers make you fell manly and powerful?

Yes..and I am now forced to admit that I have a cultural bias against uncontrolled fire... Flameist? fireist?
I may need to be re educated to be more understanding and inclusive of uncontrolled fire.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Not about guns...about our ability to protect ourselves,and our families from violent criminals and bad government...from people who are given armed body guards with tax money they get from us...that is what makes us passionate ...because we know history and the reality of violent crime...

No, it's about guns, and how they make you feel powerful and manly and strong.

You can pretend whatever you wish.

Have any of you ever actually used a gun in self-defense?

yea and they make our dicks 5" longer. seriously, is that the only argument you gun grabbing fools have? certainly you have no legitimate facts.

Oh, I 100% believe there are people who conceal carry b/c it makes them feel tougher or whatever..

This of course is irrelevant, because we do NOT have to justify exercising our rights.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a nice look at this attack and how it refutes quite a few anti gun beliefs...

Armed woman repelling attackers refutes evil demanded by gun-grabbers - National gun rights Examiner.com

What stands out from the incident are how many anti-gun talking points a simple incident like this one refutes.

First is the often-stated advice to just give assailants what they want. When armed assailants tell a person “You’re coming with us,” and back that up with a weapon capable of inflicting lethal damage, whatever they want is something no one capable of refusing ought to give.

Not, as colleague Kurt Hofmann noted in a recent JPFO Alert, rights should be dependent on such number-crunching – but what is significant here is the antis always couch that argument by saying more people are killed with guns than kill their assailants with guns. Those who do are intentionally steering the conversation away from the relevant argument. That’s because, as this incident reflects, good people often resolve such situations with the mere presentation of a gun, without firing a shot. Naturally, that’s why citizen disarmament advocacy groups like the Violence Policy Center instead portray Americans who choose to carry the tools of defense as “Concealed Carry Killers.”

While Burns was able to get away without shooting anyone, what she didn't do is turn and flee –chances are, had she, two young men with a bat could have run her down and carried out their attack. In fact, she STOOD HER GROUND, something the antis constantly decry and try to outlaw, all the while conveniently ignoring the universal response of predators is to chase and bring down fleeing prey.

 

[ChrisL]

Not about guns...about our ability to protect ourselves,and our families from violent criminals and bad government...from people who are given armed body guards with tax money they get from us...that is what makes us passionate ...because we know history and the reality of violent crime...

No, it's about guns, and how they make you feel powerful and manly and strong.

You can pretend whatever you wish.

Have any of you ever actually used a gun in self-defense?

yea and they make our dicks 5" longer. seriously, is that the only argument you gun grabbing fools have? certainly you have no legitimate facts.

Oh, I 100% believe there are people who conceal carry b/c it makes them feel tougher or whatever..

This of course is irrelevant, because we do NOT have to justify exercising our rights.

Good point. Whether or not a person feels more confident with a weapon is quite irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure some people feel more confident with a knife or a can of mace too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

That is not true. England has a higher violent rate as does Canada France and Germany.

Actually per capita the US is out matched by a lot of Countries. Here is a link

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com Check the per capita rates.

No, that's just a right wing internet meme, not actual truth.

It's impossible to compare, since Britain and the US use entirely different definitions of "violent crime".

If it's impossible to compare, how then can you say that The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns?
Hmmm?

If you'd bother to have read farther down the first page, you'd have seen this:

I will retract my earlier statement though, since it is actually very hard to accurately compare any of those statistics.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

actually they don't. but what the USA does have along with a growing number of guns is a decreasing rate of homicides by gun. more guns is consistently equaling less deaths. and this patter has been occurring year after year. in fact with out gun bans the rates are dropping faster in the USA than in countries with gun bans.

The percentage of Americans who have guns in their houses has been steadily dropping for the last 40 years.

The "growing number of guns" is due to a smaller number of people owning many guns, not more gun owners.

not true at all. in fact there is not one legitimate study that indicates the number of households that own guns is declining, other than liberal spin articles. gun owners happen to be the fastest growing demographic in the nation. 20,000,000 new requests for gun permits in 2013. not current gun owners buying another gun. new gun owners. and of this expanding group, the majority are women and newly legal young adults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/u...is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do you have a link that supports your claims?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Your link doesn't come close to supporting your claim.

"Rifles, shotguns and pistols" would not be banned under a reinstated assault weapons ban.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

They're not "questions", they're rhetoric.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at the issue of gun ownership...It discusses increases in NCIS requests from FBI stats, and the increase in NRA certified instructors...as well...

Mythbusting Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here is a look at the issue of gun ownership...It discusses increases in NCIS requests from FBI stats, and the increase in NRA certified instructors...as well...

Mythbusting Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns

That's a pretty shitty job of "myth-busting", since all they offered to "bust" the myth is a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. The number of NRA-certified gun instructors or NICS checks don't really have anything to do with the number of households with guns. I have to undergo a new NICS check every time I buy another gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Unsurprisingly, you're a liar, and consequently pose a greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any of your mythical 'gun-grabbers.'


The president has never advocated for the 'banning' of all rifles, shotguns, and pistols, to maintain otherwise is ignorant idiocy, as such a measure would be clearly un-Constitutional.


Moreover, under the 1994 AWB, many rifles, shotguns, and pistols remained readily available, including semi-automatic rifles such as the Mini-14; to advocate for a reinstatement of the ban – however misguided – is not to advocate for a comprehensive firearms ban.


Last, the AWB is not coming back, such an effort lacks support among both democrats and republicans, and would clearly be invalidated as un-Constitutional should it be reinstated and challenged in court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and yet...regular people with those guns stop those crimes...but in Britain,,Australia...those victims are just that...victims...and they suffer for it...

It angers me when someone suggests that I shouldn't have the right to defend MYSELF against an intruder or someone who may do me harm. Usually in such situations, the police don't arrive until AFTER you have been raped, murdered or otherwise violated.

Your anger is predicated on a misconception, as no one is advocating one be denied the right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Unsurprisingly, you're a liar, and consequently pose a greater threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any of your mythical 'gun-grabbers.'

The president has never advocated for the 'banning' of all rifles, shotguns, and pistols, to maintain otherwise is ignorant idiocy, as such a measure would be clearly un-Constitutional.

1: I never said he advocated the banning of all rifles, shotguns, and pistols.
2: I DID say he wants to rifles, pistols and shotguns, and then posted a citation proving just that.
Undeniable truth, both points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. How much gun control do you think Obama "wants", and how did you come to that conclusion?

Obama wants to ban rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Obama backs new assault weapons ban

Your link doesn't come close to supporting your claim.
"Rifles, shotguns and pistols" would not be banned under a reinstated assault weapons ban.

Really? What then does the AWB ban, if not rifles, pistols and shotguns?
Crossbows? Slingshots?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

That is not true. England has a higher violent rate as does Canada France and Germany.

Actually per capita the US is out matched by a lot of Countries. Here is a link

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com Check the per capita rates.

No, that's just a right wing internet meme, not actual truth.

It's impossible to compare, since Britain and the US use entirely different definitions of "violent crime".

If it's impossible to compare, how then can you say that The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns?
Hmmm?

If you'd bother to have read farther down the first page, you'd have seen this:

I will retract my earlier statement though, since it is actually very hard to accurately compare any of those statistics.

I did see it, much later.
Good of you to recognize that your own argument destroyed your own claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The US has a higher violent crime rate than nearly any other first world nation, including all those countries that "ban" guns.

So if that many crimes are being "stopped" by guns, the true violent crime rate here must be staggeringly astronomical compare to all those countries where guns are banned.

Funny how you didn't answer his questions.

The "questions" in the OP are what you'd call false dichotomy fallacies.

Interesting.
This means you think he only offers two possible responses to his questions, and you believe there are valid aswers to the question other than the two he allows for.
So... show this false dichotomy -- what answers do you have that he does not allow for?
.

"False dichotomy" probably isn't really the right term, but it does apply somewhat here.

so...for you anti gunners out there...you would prefer that she had gone with those guys right? it only made the situation worse that she had that gun...right?

so...and I never get a response to this...if you could go back in time to the scene of a rape, murder, brutal beating or robbery...and provide the victim with a gun to stop the crime...you wouldn't...right? You would let the crime happen, and the victim suffer the attack...right?

Are you really claiming those "questions" are legitimate questions that I should answer, and not ridiculously leading and rhetorical?