So...your girlfriend is being raped by 4 thugs, good thing you don't have a gun...right?

[PredFan]

Anyone convicted of a felony should be prevented from owning guns.

No they shouldn't. Some felonies aren't violent crimes some don't even go to prison....

If you are willing to commit a felony, you cannot be trusted with a firearm.

That's bullshit.Its called heat of the moment. Shit happens.

Someone susceptible to heat of the moment crime is the very definition of unfit to have a gun.

2nd amendment didn't think so. That's the ONLY legit constitutional law on guns.

Commit a felony, give up some of your rights. I'm fine with that.

 

[PredFan]

You can imagine as many odd ball scenarios as you want to. The fact of the matter is that if the boyfriend had had a gun, it would have gone differently.

Guns save lives and property every single day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Which people? Oh right, all of them. Well, that works.

How about a nice non-lethal weapon instead? Of course, that also works both ways.

And, they both could have been trained in self-defense eh? A gun, like capitalism, is not the answer to every question.

It is not the solution to every question...but it works the best for a violent attack by 4 thugs against an unarmed couple.....for that, guns work pretty damn good.....

And if they had also had guns, he would have been at even worse disadvantage, four guns to one gun (or two). Once you even the odds your solution, a gun, fails miserably. It only works if "A" has a gun, and "B" does not. For that to be true you'd need far better gun control than we have now and even then, you'd be, at best, 50-50. If you couldn't kill first, you lose.

Guns are not the answer.

True. Guns are not the answer.

Guns are the question, "yes" is the answer.

So, if they had guns and he had a gun, who had the advantage?

Me. I always have the advantage.

Pride goeth before the fall.

And I noticed you could not answer.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can imagine as many odd ball scenarios as you want to. The fact of the matter is that if the boyfriend had had a gun, it would have gone differently.

Guns save lives and property every single day.

Only if the other guy doesn't have one.

 

[PredFan]

It is not the solution to every question...but it works the best for a violent attack by 4 thugs against an unarmed couple.....for that, guns work pretty damn good.....

And if they had also had guns, he would have been at even worse disadvantage, four guns to one gun (or two). Once you even the odds your solution, a gun, fails miserably. It only works if "A" has a gun, and "B" does not. For that to be true you'd need far better gun control than we have now and even then, you'd be, at best, 50-50. If you couldn't kill first, you lose.

Guns are not the answer.

True. Guns are not the answer.

Guns are the question, "yes" is the answer.

So, if they had guns and he had a gun, who had the advantage?

Me. I always have the advantage.

Pride goeth before the fall.

And I noticed you could not answer.

I didn't answer because you are an idiot. I was joking you moron. I wasn't even a part of that discussion.

Just how ******* stupid are you?

 

[PredFan]

You can imagine as many odd ball scenarios as you want to. The fact of the matter is that if the boyfriend had had a gun, it would have gone differently.

Guns save lives and property every single day.

Only if the other guy doesn't have one.

Hey moron. Can't you read?

 

[Mr Natural]

What kind of fucked up world do you people live in?

 

[2aguy]

And why am I not surprised......I will put you down for not letting these people have guns...

Which people? Oh right, all of them. Well, that works.

How about a nice non-lethal weapon instead? Of course, that also works both ways.

And, they both could have been trained in self-defense eh? A gun, like capitalism, is not the answer to every question.

It is not the solution to every question...but it works the best for a violent attack by 4 thugs against an unarmed couple.....for that, guns work pretty damn good.....

And if they had also had guns, he would have been at even worse disadvantage, four guns to one gun (or two). Once you even the odds your solution, a gun, fails miserably. It only works if "A" has a gun, and "B" does not. For that to be true you'd need far better gun control than we have now and even then, you'd be, at best, 50-50. If you couldn't kill first, you lose.

Guns are not the answer.

True. Guns are not the answer.

Guns are the question, "yes" is the answer.

So, if they had guns and he had a gun, who had the advantage?

None of them......they would have to decide to risk death to press the attack against the couple because it would not be a matter of 4 to 1 and physical strength, but his and her ability to kill them with 5-6 pounds of pressure on a trigger. That changes the dynamic completely........please...study actual self defense with attention to self defense with a gun so you can understand the issue before you ask stupid questions.

 

[2aguy]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

What is it with you anti gun nuts......where have I ever posted that criminals should be able to own or carry guns.....?

I am the one who constantly posts about longer prison sentences for gun criminals....while decrying prosecutors and judges who let convicted felons, caught with guns off with light sentences.


I never misdirect.......criminals should not be able to own or carry guns...twit. Is that plain enough for you......

We already have laws on the books that state that convicted criminals cannot own or carry guns. That is the gun control we need....you nuts only care about normal, law abiding people owning and carrying guns...you know, the people who won't use them for crime....

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

OK. How do you propose we keep anyone from legally selling them those guns?

The individual who is a convicted felon knows they can't buy the gun...so if you catch them with it..you arrest them. Currently, licensed gun stores must do a background check on all gun sales....which is fine......of course criminals don't buy their guns from gun stores, they get people with clean records to buy the guns or they steal them.

If you catch a criminal with a gun, you get him to rat out anyone who knowingly is selling guns to criminals...just like you do right now when you catch someone with illegal drugs.....


why should guns be any different. Except you just want to destroy legal gun owners....

 

[2aguy]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

What is it with you anti gun nuts......where have I ever posted that criminals should be able to own or carry guns.....?

I am the one who constantly posts about longer prison sentences for gun criminals....while decrying prosecutors and judges who let convicted felons, caught with guns off with light sentences.


I never misdirect.......criminals should not be able to own or carry guns...twit. Is that plain enough for you......

We already have laws on the books that state that convicted criminals cannot own or carry guns. That is the gun control we need....you nuts only care about normal, law abiding people owning and carrying guns...you know, the people who won't use them for crime....

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

OK. How do you propose we keep anyone from legally selling them those guns?

For his "version" of gun control to work you'd need a literal police state, and he wouldn't like it.

No twit. When someone commits a crime and they use a gun to do it...you arrest them....we do that currently...no police state needed.....

If you stop someone and find out they are a felon and they have in their possession a gun...you can arrest them....no police state needed...

What you morons fail to understand is that your gun control laws.....licensing gun owners, registering all guns, universal background checks, mandatory safe storage laws.....all result in a police state...how do we know...because all the other countries that already have those laws use enhanced police powers to enforce those laws against non criminal gun owners...twits.

 

[2aguy]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

Anyone convicted of a felony should be prevented from owning guns.

So how do you propose preventing them from being able to buy a gun?

We have laws that say they can't......when they are caught with a gun they get arrested.....just like any other crime. Just like you can't prevent someone from driving 40 in a 35 mph zone......you punish them when they break the law........you do the same with guns.....

If there were no law against driving 40 in a 35, there would be nothing to prevent everyone from doing it. There is no law against selling a gun to a thug who shouldn't have it.

Yes there is.......you cannot knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon, that is already a law....

The felon already knows they cannot buy, own or carry a gun...that is already the law.

If you catch a criminal with an illegal gun...you get him to tell you where he got it, the same way you get drug users to sell out their drug dealers.......why is this so hard for you twits to understand when you simply apply current police techniques to guns......you act like they are a different species of crime......what morons.

 

[2aguy]

You can imagine as many odd ball scenarios as you want to. The fact of the matter is that if the boyfriend had had a gun, it would have gone differently.

Guns save lives and property every single day.

Don't forget the girlfreind....had they both been carrying it would have gone differently.....

 

[Wilbur Right]

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

Says the idiot who believes there are 5000 DGU each and every day of the year. But he can't ******* PROVE what he claims.

All he can do is point to a discredited survey done 20 years ago by a president who is hated by gun nutters. Except that this discredited survey was done when Clinton was in office.

You really have to be stupid to believe 5000 DGUs happen every day. I mean really stupid.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

What is it with you anti gun nuts......where have I ever posted that criminals should be able to own or carry guns.....?

I am the one who constantly posts about longer prison sentences for gun criminals....while decrying prosecutors and judges who let convicted felons, caught with guns off with light sentences.


I never misdirect.......criminals should not be able to own or carry guns...twit. Is that plain enough for you......

We already have laws on the books that state that convicted criminals cannot own or carry guns. That is the gun control we need....you nuts only care about normal, law abiding people owning and carrying guns...you know, the people who won't use them for crime....

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

OK. How do you propose we keep anyone from legally selling them those guns?

The individual who is a convicted felon knows they can't buy the gun...so if you catch them with it..you arrest them. Currently, licensed gun stores must do a background check on all gun sales....which is fine......of course criminals don't buy their guns from gun stores, they get people with clean records to buy the guns or they steal them.

If you catch a criminal with a gun, you get him to rat out anyone who knowingly is selling guns to criminals...just like you do right now when you catch someone with illegal drugs.....


why should guns be any different. Except you just want to destroy legal gun owners....

So the person is already determined to not be allowed a gun, but you still want to make it perfectly legal to sell him all the guns he wants and hope you catch him after he has committed his next crime.That makes no sense. The only reasonable thing to do is make it illegal to sell him another gun.

 

[strollingbones]

here is the problem.......guy is on the....every solution involves a gun rant and guno is on the never need a gun rant....both too extremes

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

Anyone convicted of a felony should be prevented from owning guns.

So how do you propose preventing them from being able to buy a gun?

We have laws that say they can't......when they are caught with a gun they get arrested.....just like any other crime. Just like you can't prevent someone from driving 40 in a 35 mph zone......you punish them when they break the law........you do the same with guns.....

If there were no law against driving 40 in a 35, there would be nothing to prevent everyone from doing it. There is no law against selling a gun to a thug who shouldn't have it.

Yes there is.......you cannot knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon, that is already a law....

The felon already knows they cannot buy, own or carry a gun...that is already the law.

If you catch a criminal with an illegal gun...you get him to tell you where he got it, the same way you get drug users to sell out their drug dealers.......why is this so hard for you twits to understand when you simply apply current police techniques to guns......you act like they are a different species of crime......what morons.

Dumb ass. How are you going to know if a stranger is a convicted felon?

 

[2aguy]

Do you think there are any thugs who should be denied a gun, or do you want all of them to have all they want? I don't want to hear all your usual misdirection, just answer the question. Yes or no?

What is it with you anti gun nuts......where have I ever posted that criminals should be able to own or carry guns.....?

I am the one who constantly posts about longer prison sentences for gun criminals....while decrying prosecutors and judges who let convicted felons, caught with guns off with light sentences.


I never misdirect.......criminals should not be able to own or carry guns...twit. Is that plain enough for you......

We already have laws on the books that state that convicted criminals cannot own or carry guns. That is the gun control we need....you nuts only care about normal, law abiding people owning and carrying guns...you know, the people who won't use them for crime....

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

OK. How do you propose we keep anyone from legally selling them those guns?

The individual who is a convicted felon knows they can't buy the gun...so if you catch them with it..you arrest them. Currently, licensed gun stores must do a background check on all gun sales....which is fine......of course criminals don't buy their guns from gun stores, they get people with clean records to buy the guns or they steal them.

If you catch a criminal with a gun, you get him to rat out anyone who knowingly is selling guns to criminals...just like you do right now when you catch someone with illegal drugs.....


why should guns be any different. Except you just want to destroy legal gun owners....

So the person is already determined to not be allowed a gun, but you still want to make it perfectly legal to sell him all the guns he wants and hope you catch him after he has committed his next crime.That makes no sense. The only reasonable thing to do is make it illegal to sell him another gun.

How did you get that from what was posted.......oh, that's right...you are a lefty. Individual private sales do not require a background check to sell legal products.....once you start selling regularly you are not an individual private seller anymore. So I sell my neighbor my .22 rifle......I don't have to get a background check...if it turns out he is a convicted felon....then when he is caught with the gun he goes to jail.

And any criminal buying more than one illegal gun is going to get caught with those guns...and then he can be arrested....what you want is to destroy the innocent person, selling his gun to his brother, or a neighbor, and if you find out a background check wasn't done...you want to destroy that person....make him a felon, cost him his job, lose his home and take money from him and send him to prison....that is really what you want...

Instead...all you have to do is arrest the actual criminal...the guy who knows that he, himself, cannot own, buy or carry a gun.....so if he does any of those things he is knowingly breaking the law and can be arrested when caught.

But that isn't enough...that still doesn't punish the normal gun owner for the sin of owning a gun....and that is what drives you ******* nuts....you want that normal person who owns the gun for self defense to be punished...you could not care less about the criminal.....

 

[2aguy]

Anyone convicted of a felony should be prevented from owning guns.

So how do you propose preventing them from being able to buy a gun?

We have laws that say they can't......when they are caught with a gun they get arrested.....just like any other crime. Just like you can't prevent someone from driving 40 in a 35 mph zone......you punish them when they break the law........you do the same with guns.....

If there were no law against driving 40 in a 35, there would be nothing to prevent everyone from doing it. There is no law against selling a gun to a thug who shouldn't have it.

Yes there is.......you cannot knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon, that is already a law....

The felon already knows they cannot buy, own or carry a gun...that is already the law.

If you catch a criminal with an illegal gun...you get him to tell you where he got it, the same way you get drug users to sell out their drug dealers.......why is this so hard for you twits to understand when you simply apply current police techniques to guns......you act like they are a different species of crime......what morons.

Dumb ass. How are you going to know if a stranger is a convicted felon?

When he is arrrested by the police for breaking the law, or during any encounter with the police where they find he has a gun in his possession, they run a felony check on him and find that he is a felon in possession of a gun....these are already covered under existing law.

Normal people are not cops...they do not have to investigate other citizens to determine their legal status.

If someone is selling guns knowingly to felons...when you catch one of his felon customers, you get him to rat the seller out and do an undercover sting...just like you do for every other crime.....

I have listed many arrests of illegal gun runners. Not one of them was caught because someone did a background check...they were all caught because someone snitched on them, then the police set up a sting and caught them.....then, of course, the prosecutors and judges gave them light sentences......which is the real problem.

 

[2aguy]

Try to post like an intelligent person.....

Says the idiot who believes there are 5000 DGU each and every day of the year. But he can't ******* PROVE what he claims.

All he can do is point to a discredited survey done 20 years ago by a president who is hated by gun nutters. Except that this discredited survey was done when Clinton was in office.

You really have to be stupid to believe 5000 DGUs happen every day. I mean really stupid.

Listen dumb ****.......

1) The study you point out was done by bill clinton's Department of Justice...they found 1,500,000 defensive gun uses.....it was never discredited.....

2) That isn't the only gun self defense study done.....

3) That isn't the only gun self defense study I link to...

moron.

For your sake, moron ....here they are again......they have been done by government agencies....they have been done by private researchers....and they all come out with high numbers.....moron..........you are the one talking out of your ass...not me....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[Correll]

Be afraid, very afraid. Be afraid that you live in a society where four thugs raping your girlfriend and beating you senseless is a common, everyday and fully expected experience. Be afraid that the one and only way to ensure thes experiences don't happen is to pack heat. Be confident in your Ramboesque abilities to be the hero gunslinger. Do not fear for the safety of innocent bystanders while you mete out justice in the form of hot lead and pounding adrenalin.

Ah! Guns! Is there nothing they can't do? Nope! As long as you're afraid.

Fear is the rational response to danger.

That couple was not afraid when they went for their walk.

They should have been.

You don't need to be Rambo to defend yourself, just armed.