So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Verbatim:

Let me put that into prospective for you:
More people die in the US due to deliberate gun violence each year than have died in Syrian civil war so far, heck the yearly death toll is about 4 times the total death toll of the Israeli Palestinian conflict on both sides in the past 60 years...

Estimates for the Syrian civil war range from 40,000-57,000 killed so far. Syria has a population of 20.8 million. That means at least 192 people out of every 100,000 have been killed by that war, maybe more. The US homicide rate per 100,000 by firearms is 2.97.

So I think you are blowing things out of proportion just a little bit there.

Don't listen to blablahb, he/she bases his research on stastics that only matter to one party. The fact we are arguing with him makes this postage irrelavent.

Xan Krieger:
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

No, that's murder. If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you. Regardless of how dumb US laws are, that doesn't justify committing murder upon them with firearms.

We've been over this before.

Just today police in the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant reports a remarkable amount of crime. Five robberies in one day. In two cases the occupation of a house was lightly injured because of strikes on their head when they fought the robbers in their home. Nobody was seriously injured. Nobody died. Two kids of 16 and 17 have already been arrested.

If it was done according to the cause you're arguing, at least eight people would've died yesterday in the same incidents.

Xan Krieger:
First you need to convince the gangs to turn in their guns and then you need to convince all the illegal arms smugglers that would pop up to politely hand over their guns as well. Also you'd need to convince all legal gun owners to turn in their guns in exchange for the gun's market value

And that will happen, previous gun bans in other countries show.

Yet we're still waiting on the first argument to support the ridiculous myth that somehow criminals will still be armed in equal measure after guns become unavailable to them due to a gun ban....

xDarc:
Estimates for the Syrian civil war range from 40,000-57,000 killed so far.

Over 30.000 die due to firearms possession in the US every year, so the entire Syrian civil war is two years of US gun culture.

Actually, said civil war has taken about two years as well, so US firearms possession is as deadly as a civil war, nice.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

No, that's murder. If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you. Regardless of how dumb US laws are, that doesn't justify committing murder upon them with firearms.

We've been over this before.

What? If they break into your house, they're not a threat to you? Bull. And this is why it's bull:

Cocking a Shotgun is a very loud and distinctive sound. If you do so, and the intruder does not immediately bolt for the door, then that person deserves to die if for no reason other than gross stupidity. Besides the very, very numerous cases of people being murdered by home invaders.

Blablahb:

Actually, said civil war has taken about two years as well, so US firearms possession is as deadly as a civil war, nice.

The US has over 160x the population of Syria.

Anyway...as mentioned, ~85% of gun homicides stem from an argument between the two parties, and I couldn't find any mass shooting that wasn't perpetrated by someone without a severe mental disorder. So! Easy solution. Dissolve programs like Anger Management and reform them into 'Attitude Adjustment Camps'. Like summer camps, except federally mandated, where they fix people with a combination of drugs and therapy. Also, the bar to get into one should be pretty low. Not 'Witch' low, but low. Actually, that seems like a decent replacement for prison; at least on the first offense. Then sent repeat offenders off to prison.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

No, that's murder. If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you. Regardless of how dumb US laws are, that doesn't justify committing murder upon them with firearms.

We've been over this before.

Just today police in the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant reports a remarkable amount of crime. Five robberies in one day. In two cases the occupation of a house was lightly injured because of strikes on their head when they fought the robbers in their home. Nobody was seriously injured. Nobody died. Two kids of 16 and 17 have already been arrested.

If it was done according to the cause you're arguing, at least eight people would've died yesterday in the same incidents.

Xan Krieger:
First you need to convince the gangs to turn in their guns and then you need to convince all the illegal arms smugglers that would pop up to politely hand over their guns as well. Also you'd need to convince all legal gun owners to turn in their guns in exchange for the gun's market value

And that will happen, previous gun bans in other countries show.

Yet we're still waiting on the first argument to support the ridiculous myth that somehow criminals will still be armed in equal measure after guns become unavailable to them due to a gun ban....

xDarc:
Estimates for the Syrian civil war range from 40,000-57,000 killed so far.

Over 30.000 die due to firearms possession in the US every year, so the entire Syrian civil war is two years of US gun culture.

Actually, said civil war has taken about two years as well, so US firearms possession is as deadly as a civil war, nice.

So let's call it murder, it's good and just murder then. What are you supposed to do, sit there while someone takes your stuff? That's crazy, you gotta defend your things. As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

Xan Krieger:
As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

Who will you be defending your freedom from?

Reginald:

Xan Krieger:
As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

Who will you be defending your freedom from?

Whoever tries to take it whether it's another country or our own federal government.

Xan Krieger:

Reginald:

Xan Krieger:
As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

Who will you be defending your freedom from?

Whoever tries to take it whether it's another country or our own federal government.

I see. Well, good luck taking on attack choppers, tanks, and Navy SEALs, then.

Reginald:

Xan Krieger:

Reginald:

Who will you be defending your freedom from?

Whoever tries to take it whether it's another country or our own federal government.

I see. Well, good luck taking on attack choppers, tanks, and Navy SEALs, then.

In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

Xan Krieger:

Reginald:

Xan Krieger:
Whoever tries to take it whether it's another country or our own federal government.

I see. Well, good luck taking on attack choppers, tanks, and Navy SEALs, then.

In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

So why do you need the guns then?

Xan Krieger:

Reginald:

Xan Krieger:
Whoever tries to take it whether it's another country or our own federal government.

I see. Well, good luck taking on attack choppers, tanks, and Navy SEALs, then.

In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

If that's the case, the government wouldn't have any desire to upset the proverbial apple cart.

DJjaffacake:

Xan Krieger:

Reginald:

I see. Well, good luck taking on attack choppers, tanks, and Navy SEALs, then.

In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

So why do you need the guns then?

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

Xan Krieger:

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
I believe it's called the castle doctrine, if someone breaks into your house you can break out the gun and put them in the ground. Many states have it, in my state of North Carolina "(Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_a_Castle_Law
So yeah you can defend yourself with a gun.

No, that's murder. If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you. Regardless of how dumb US laws are, that doesn't justify committing murder upon them with firearms.

We've been over this before.

Just today police in the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant reports a remarkable amount of crime. Five robberies in one day. In two cases the occupation of a house was lightly injured because of strikes on their head when they fought the robbers in their home. Nobody was seriously injured. Nobody died. Two kids of 16 and 17 have already been arrested.

If it was done according to the cause you're arguing, at least eight people would've died yesterday in the same incidents.

Xan Krieger:
First you need to convince the gangs to turn in their guns and then you need to convince all the illegal arms smugglers that would pop up to politely hand over their guns as well. Also you'd need to convince all legal gun owners to turn in their guns in exchange for the gun's market value

And that will happen, previous gun bans in other countries show.

Yet we're still waiting on the first argument to support the ridiculous myth that somehow criminals will still be armed in equal measure after guns become unavailable to them due to a gun ban....

xDarc:
Estimates for the Syrian civil war range from 40,000-57,000 killed so far.

Over 30.000 die due to firearms possession in the US every year, so the entire Syrian civil war is two years of US gun culture.

Actually, said civil war has taken about two years as well, so US firearms possession is as deadly as a civil war, nice.

So let's call it murder, it's good and just murder then. What are you supposed to do, sit there while someone takes your stuff? That's crazy, you gotta defend your things. As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

Xan, he doesn't know American self defense laws. I've been through the system, I teach people on what they legally can and can't do within Virginia law confines with regards to lethal force, and I can tell you that Blahab only hears what he wants to hear on this issue. He's called my own experiences nonexistent. He's comfortable in his ivory tower. Ignore him. Let it go.

GunsmithKitten:

DJjaffacake:

Xan Krieger:
In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

So why do you need the guns then?

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

This is a good reason to have them. Like has been said many times, you gotta defend yourself.

GunsmithKitten:

DJjaffacake:

Xan Krieger:
In our defense I think you'd agree that many soldiers would be loyal to the country and defect giving America a good number of tanks and planes. I think the number who would be loyal to the government would be like 30%.

So why do you need the guns then?

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

DJjaffacake:

GunsmithKitten:

DJjaffacake:

So why do you need the guns then?

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

Xan Krieger:

DJjaffacake:

GunsmithKitten:

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

On the other hand, using that logic, being pro-choice is saying that everyone who has survived an abortion should have been killed because they weren't wanted in the first place.

It's best not to take things personally and just reduce the lives involved to a number. Sure, you could have been that number, but it's just a number. (I'm not pro-gun control, by the way. Honestly don't care, since any ban made won't be retroactive, which means I'll still keep all of the guns I currently own either way)

Xan Krieger:

DJjaffacake:

GunsmithKitten:

Don't know about Xan, but I need them because the police and the military in my country aren't required in any way to use theirs to protect me.

Yeah, I get that, and I do actually agree that guns will remain necessary for defence in the US until the proliferation of guns can be dealt with. My issue is with the often used logic that Xan has aptly demonstrated, which contradicts itself by saying that guns are necessary to protect against an oppressive government, and then that the military will not assist the government in such a situation, rendering the privately owned guns unnecessary for that purpose.

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

I bolded the relevant part of my post. I'm not in favour of a complete ban on guns, either now or in the foreseeable future, I just don't agree with the 'defence against tyranny' argument in the defence of gun ownership.

*yawns*

I should have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend my home with nerve agents.

Xan Krieger:

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

And to say people should have guns is to say that those kids indeed had to die.

Your argument was simply to easy to turn around.

generals3:

Xan Krieger:

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

And to say people should have guns is to say that those kids indeed had to die.

Your argument was simply to easy to turn around.

So why is my life less valuable than theirs?

RhombusHatesYou:
*yawns*

I should have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend my home with nerve agents.

What's your delivery system for them?

GunsmithKitten:

generals3:

Xan Krieger:

Even if you remove that purpose they're still extremely valuable for defense. Gunsmith Kitten told me what happened to her and she wouldn't be alive right now if people weren't allowed to have guns. To say people shouldn't have guns is to say she should've been killed.

And to say people should have guns is to say that those kids indeed had to die.

Your argument was simply to easy to turn around.

So why is my life less valuable than theirs?

So why is their life less valuable as yours?

Really stop with this ridiculous rethoric. It's all about pro's and con's and anti gun people obviously feel the cons outweigh the pros. This isn't about your life not being worth it. regardless of the stance you'll take you will have blood on your hands. It doesn't mean you somehow value ones life less than an other.

RhombusHatesYou:
*yawns*

I should have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend my home with nerve agents.

Need to sign the proper papers, get permits, and such. In the land of the free you can own a RPG, tanks, explosives, tanks, I think even fighter jets, as long as you have the money and go through the proper channels, and get permits it is possible. Might depend on what state also, but GOD BLESS AMERICA.

You can't defend yourself with firearms. The chance that you can commit murder in a fashion it could be defended as being self-defense is almost nil.

As for fighting back, that's what gun bans are all about. Without guns, anyone stands a chance in the worst case scenario; one or two decent punches can put the biggest hardest criminal on the ground. There's simply no longer any such things as armed street gang or spree shooters, because they can't shoot.


A better question is how many children you want to see die, to be able to have guns and perpetuate a myth that's only going to get you and others killed in the end.

Alright, this isn't the first time we've debated self defense. My stance on it is pretty clear. But you say defending yourself with a gun isn't self defense. What do you define as self defense?

Also, if there's some 90 lbs woman going up against a 300lb man with a violent criminal history, I'm pretty sure a couple decent punches won't do much. Is it possible she could fend him off and make it out, sure. But it's not that probable. Chances are she's going to get beat or killed or raped, etc or any combination of them.

Also, you're claim that there aren't anymore gang shootings or spree shootings (I assume by gangsters) because they can't shoot is ridiculous. Most mass killings (which is technically considered anything over four people) are gang related. I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but that comment alone makes me question whether or not you're just trolling.

Also, don't give me that 'it's for the children BS'. You're doing a poor job at trying to incite emotion, and using the recent shooting to attempt to bring home your point is a bit tasteless. If you think taking all guns away from everyone will solve things, fine, I have no reason to argue with your opinion, you're entitled to it after all.

No of course not, but an Ar-15 is a rifle, and an Ak-47 is too unless if it's
So you cannot call a semi-auto Ak-47 an assault rifle because it has no burst or automatic fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

beef_razor:
Alright, this isn't the first time we've debated self defense. My stance on it is pretty clear. But you say defending yourself with a gun isn't self defense. What do you define as self defense?

Proportional force to prevent harm being done to you, or others uncapable of warding it off.

That's why self-defense with guns is impossible: murder is never proportional. You can't be killed first and then kill your killer back.

beef_razor:
Also, if there's some 90 lbs woman going up against a 300lb man with a violent criminal history, I'm pretty sure a couple decent punches won't do much.

Actually they do. Just use aim. Murder is not an alternative in any case.

beef_razor:
Chances are she's going to get beat or killed or raped, etc or any combination of them.

It just keeps occuring to me what an unrealistic view of human behaviour the gun lobby has. There's not a rapist hiding behind every bush. Not everyone who breaks the law is a murderer. Not everyone who swings it at someone will beat them to death.

beef_razor:
Also, you're claim that there aren't anymore gang shootings or spree shootings because they can't shoot is ridiculous.

Then I look forward to your evidence which demonstrates how to shoot people dead with bare hands...

The reality in countries with gun bans is that there are no gang wars, because street gangs don't have guns. The violence they commit is far less severe and far less frequent.

GunsmithKitten:
So why is my life less valuable than theirs?

You just implied that children have to die, because otherwise you don't feel important enough.

Reconsider.

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
Alright, this isn't the first time we've debated self defense. My stance on it is pretty clear. But you say defending yourself with a gun isn't self defense. What do you define as self defense?

Proportional force to prevent harm being done to you, or others incapable of warding it off.

That's why self-defense with guns is impossible: murder is never proportional. You can't be killed first and then kill your killer back.

'Or others incapable of waring it off'. So if someone kills another person, then the killer can be killed and that would fall under your definition of self-defense.

Gergar12:
No of course not, but an Ar-15 is a rifle, and an Ak-47 is too unless if it's
So you cannot call a semi-auto Ak-47 an assault rifle because it has no burst or automatic fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

You are not entirely correct...

There are the colloquial (common), technical and legal meanings of 'assault weapon' in the US.

The FOPA (1986) legally defines 'automatic weapons' to include most firearms that are colloquially and technically called 'assault weapons'.

The AWB (1992) legally defined 'assault weapon' to include many semi-auto firearms. The AWB also legally defined the features required to determine if a firearm was an 'assault pistol', 'assault shotgun' or 'assault rifle' (and so banned).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

Xan Krieger:
As for everyone turning in their guns I don't know about your country but in mine we fought for our freedom with guns and we need guns in case we ever need to defend our freedom again.

LOL!

~40% of Americans can't be bothered to get off the couch and particpate in the democratic process by VOTING.

Yet you think those same Americans will get off the couch and risk their lives fighting the US military in a rebellion?

Good luck with that....

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
Alright, this isn't the first time we've debated self defense. My stance on it is pretty clear. But you say defending yourself with a gun isn't self defense. What do you define as self defense?

Proportional force to prevent harm being done to you, or others uncapable of warding it off.

That's why self-defense with guns is impossible: murder is never proportional. You can't be killed first and then kill your killer back.

beef_razor:
Also, if there's some 90 lbs woman going up against a 300lb man with a violent criminal history, I'm pretty sure a couple decent punches won't do much.

Actually they do. Just use aim. Murder is not an alternative in any case.

beef_razor:
Chances are she's going to get beat or killed or raped, etc or any combination of them.

It just keeps occuring to me what an unrealistic view of human behaviour the gun lobby has. There's not a rapist hiding behind every bush. Not everyone who breaks the law is a murderer. Not everyone who swings it at someone will beat them to death.

beef_razor:
Also, you're claim that there aren't anymore gang shootings or spree shootings because they can't shoot is ridiculous.

Then I look forward to your evidence which demonstrates how to shoot people dead with bare hands...

The reality in countries with gun bans is that there are no gang wars, because street gangs don't have guns. The violence they commit is far less severe and far less frequent.

GunsmithKitten:
So why is my life less valuable than theirs?

You just implied that children have to die, because otherwise you don't feel important enough.

Reconsider.

Alright, I was going to go through your arguments and offer counters to them but figured that would be pointless. I'm not a violent person by any means, and avoid unnecessary conflict, but if I know someone intends me harm, whether to kill me or injure me, I will defend myself through whatever means. And if they happen to be using a gun to either kill or injure me, I'll be glad I have one to defend myself. They attacked me first after all, I have every right to do what I need to, to defend myself.

As for proof of gang violence, you obviously have the internet, so there's no need for me to hold your hand here. Look it up yourself, it's not that hard. Also, what are you talking about when you said, "shoot people dead with bare hands?"

Seeing that Mountain lion take down that deer on my way home this evening made me think twice about my glock 40 being enough... Damn those things are fast and powerful. Made me run a stop sign, it was less than 5 ft from the road. I sure as hell would not want to be taking out garbage or checking my mail unarmed with that out there. The sheer force and speed is amazing.

Blablahb:
If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you.

Tell that to Kimberly Cates. A seventeen year old boy named Steven Spader broke into her Mont Vernon, NH home and butchered her with a machete, then maimed Kimberly's daughter Jaime. His motive? It was a thrill killing. Did it just for fun.

I live in that county. So... yeah... if someone breaks into my house, there's clearly no threat at all to myself or my family.

You seem to make the mistake of assuming that firearm owners like myself assume that all people are Steven Spaders. No. I own a firearm not because I think everyone's out to get me, I own a firearm in case someone actually is. Same reason why people buy earthquake or flood or fire insurance. It only has to happen to you that one rare time for it to completely fuck your life up. Having the insurance is a preventative measure. Is it still possible for your life to be ruined even with the insurance? Of course. But at least with it the odds of that happening are lower. Do I honestly think someone's going to break into my house and murder me? Not really. But I'd like to be able to defend myself on the off chance that it does somehow happen. And sorry, "a few decent punches" isn't going to be even remotely adequate against a guy with a machete.

And again, for the... what? Fifth time now? I have successfully defended myself without hurting anyone with my firearms. Twice. And I'm going to keep mentioning it, because it completely destroys your argument every single time to the point where it's easier for you to ignore and bury it. In that case, I'll keep digging it up.

I'm beginning to think you are actually delusional on this issue. Or just hopelessly idealistic to the point of rejecting reality.

EDIT:
Link to prove I'm not making shit up like Blah seems to love doing.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120926/NEWS03/709269884

Blablahb:
If someone breaks into your house, they're not a serious, let alone a mortal threat to you.

In previous discussions I already provided sources that showed how wrong you are in this assumption. Again: in 26% of the cases when a resident is at home during a burglary it ends with an attack of the resident. This equals a threat and I won't put my money on the chance that the injuries I get through that might not have consequences in some way.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Now provide your sources where burglars are just nice people who would never harm a fly.

Kopikatsu:

Blablahb:

beef_razor:
Alright, this isn't the first time we've debated self defense. My stance on it is pretty clear. But you say defending yourself with a gun isn't self defense. What do you define as self defense?

Proportional force to prevent harm being done to you, or others incapable of warding it off.

That's why self-defense with guns is impossible: murder is never proportional. You can't be killed first and then kill your killer back.

'Or others incapable of waring it off'. So if someone kills another person, then the killer can be killed and that would fall under your definition of self-defense.

I also find it funny that he considers a proportional response to drug use is to throw the user in prison.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked