The questions the left are reluctant to answer. Maybe they fear the answer?

[Aba Incieni]

The OP is a perverted justification for possessing illegal weapons

As long as they are used for good....all is forgiven

Our laws do not work like that

I support law abiding citizens using anything, whatever weapon necessary, legal or illegal to protect self, or others, from criminal activity that could result in their own death or the deaths of others. I also support that those who do provide such an act be free from prosecution for such provision.

Again, what's your point? Do you have one? It's always hard to determine with you.

My point is that your hypothetical justification for keeping illegal weapons does not cut it.
One out of hundreds of thousands may be used to save someone
Doesn’t justify the other hundred thousand

The OP didn't ask if you thought it was justified.

He asked if you would care that the gun used to save your daughter's life wasn't legal.

 

[Pop23]

The lengths that the Left will go to, to justify their irrational fear of an inanimate object is on full display here!

Blaming the victim?

Really?

 

[Pop23]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[grainbely]

I have posed this question, in various forms, to those that advocate banning certain weapons and those that want "common sense" regulations and restrictions on guns, and have yet to have had it answered by any.

I'll start with the scenario and the question to see if starting a thread on it will illicit an answer:

You receive a call from your daughter, she tells you that she was being assaulted by a group of Men that have overpowered her. She feared she would be raped or murdered and yelled for help. A stranger heard her calls for help and arrived with a gun and chased off the assailants.

Now the question:

Would you, the Father of the victim of this assault, care if the gun that the Stranger used was legal for him to own?

Second question:

If the Stranger was arrested for the use of the weapon that possibly saved your daughters life, would you support his arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon?

We can also discuss why the left have refused to answer the questions.

I know you think you're being all smart and shit by threading a needle here but you're just painting yourself and a big chunk of the right as dense hypocrites.

I'm going to make 4 statements here. First, To answer your question in this unknown probability anecdotal circumstance, I'd be thankful to the dude with gun regardless of his status or the guns status because he potentially saved my daughter's life or at least saved her from a severely traumatizing assault. The left are human beings and your thought that this is some trap of a question where we can't answer shows your black dishonest soul on full display. Part 2, if he was actually crazy and shouldn't have a gun then I could support taking it away after the fact or potentially support punishment if something illegal happened with it. One incident where he saved the day couldn't offset any previous ones where he may have terrorized people or any future ones where the body of data we have show he'd be a threat to others. It's not up to me though. I'm not going to go nuts trying to enforce something on him if I feel the process was deliberated by sound minded legal authorities. If he stole the gun earlier in an unrelated incident, then yes punish away. There's a lot of possibility which leads me to statement 2.

The right uses anecdotes as a crutch in the gun debate when it suits them, but then screams about probability when it doesnt. Make up your mind. One can't live in fear and hence need to carry a gun everywhere expecting ISIS or a thug to drop out of a tree or something, then turn and say school shootings are a miniscule probability so we shouldn't do anything about them.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

Fourth, anecdotes are only an example of what's possible. Without a scope of the possibility on the whole distribution, it's not as useful as the invoker would think. Getting mugged at gun point is going to have varying degrees of likelihood based on many choices and circumstantial probabilities. Same thing with school shootings or terrorist attacks. Same thing with accidental gun deaths. Which are you going to hedge your bet on if you don't know how likely they are to happen? Gun data has been pretty bad for a while but I read that some agency is able to research it again recently so maybe we will have better stuff to argue over soon.

Thank you for the response:

I'm going to make 4 statements here. First, To answer your question in this unknown probability anecdotal circumstance, I'd be thankful to the dude with gun regardless of his status or the guns status because he potentially saved my daughter's life or at least saved her from a severely traumatizing assault. The left are human beings and your thought that this is some trap of a question where we can't answer shows your black dishonest soul on full display. Part 2, if he was actually crazy and shouldn't have a gun then I could support taking it away after the fact or potentially support punishment if something illegal happened with it. One incident where he saved the day couldn't offset any previous ones where he may have terrorized people or any future ones where the body of data we have show he'd be a threat to others. It's not up to me though. I'm not going to go nuts trying to enforce something on him if I feel the process was deliberated by sound minded legal authorities. If he stole the gun earlier in an unrelated incident, then yes punish away. There's a lot of possibility which leads me to statement 2.

1. You would be supportive of the individual that saved your daughters life. ANYONE SHOULD BE!

then you make some leaps:

a. "If" he was actually crazy you would support the gun being taken away, but you would be glad he had it, right? But that begs the question of the next time he, or another just as crazy as him, coming across the same situation leaving as to avoid the State that might remove his rights. Not a good example to make to the general population.

b. A felon in possession of a gun is a leap as I don't think this guy would stick around long enough for authorities to arrive. Making this assumption is simply justifying your position, which is exactly what you accuse me of doing. The leap was not necessary, but you went there.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

My question is based on emotion? You can make that claim I guess, but it doesn't really matter. My questions were used to find the true motive behind the gun control movement. Do as I say, not as I do.

The example was of the weak being victimized by the strong and how, in many cases, the gun is the great equalizer. Removal of that equalization often times creates more victims. We see that in England where they banned these tools that make the weak equal to the strong. Instead of reducing violence and murder, those rates have increased. The weak became subjugated to the strong. The desired effect failed.

The right uses anecdotes as a crutch in the gun debate when it suits them, but then screams about probability when it doesnt. Make up your mind. One can't live in fear and hence need to carry a gun everywhere expecting ISIS or a thug to drop out of a tree or something, then turn and say school shootings are a miniscule probability so we shouldn't do anything about them.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

See how far you had to wonder to get to a point, that point being living in fear.

Reality is that the strong criminal will prey on the weak nearly EVERY TIME. It is only those that are prepared for these confrontations, and successfully repel them, often times by the use of a weapon, that keeps these criminals in check. If these same individuals were reliant on waiting on police, many more would die or endure rape or robbery each year.

It's not fear, it's preparedness for reality, that makes so many carry weapons.

The reality is that the good Samaritan did what we all hope that we all would do and was prepared to do it using whatever was necessary to get the job done regardless if it was State Sanctioned or not.

Gun restrictions and bans are based on the naive notion that criminals actually give a crap about the law, but they limit the law abiding citizen from reacting to those that break the law as they please.

They embolden the criminal and subjugate the weak.

I'm a big dude and I'm not typically bothered by wandering around at night on my own. I don't do it downtown often. I think my size and build are deterrents to an extent. With that in mind it makes me think about the little people. For them to have to do similar could be an entirely different story that I don't fully understand, especially for the women. Because of that and some other stuff, I don't have a problem with well regulated concealed carry. I don't think it's a perfect solution but the peace of mind and the minimal chance they actually have to draw it are probably helping them live their life if they have to be out in those situations. I'd suggest the best thing a person can do if they don't feel safe is to move or otherwise change their lifestyle. Carrying a loaded gun comes with significant risk itself.

Without more detail about the guy with a gun that saved the day, you can't really say much about how to deal with him. A one time good deed isn't a free pass.

If it's my daughter that gets saved, you bet theres an emotional aspect to my reaction. If it's strangers in other states I'd probably still be happy that the guy was there by chance. Already so much assault and gun violence happens that we are desencitized to it. That's not some sort of endorsement for arming everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

The OP is a perverted justification for possessing illegal weapons

As long as they are used for good....all is forgiven

Our laws do not work like that

I support law abiding citizens using anything, whatever weapon necessary, legal or illegal to protect self, or others, from criminal activity that could result in their own death or the deaths of others. I also support that those who do provide such an act be free from prosecution for such provision.

Again, what's your point? Do you have one? It's always hard to determine with you.

My point is that your hypothetical justification for keeping illegal weapons does not cut it.
One out of hundreds of thousands may be used to save someone
Doesn’t justify the other hundred thousand

Bingo!

And one in hundreds of thousands used in crimes does not justify removing them from law abiding citizens.

Good job making my point RR.

Appreciate that!

Sure does

Ask Australia

 

[Pop23]

The OP is a perverted justification for possessing illegal weapons

As long as they are used for good....all is forgiven

Our laws do not work like that

I support law abiding citizens using anything, whatever weapon necessary, legal or illegal to protect self, or others, from criminal activity that could result in their own death or the deaths of others. I also support that those who do provide such an act be free from prosecution for such provision.

Again, what's your point? Do you have one? It's always hard to determine with you.

My point is that your hypothetical justification for keeping illegal weapons does not cut it.
One out of hundreds of thousands may be used to save someone
Doesn’t justify the other hundred thousand

Bingo!

And one in hundreds of thousands used in crimes does not justify removing them from law abiding citizens.

Good job making my point RR.

Appreciate that!

Sure does

Ask Australia

I did, many aren't all that Impressed, in fact, they think it kind of sucks:

Australia Sees Spike in Gun Crime Despite Outright Ban - Washington Free Beacon


Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation's localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

But the rapists kinda dig it, or so it would appear:

Rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012, ABS says

The proportion of women who have experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months increased from 1.2% in 2012 to 1.8% in 2016.

It means one in five women (18% or 1.7 million) have now experienced sexual violence, with sexual assault experienced by 17% of women (1.5 million) and sexual threat experienced by 3.6% (339,900).

I Guess we should all feel better that rapists have easier prey?

 

[Pop23]

I have posed this question, in various forms, to those that advocate banning certain weapons and those that want "common sense" regulations and restrictions on guns, and have yet to have had it answered by any.

I'll start with the scenario and the question to see if starting a thread on it will illicit an answer:

You receive a call from your daughter, she tells you that she was being assaulted by a group of Men that have overpowered her. She feared she would be raped or murdered and yelled for help. A stranger heard her calls for help and arrived with a gun and chased off the assailants.

Now the question:

Would you, the Father of the victim of this assault, care if the gun that the Stranger used was legal for him to own?

Second question:

If the Stranger was arrested for the use of the weapon that possibly saved your daughters life, would you support his arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon?

We can also discuss why the left have refused to answer the questions.

I know you think you're being all smart and shit by threading a needle here but you're just painting yourself and a big chunk of the right as dense hypocrites.

I'm going to make 4 statements here. First, To answer your question in this unknown probability anecdotal circumstance, I'd be thankful to the dude with gun regardless of his status or the guns status because he potentially saved my daughter's life or at least saved her from a severely traumatizing assault. The left are human beings and your thought that this is some trap of a question where we can't answer shows your black dishonest soul on full display. Part 2, if he was actually crazy and shouldn't have a gun then I could support taking it away after the fact or potentially support punishment if something illegal happened with it. One incident where he saved the day couldn't offset any previous ones where he may have terrorized people or any future ones where the body of data we have show he'd be a threat to others. It's not up to me though. I'm not going to go nuts trying to enforce something on him if I feel the process was deliberated by sound minded legal authorities. If he stole the gun earlier in an unrelated incident, then yes punish away. There's a lot of possibility which leads me to statement 2.

The right uses anecdotes as a crutch in the gun debate when it suits them, but then screams about probability when it doesnt. Make up your mind. One can't live in fear and hence need to carry a gun everywhere expecting ISIS or a thug to drop out of a tree or something, then turn and say school shootings are a miniscule probability so we shouldn't do anything about them.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

Fourth, anecdotes are only an example of what's possible. Without a scope of the possibility on the whole distribution, it's not as useful as the invoker would think. Getting mugged at gun point is going to have varying degrees of likelihood based on many choices and circumstantial probabilities. Same thing with school shootings or terrorist attacks. Same thing with accidental gun deaths. Which are you going to hedge your bet on if you don't know how likely they are to happen? Gun data has been pretty bad for a while but I read that some agency is able to research it again recently so maybe we will have better stuff to argue over soon.

Thank you for the response:

I'm going to make 4 statements here. First, To answer your question in this unknown probability anecdotal circumstance, I'd be thankful to the dude with gun regardless of his status or the guns status because he potentially saved my daughter's life or at least saved her from a severely traumatizing assault. The left are human beings and your thought that this is some trap of a question where we can't answer shows your black dishonest soul on full display. Part 2, if he was actually crazy and shouldn't have a gun then I could support taking it away after the fact or potentially support punishment if something illegal happened with it. One incident where he saved the day couldn't offset any previous ones where he may have terrorized people or any future ones where the body of data we have show he'd be a threat to others. It's not up to me though. I'm not going to go nuts trying to enforce something on him if I feel the process was deliberated by sound minded legal authorities. If he stole the gun earlier in an unrelated incident, then yes punish away. There's a lot of possibility which leads me to statement 2.

1. You would be supportive of the individual that saved your daughters life. ANYONE SHOULD BE!

then you make some leaps:

a. "If" he was actually crazy you would support the gun being taken away, but you would be glad he had it, right? But that begs the question of the next time he, or another just as crazy as him, coming across the same situation leaving as to avoid the State that might remove his rights. Not a good example to make to the general population.

b. A felon in possession of a gun is a leap as I don't think this guy would stick around long enough for authorities to arrive. Making this assumption is simply justifying your position, which is exactly what you accuse me of doing. The leap was not necessary, but you went there.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

My question is based on emotion? You can make that claim I guess, but it doesn't really matter. My questions were used to find the true motive behind the gun control movement. Do as I say, not as I do.

The example was of the weak being victimized by the strong and how, in many cases, the gun is the great equalizer. Removal of that equalization often times creates more victims. We see that in England where they banned these tools that make the weak equal to the strong. Instead of reducing violence and murder, those rates have increased. The weak became subjugated to the strong. The desired effect failed.

The right uses anecdotes as a crutch in the gun debate when it suits them, but then screams about probability when it doesnt. Make up your mind. One can't live in fear and hence need to carry a gun everywhere expecting ISIS or a thug to drop out of a tree or something, then turn and say school shootings are a miniscule probability so we shouldn't do anything about them.

Third, your questions hinge on emotional appeal. The fact that it's my daughter is supposed to make me change my mind about some aspect of the situation. Emotional. From the guys who claim to be the stalwart logicians while the left are emotional wet blankets. That's the second example of hypocracy.

See how far you had to wonder to get to a point, that point being living in fear.

Reality is that the strong criminal will prey on the weak nearly EVERY TIME. It is only those that are prepared for these confrontations, and successfully repel them, often times by the use of a weapon, that keeps these criminals in check. If these same individuals were reliant on waiting on police, many more would die or endure rape or robbery each year.

It's not fear, it's preparedness for reality, that makes so many carry weapons.

The reality is that the good Samaritan did what we all hope that we all would do and was prepared to do it using whatever was necessary to get the job done regardless if it was State Sanctioned or not.

Gun restrictions and bans are based on the naive notion that criminals actually give a crap about the law, but they limit the law abiding citizen from reacting to those that break the law as they please.

They embolden the criminal and subjugate the weak.

I'm a big dude and I'm not typically bothered by wandering around at night on my own. I don't do it downtown often. I think my size and build are deterrents to an extent. With that in mind it makes me think about the little people. For them to have to do similar could be an entirely different story that I don't fully understand, especially for the women. Because of that and some other stuff, I don't have a problem with well regulated concealed carry. I don't think it's a perfect solution but the peace of mind and the minimal chance they actually have to draw it are probably helping them live their life if they have to be out in those situations. I'd suggest the best thing a person can do if they don't feel safe is to move or otherwise change their lifestyle. Carrying a loaded gun comes with significant risk itself.

Without more detail about the guy with a gun that saved the day, you can't really say much about how to deal with him. A one time good deed isn't a free pass.

If it's my daughter that gets saved, you bet theres an emotional aspect to my reaction. If it's strangers in other states I'd probably still be happy that the guy was there by chance. Already so much assault and gun violence happens that we are desencitized to it. That's not some sort of endorsement for arming everyone.

Good and well thought out post. I especially enjoyed how you could not walk in another persons shoes. I have to say I applaud you for having an open mind and realizing that "one size fits all" is not always the best solution.

I will comment though on:

Without more detail about the guy with a gun that saved the day, you can't really say much about how to deal with him. A one time good deed isn't a free pass.

I guess I could have written further about the guy. Maybe that he was an eagle scout that never had as much as a parking ticket, who used the Prize Money from his Nobel Peace Prize to Start and run an Orphanage, but I think it's really not all that necessary to assume some Bad Hombre former felon, walking around with a gun likely wouldn't intercede somewhere that would probably put him back into jail for a long stay.

 

[jknowgood]

I have posed this question, in various forms, to those that advocate banning certain weapons and those that want "common sense" regulations and restrictions on guns, and have yet to have had it answered by any.

I'll start with the scenario and the question to see if starting a thread on it will illicit an answer:

You receive a call from your daughter, she tells you that she was being assaulted by a group of Men that have overpowered her. She feared she would be raped or murdered and yelled for help. A stranger heard her calls for help and arrived with a gun and chased off the assailants.

Now the question:

Would you, the Father of the victim of this assault, care if the gun that the Stranger used was legal for him to own?

Second question:

If the Stranger was arrested for the use of the weapon that possibly saved your daughters life, would you support his arrest and prosecution for owning an illegal weapon?

We can also discuss why the left have refused to answer the questions.

No and no. Answered, *****.

Good to know that you understand that guns are an excellent way to fight crime and the state has no compelling reason to take away a necessary weapon from law abiding citizens! You realize, you agree with the NRA, right?

The greatest argument against gun control in the U.S. is that it’s too late. You nuts have flooded the country with 400 million guns, making it easier for a criminal to get a gun here than anywhere in the world. **** the NRA.

You agree with the stance of the NRA.

You additionally should have noticed that I made no mention of the assailants having guns, did I? YOU went off the nut and went crazy about some requirement that criminals need guns to overpower the weak. NOW THAT'S FUNNY!

A gun has never been, and never will be a requirement for the strong to overpower the weak, but a gun is the best weapon for the weak to defend themselves from the strong.

You appear to be quit naive.

A gun is also the best weapon for crime and murder. **** the NRA.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right is obviously reluctant to respond as to their contempt for the rule of law.

 

[Ame®icano]

He should of called 911. Who says this is reality, but then the gun lovers do not like reality.

If you were one being raped, while waiting for the police, you should enjoy the rape.

I do not put myself in those situations.

And girls who are being raped do?

Sure, blame the victim.