If guns are needed for self-protection, then who was the Oregon mass killer protecting himself from?

[kaz]

I just don't get it. Someone help me out here. And if you quote the 2nd Amendment, please include the part with the word "Militia" in it too, which would probably be the first time in your life you would do so.

You're right, you don't get it. What a stupid post

 

[kaz]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

There are many ways to protect your home besides a gun.

How many of them protect you from an intruder with a gun?

 

[kaz]

"I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. Our enemies are armed. We must do likewise." – Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey

Amen to that....

"I always believed that nobody needs a gun to defend themselves if nobody else has one"-Me

What's your plan to get no one else to have one? There are 310 million in the US and open borders you fight to keep open

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it is true that most pistols are not very accurate beyond 10-20 feet.

Finally, someone honest enough to admit that pistols in the hands of the average owner are not accurate.

And when they are half asleep and scared silly they are next to useless.

Only a fool believes the NRA gun fetishist myth that "guns are needed for self protection".

you totally do not understand. In a life or death situation with a mugger, rapist, robber, etc. you are going to be within 10 feet of the perp, you don't need much accuracy at that distance. Without the gun you are dead, raped, robbed, or all three, with the gun the perp is dead and you continue living.

this is not about target practice, its about survival.

Frankly, the repeated use of firearms to stop crimes without even being fired tells us that simply having a gun is often enough to deter them. Criminals are reckless, but they're not suicidal. They don't give a damn for the victim's life, but they most certainly do give a damn about their own.

That depends. If you're talking about a robber or murderer, that is true. These mass shootings however most often end up in suicide. What the shooter is really afraid of is suffering in prison. If he were to get wounded by an armed citizen, that would be the worst possible scenario for him. The cops would come, get him in an ambulance, and the hospital would patch him up and he would stand trial and eventually imprisonment. That's what they are the most scared of.

 

[Penelope]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

There are many ways to protect your home besides a gun.

How many of them protect you from an intruder with a gun?

Who knows, never had one.

 

[kaz]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

There are many ways to protect your home besides a gun.

How many of them protect you from an intruder with a gun?

Who knows, never had one.

So you don't know if your frying pan will work against a gun or not?

 

[westwall]

My niece was an administrator at that school. It seems we are just about protecting gun owners, guns guns guns. Gun owners rights. I am not finding gun owners rights preempts my to exist because some whackjob can buy a friggin gun. Please.

The problem is the whackjob can get a gun even after you've taken them away from the 99.91% of the gun owners who aren't whackjobs. So, after you have disarmed the 99.91%, all you have done is make it even easier for the nutjobs and criminals to ply their trade which, logically, leads to even more death and suffering than when you started.

That's the problem with your type of solution.

 

[westwall]

there are plenty of stories out there to prove it.

Anecdotes don't "prove" anything.

In class, we used statistics. For instance, in a typical self-defense situation, most attackers are less than 8 feet from you when you shoot.

Anyone less than 8' away from you can close in and attack you before you can get your gun, aim and fire.

Try looking at the statistics the cops and FBI rely upon because those are fact based.

I suggest you do what you said. The average distance for a defensive use of a gun for police and civilians alike is 2.7 feet. That is a fact. Anecdotes backed up by police reports do indeed "prove" our point. Facts are facts. It is you who are ignoring them.

 

[MaryL]

My niece was an administrator at that school. It seems we are just about protecting gun owners, guns guns guns. Gun owners rights. I am not finding gun owners rights preempts my to exist because some whackjob can buy a friggin gun. Please.

You are implying we need to divest our country of 100% of firearms? I got to admit, that would stop mass shootings and random gun violence. And do a way with the faulty NRA self perpetuating argument guns solve gun violence. We need more guns to solve gun violence like we need more cancer to solve more cancer...get real.








The problem is the whackjob can get a gun even after you've taken them away from the 99.91% of the gun owners who aren't whackjobs. So, after you have disarmed the 99.91%, all you have done is make it even easier for the nutjobs and criminals to ply their trade which, logically, leads to even more death and suffering than when you started.

That's the problem with your type of solution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I just don't get it.

Then you're an imbecile. You're literally unable to understand why innocent people need a firearm to defend themselves, despite your citing a Socialists who was running around murdering, innocent people, WITH A FIREARM!

Someone help me out here.

There's no cure for imbecility.

And if you quote the 2nd Amendment, please include the part with the word "Militia" in it too, which would probably be the first time in your life you would do so.

Sure, no problem:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Every able bodied male in the US IS the Militia, which is necessary to maintain the state of freedom. Meaning that Armed individuals are necessary to maintaining the state of freedom.

It's a principle which recognizes that tyrannical power is the greatest threat to freedom, and the only known means to defeat tyrannical power is to kick its ass, thus having superior power is essential to that end.

Of course, you're an imbecile, so ... you won't 'get dat'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

 

[Carla_Danger]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

You're basing this upon what? And please... Be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[Carla_Danger]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

You're basing this upon what? And please... Be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Do you think someone would want to steal the dictionary she never uses?

 

[Flash]

Firearms in the hands of civilians have four legitimate uses:

1. Recreation

2. Hunting

3. Self defense

4. Maintaining a strength so that the filthy ass government does not have all the power.

Mass shootings is not one of the legitimate reasons.

Taking firearms away from the four legitimate reasons is not going to change the fact that firearms are used by illegal reasons.

 

[Kosh]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

Says the far left drone on the 5th floor of the far left funny farm..

 

[Kosh]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

You're basing this upon what? And please... Be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Do you think someone would want to steal the dictionary she never uses?

See how the far left drones act!

But it must be nice living on the 5th floor of the far left funny farm..

It must have got enough point to use the computer again..

This way the far left should be banned from using the internet..

 

[Kosh]

Firearms in the hands of civilians have four legitimate uses:

1. Recreation

2. Hunting

3. Self defense

4. Maintaining a strength so that the filthy ass government does not have all the power.

Mass shootings is not one of the legitimate reasons.

Taking firearms away from the four legitimate reasons is not going to change the fact that firearms are used by illegal reasons.

Yep the far left wants to ban all guns for everyone except the criminals as they leave the border wide open..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How do you suggest we protect ourselves from PEOPLE LIKE HIM? OR someone who want's to chop our heads off?

I don't get what is so confusing about any of this.

I WANT THE PROTECTON I WANT IN MY HOME and that is my gun, not a box of can goods to throw at someone trying to invade my family. get whatever make you feel good.

No one is going to invade your trailer.

You're basing this upon what? And please... Be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Do you think someone would want to steal the dictionary she never uses?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just don't get it. Someone help me out here. And if you quote the 2nd Amendment, please include the part with the word "Militia" in it too, which would probably be the first time in your life you would do so.

Who are you people? How could anyone raised in this country make such a bizarre argument?

What would have happened if some of the students on that Oregon campus had been armed and/or if there had been some armed security guards there when the nutcase began shooting? Humm? What happened at the Clackamas, Oregon, mall a couple years ago when a nutjob gunman opened fire in the mall when there happened to be a shopper who was armed? When the shopper pointed his gun at the gunman, the gunman stopped firing, ran off, and then shot himself. That armed shopper saved many lives. If he had not been there or had not been armed, there's no telling how many more people the gunman would have shot.

OBVIOUSLY, when we talk about guns being used for self-protection, we're talking about law-abiding citizens protecting themselves, not violent mentally disturbed people.

And as for the word "militia" in the 2nd Amendment, if you go read the Federalist Papers and other founders' writings, you will see that one reason the founders wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms was so they would be able to rise up and put the federal government in its place if the government ever started to become tyrannical. That's why the 2nd Amendment ends with "the right of THE PEOPLE [not the militia, the people] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says the right of the people to do so shall not be infringed.

According to the founders, it was the state militias that would enable the states to put down federal tyranny if it ever occurred. Therefore, the people's right to own firearms was not to be infringed, since the state militias would draw their personnel from the people of their state. This was not the only reason the people were to have the right to own guns, but it was the main one.

Our Founding Fathers were very careful in their word choices, despite the fact that they didn't need thousands of pages of legalese to craft a law. There is not a single time in the Constitution where they used "the people" without meaning "the individual citizens of the United States".