Liberals: If you were in a theater w a mass shooter, would u rather have a gun or phone (911)? Pick.

[Vigilante]

 

[August West]

Has this happened to you often or is this some bizarre gun pussy fantasy?

 

[LOki]

Bucs s0n.....not so sure this is a fair poll.

Should be at least some choice somewhere in the middle just to be fair.......like, say, a wiffle ball bat.

Or....super awesome Steven Segal karate Tae Kwon aikido skillz to immediately disarm the gunman. Libs think that shit is real.

 

[rightwinger]

In today's society

Phones and hidden cameras stop more crime than our 300 million guns

 

[candycorn]

Nothing I suggested violates the constitution.

This is, of course, a lie.

Yet you can't quote the part of the Constitution that was supposedly violated. Too bad; so sad.

The 2nd Amendment part.

I accept your concession and admission of failure. Thanks for playing.

 

[northpolarbear]

Even if you could disarm a gun with weapons other than gun, why would you pick a harder way when it is so much easier to disarm a gun with a gun? Aside from phone, camera, etc issue. If we were specifically talking a weapon of choice against a gun. Also, self defense with bare hand against gun doesn't work. I have a self defense instructor certificate from SDTS (I don't teach; I just have the certificate), but it only works when 1: you are in close distance with the opponent. (he doesn't shoot you before you move in closer) 2: the opponent is not expecting it. 3: the opponent has a slow reflex. You are relying on the delay time of you surprisingly making him point the gun elsewhere by moving it away vs him noticing what you are doing. The "idea" being taught is how "by the time he realizes what you are doing, the gun already points elsewhere". I wouldn't try it for real. They just teach it for the sake of teaching. It goes the same for a mace or a bat or whatever. I would rather have a gun when my opponent has a gun. If you don't have a gun against a guy who has a gun, your best chance at survival is not with some other weapon but just not provoking a death. Hand over your wallet or whatever.

 

[northpolarbear]

Adjusting only for mental illness & not tackling the availability of guns is because of the right to have guns. It's a fun toy. Just because it's not your toy doesn't mean someone else shouldn't have it. It is about their right of a toy being taken away.

But, other than mental illness management, you could enforce things like "only the people diagnosed clean of mental illness can own guns" (as opposed to diagnosed with a mental illness or not having taken the test at all). Or like a law to "must buy a safe to put the gun in when you are not using it". So that someone else can't use it. It would be "easier" if guns weren't available, but you'd be taking away rights (just because you are not interested in that right while someone else is). Also, there is the right to arm yourself & etc, but I mostly see this as a toy issue.

There also seems to be the difference in preference. Some people want to take things into their own hands or at least be able to be so (not that they should be doing so; it's their preference & option). Some people prefer that they don't have to take an action themselves but want something to be done externally for them (not that you are not entitled so, just talking about the picture you see). You can have both like by not banning guns but doing something else instead (mostly about who owns guns I guess).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing I suggested violates the constitution.

This is, of course, a lie.

Yet you can't quote the part of the Constitution that was supposedly violated. Too bad; so sad.

I can.
"...shall not be infringed".