Another "Good Guy" with a gun murders wife and children

[Rikurzhen]

Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure or kill living beings.

So what? Is that a bad thing? Door locks too have only one purpose, to keep people out of your house or car.

To the best of my knowledge no stranger has every tried to open my house door and enter my house, therefore I probably don't need a lock on my door. I have locks on my door even though I'm not using them because they're good insurance.

Guns are also insurance. When someone is trying to kill you that's when they become useful, just like it's useful to have a lock on your door when someone is trying to break into your house. If no one is trying to kill you, then you don't need to use that gun, just like when no one is trying to break into your house, you don't need to use the door lock.

Now, when someone is trying to kill you and you don't have a gun, then you're probably going to be killed, just like when someone is trying to break into your house and your house door has no lock on it, that intruder will simply walk into your home and then use his gun to kill you knowing that you don't have a gun to use to kill him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll play the idiotic car/gun argument. In order to drive a car in public, you have to prove that you are proficient in doing so, and are of legal age, to a government examiner. You must prove that you are financially responsible, by proving that you have bought insurance, to a government official. You must pay a license fee. You must renew that license fee from time to time, and the government can restrict or deny renewal of that license if you turn out to have lost your proficiency.

In my state, to buy a gun, you have to be able to give the required cash to the seller. Then, you can carry it openly anywhere, without any restraint or license, other than where posted signs in certain private or public buildings read, "no firearms allowed."

Yes, let's play that game.

There are no background checks when you buy a car. You do not have to provide the dealer with any information at all about your intents about how you are going to use the car, nor are you required to give him your name or address. The purchase is not required to be cleared in advance by the government.

Want to keep playing?

 

[Spoonman]

I'll play the idiotic car/gun argument. In order to drive a car in public, you have to prove that you are proficient in doing so, and are of legal age, to a government examiner. You must prove that you are financially responsible, by proving that you have bought insurance, to a government official. You must pay a license fee. You must renew that license fee from time to time, and the government can restrict or deny renewal of that license if you turn out to have lost your proficiency.

In my state, to buy a gun, you have to be able to give the required cash to the seller. Then, you can carry it openly anywhere, without any restraint or license, other than where posted signs in certain private or public buildings read, "no firearms allowed."

ok, lets play. driving a car is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

buying insurance does not prove financial responsibility

no one is trying to ban cars even though cars cause more deaths than guns. and there are more guns than cars. interesting that something that has the sole purpose of killing kills less then something that is not intended to kill at all.

once you have you license you can buy anything you want unrestricted and customize it however you choose. no background checks required either.

you don't have to register a car if you do not intend to use it on a public road. nor do you have to insure it.

once you have a car you are not forced to keep it in your house and not use it at all. when you go out in public you can take your car with you

a minor can own a car.

you can sell your car to whoever you want to. they don't need a back ground check. you can sell your car to a criminal, someone who beats his wife and kids. even a drunk driver. no one would know.

 

[KGB]

Again, another false analogy. The purpose of doctors is not to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill. They are not analogous. You cannot logically compare doctors/medical malpractice to guns. It is irrational to try to do so.

It is also irrational to not drill down to the core issue. The purpose of guns is to kill or injure in self-defense or defense of one's family or property. Criminals kill or injure with guns for their own benefit. It always comes down to intent to discern the difference. If someone uses a gun & kill/injure someone but it was used in self-defense or protection of their family, then they are justified. However, if that person were to randomly or purposely kill/injure someone with malice thought, then they are a criminal. The weapon or tool matters not. Gun control does not impact the core issue, which is the intent & in fact, exacerbates the problem. Even if all the guns in the world were to somehow disappear tomorrow, you would still have the same level of violence. Why? Because the core issue wasn't addressed. Gun rights people understand this because we understand how the world truly works. We accept the fact the world is evil & we must do all we can to protect ourselves & our families from it. We don't blame an inanimate object nor look to it as a means to solve problems. The Left doesn't get this because they don't want to accept responsibility. It is far easier to blame a tool or society, or something else not related to the problem at hand.

Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure or kill living beings. They are only self defense in the sense that they may warn off or intimidate someone one from attacking you, or you may kill someone before he kills you. However, the core purpose of guns is to shoot at something that is a living, breathing being, to either kill or cause serious injury. Everything else you wrote is simply emotional justification for your desire to own guns. There is no pure logic in it whatsoever.

LOL, by the way: Your statement that if all guns disappeared we'd have the same level of violence is deeply incorrect. With the advent of firearms, and with their increasing sophistication, the death rate in civilian life and in wars had increased at least a thousand fold.

I readily stated the purpose of a weapon & what they are designed to do. There is nothing emotional or irrational in my logic either. The world is evil, that is a true statement of fact. Watch the news & see the examples. I will arm myself to protect against that evil.

You must be incredibly naive if you believe that the advent of gunpowder increased violence by that amount. I suggest you grab a history book & read the exploits of the Spartans, the Persians, the Romans amongst others. They engaged in wars of conquest & extinction, yet not one shot was reported. The truth is man is a predator & his prey is his fellow man. This has been the case since Cain struck down Abel. Incidentally no shot was fired for that murder too. So no, I'll keep my weapons in an evil world as is my right. You can continue to blame the instrument if you wish, but ask yourself something...if it is the weapon that is to blame, what does that say about its creator....

 

[DriftingSand]

Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure or kill living beings.

I have to disagree with you here. I've spent many hours target shooting. It's a fun pastime and can be challenging. I've also hunted for meat on many occasions. I enjoy venison, turkey, pheasant, and elk. I won't shoot an animal for sport or for a trophy ... only for food. I also own guns as an investment. Many guns appreciate in value over time. And, yes, I also have guns for self protection. To me, guns are mechanical works of art as well. I appreciate the thought and engineering that goes into creating various gun models and types.

 

[DriftingSand]

It is also irrational to not drill down to the core issue. The purpose of guns is to kill or injure in self-defense or defense of one's family or property. Criminals kill or injure with guns for their own benefit. It always comes down to intent to discern the difference. If someone uses a gun & kill/injure someone but it was used in self-defense or protection of their family, then they are justified. However, if that person were to randomly or purposely kill/injure someone with malice thought, then they are a criminal. The weapon or tool matters not. Gun control does not impact the core issue, which is the intent & in fact, exacerbates the problem. Even if all the guns in the world were to somehow disappear tomorrow, you would still have the same level of violence. Why? Because the core issue wasn't addressed. Gun rights people understand this because we understand how the world truly works. We accept the fact the world is evil & we must do all we can to protect ourselves & our families from it. We don't blame an inanimate object nor look to it as a means to solve problems. The Left doesn't get this because they don't want to accept responsibility. It is far easier to blame a tool or society, or something else not related to the problem at hand.

Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure or kill living beings. They are only self defense in the sense that they may warn off or intimidate someone one from attacking you, or you may kill someone before he kills you. However, the core purpose of guns is to shoot at something that is a living, breathing being, to either kill or cause serious injury. Everything else you wrote is simply emotional justification for your desire to own guns. There is no pure logic in it whatsoever.

LOL, by the way: Your statement that if all guns disappeared we'd have the same level of violence is deeply incorrect. With the advent of firearms, and with their increasing sophistication, the death rate in civilian life and in wars had increased at least a thousand fold.

I readily stated the purpose of a weapon & what they are designed to do. There is nothing emotional or irrational in my logic either. The world is evil, that is a true statement of fact. Watch the news & see the examples. I will arm myself to protect against that evil.

You must be incredibly naive if you believe that the advent of gunpowder increased violence by that amount. I suggest you grab a history book & read the exploits of the Spartans, the Persians, the Romans amongst others. They engaged in wars of conquest & extinction, yet not one shot was reported. The truth is man is a predator & his prey is his fellow man. This has been the case since Cain struck down Abel. Incidentally no shot was fired for that murder too. So no, I'll keep my weapons in an evil world as is my right. You can continue to blame the instrument if you wish, but ask yourself something...if it is the weapon that is to blame, what does that say about its creator....

Well stated. I agree with you. Progressives are of the mind that we need to create some sort of Nirvana where all men are peace-loving, gentle souls who wear white pants and sandals and pick grapes off of the vine while playing the harp. Unfortunately, the world never has been nor ever will be a man-made Nirvana. It's a nice fantasy but reality reveals that violent gangs; murderers; rapists; burglars; and numerous other criminals exist and that they mean us harm if and when they get an opportunity. Non-violent citizens have every right under the sun to protect themselves against said criminals in the best way possible.

 

[Peach]

Guns have only one purpose and that is to injure or kill living beings. They are only self defense in the sense that they may warn off or intimidate someone one from attacking you, or you may kill someone before he kills you. However, the core purpose of guns is to shoot at something that is a living, breathing being, to either kill or cause serious injury. Everything else you wrote is simply emotional justification for your desire to own guns. There is no pure logic in it whatsoever.

LOL, by the way: Your statement that if all guns disappeared we'd have the same level of violence is deeply incorrect. With the advent of firearms, and with their increasing sophistication, the death rate in civilian life and in wars had increased at least a thousand fold.

I readily stated the purpose of a weapon & what they are designed to do. There is nothing emotional or irrational in my logic either. The world is evil, that is a true statement of fact. Watch the news & see the examples. I will arm myself to protect against that evil.

You must be incredibly naive if you believe that the advent of gunpowder increased violence by that amount. I suggest you grab a history book & read the exploits of the Spartans, the Persians, the Romans amongst others. They engaged in wars of conquest & extinction, yet not one shot was reported. The truth is man is a predator & his prey is his fellow man. This has been the case since Cain struck down Abel. Incidentally no shot was fired for that murder too. So no, I'll keep my weapons in an evil world as is my right. You can continue to blame the instrument if you wish, but ask yourself something...if it is the weapon that is to blame, what does that say about its creator....

Well stated. I agree with you. Progressives are of the mind that we need to create some sort of Nirvana where all men are peace-loving, gentle souls who wear white pants and sandals and pick grapes off of the vine while playing the harp. Unfortunately, the world never has been nor ever will be a man-made Nirvana. It's a nice fantasy but reality reveals that violent gangs; murderers; rapists; burglars; and numerous other criminals exist and that they mean us harm if and when they get an opportunity. Non-violent citizens have every right under the sun to protect themselves against said criminals in the best way possible.

Sometimes the peaceful, ordinary citizens become violent....................and they will use any weapon handy, and find one if one is not available.

 

[KGB]

I readily stated the purpose of a weapon & what they are designed to do. There is nothing emotional or irrational in my logic either. The world is evil, that is a true statement of fact. Watch the news & see the examples. I will arm myself to protect against that evil.

You must be incredibly naive if you believe that the advent of gunpowder increased violence by that amount. I suggest you grab a history book & read the exploits of the Spartans, the Persians, the Romans amongst others. They engaged in wars of conquest & extinction, yet not one shot was reported. The truth is man is a predator & his prey is his fellow man. This has been the case since Cain struck down Abel. Incidentally no shot was fired for that murder too. So no, I'll keep my weapons in an evil world as is my right. You can continue to blame the instrument if you wish, but ask yourself something...if it is the weapon that is to blame, what does that say about its creator....

Well stated. I agree with you. Progressives are of the mind that we need to create some sort of Nirvana where all men are peace-loving, gentle souls who wear white pants and sandals and pick grapes off of the vine while playing the harp. Unfortunately, the world never has been nor ever will be a man-made Nirvana. It's a nice fantasy but reality reveals that violent gangs; murderers; rapists; burglars; and numerous other criminals exist and that they mean us harm if and when they get an opportunity. Non-violent citizens have every right under the sun to protect themselves against said criminals in the best way possible.

Sometimes the peaceful, ordinary citizens become violent....................and they will use any weapon handy, and find one if one is not available.

Of course but they are more likely to follow the law. The criminal does not & spreads their evil forward.