Idiots

[Seth]

How many Sandy Hooks and Columbines is that guy worth? Could we drag out pictures of murdered children and swap them like playing cards?

An armed citizenry is not responsible for the acts of crazed killers or terrorists. It is the fact that those schools PROHIBITED anyone (other than perhaps a single police officer assigned to the school) BY LAW from being armed so as to be able to defend the children under their care and in their custody that is responsible for those children being killed, and it is people like YOU who advocate and support such policies, which makes YOU culpable and liable for those deaths.

Had I been at either of those schools, or any other place where an armed criminal attacks, I would have given MY life actively pursuing and attempting to kill the shooter(s) in order to do what anti-gun ilk are too cowardly or too fucking stupid to do, which is arm myself for the protection of myself and others and be civic-minded enough to take action when necessary.

[Jason]

How many Sandy Hooks and Columbines is that guy worth? Could we drag out pictures of murdered children and swap them like playing cards?

An armed citizenry is not responsible for the acts of crazed killers or terrorists.

Neither is a disarmed citizenry. End of.

[Seth]

Seth

The FBI figure of 70,000 DGU's do not equate to 70,000 lives saved. They only equate to 70,000 times someone got a gun out to threaten someone who they felt threatened by. Not the same thing at all, and only an idiot would equate them.

You don't know that and neither does anyone else. What we do know is that 80,000 people were not criminally victimized, which includes not being beaten to a pulp like this guy:

black eye avatar.jpg (21.06 KiB) Viewed 3455 times

or murdered because they were armed.

That's ten times the number of people murdered by handguns by criminals. Only an idiot would equate the lawful carrying of defensive firearms with armed criminal violence, and only a complete asshole of a fuckwit would ignore as many as 2.5 million crimes thwarted by firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens in order to try to argue for banning guns.

[Seth]

How many Sandy Hooks and Columbines is that guy worth? Could we drag out pictures of murdered children and swap them like playing cards?

An armed citizenry is not responsible for the acts of crazed killers or terrorists.

Neither is a disarmed citizenry. End of.

True, but a "disarmed citizenry" is something entirely different from those who advocate for and support the disarming of the citizenry.

It is up to each individual to assess their level of risk and decide what, if any, tools of self-defense they desire to carry to provide for their own defense and the defense of their families and their community members.

Those who advocate for and support interfering in that individual, personal decision regarding carrying a gun or any other weapon or tool of self-defense are indeed culpable for every injury or death which might have been prevented or reduced if the individual's right to make such decisions had not been interfered with by government with the complicit cooperation of such anti-self-defense rights scumbags.

[Jason]

How many Sandy Hooks and Columbines is that guy worth? Could we drag out pictures of murdered children and swap them like playing cards?

An armed citizenry is not responsible for the acts of crazed killers or terrorists.

Neither is a disarmed citizenry. End of.

True, but a "disarmed citizenry" is something entirely different from those who advocate for and support the disarming of the citizenry.

It is up to each individual to assess their level of risk and decide what, if any, tools of self-defense they desire to carry to provide for their own defense and the defense of their families and their community members.

Those who advocate for and support interfering in that individual, personal decision regarding carrying a gun or any other weapon or tool of self-defense are indeed culpable for every injury or death which might have been prevented or reduced if the individual's right to make such decisions had not been interfered with by government with the complicit cooperation of such anti-self-defense rights scumbags.

You've just made the citizens of Paris responsible for 130 deaths. That was your intent or do you want to try your hand at this logic puzzle again?

[Seth]

How many Sandy Hooks and Columbines is that guy worth? Could we drag out pictures of murdered children and swap them like playing cards?

An armed citizenry is not responsible for the acts of crazed killers or terrorists.

Neither is a disarmed citizenry. End of.

True, but a "disarmed citizenry" is something entirely different from those who advocate for and support the disarming of the citizenry.

It is up to each individual to assess their level of risk and decide what, if any, tools of self-defense they desire to carry to provide for their own defense and the defense of their families and their community members.

Those who advocate for and support interfering in that individual, personal decision regarding carrying a gun or any other weapon or tool of self-defense are indeed culpable for every injury or death which might have been prevented or reduced if the individual's right to make such decisions had not been interfered with by government with the complicit cooperation of such anti-self-defense rights scumbags.

You've just made the citizens of Paris responsible for 130 deaths. That was your intent or do you want to try your hand at this logic puzzle again?

Did all citizens of Paris advocate for and support disarming law-abiding citizens? If so, then yes, that's exactly what they are responsible for. If not, then those who DID so advocate and support disarming of law-abiding citizens are indeed responsible for those 130 deaths, and every other death or injury suffered by a person who wished to carry defensive arms but was denied permission to do so by the government.

[Jason]

Those who advocate for and support interfering in that individual, personal decision regarding carrying a gun or any other weapon or tool of self-defense are indeed culpable for every injury or death which might have been prevented or reduced if the individual's right to make such decisions had not been interfered with by government with the complicit cooperation of such anti-self-defense rights scumbags.

You've just made the citizens of Paris responsible for 130 deaths. That was your intent or do you want to try your hand at this logic puzzle again?

Did all citizens of Paris advocate for and support disarming law-abiding citizens? If so, then yes, that's exactly what they are responsible for. If not, then those who DID so advocate and support disarming of law-abiding citizens are indeed responsible for those 130 deaths, and every other death or injury suffered by a person who wished to carry defensive arms but was denied permission to do so by the government.

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

[Seth]

Those who advocate for and support interfering in that individual, personal decision regarding carrying a gun or any other weapon or tool of self-defense are indeed culpable for every injury or death which might have been prevented or reduced if the individual's right to make such decisions had not been interfered with by government with the complicit cooperation of such anti-self-defense rights scumbags.

You've just made the citizens of Paris responsible for 130 deaths. That was your intent or do you want to try your hand at this logic puzzle again?

Did all citizens of Paris advocate for and support disarming law-abiding citizens? If so, then yes, that's exactly what they are responsible for. If not, then those who DID so advocate and support disarming of law-abiding citizens are indeed responsible for those 130 deaths, and every other death or injury suffered by a person who wished to carry defensive arms but was denied permission to do so by the government.

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

If they advocated for or supported disarming the law-abiding citizenry, then yes. Those who advocate for and support ARMING the law-abiding citizenry, and those who actually lawfully carry arms are the only ones not culpable.

[Jason]

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

If they advocated for or supported disarming the law-abiding citizenry, then yes. Those who advocate for and support ARMING the law-abiding citizenry, and those who actually lawfully carry arms are the only ones not culpable.

That's a yes. Seth holds all those who do not support arming citizenry responsible for the crimes that occur in their society. That's something new.

Citizens are ultimately responsible for their government then?

[Seth]

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

If they advocated for or supported disarming the law-abiding citizenry, then yes. Those who advocate for and support ARMING the law-abiding citizenry, and those who actually lawfully carry arms are the only ones not culpable.

That's a yes. Seth holds all those who do not support arming citizenry responsible for the crimes that occur in their society. That's something new.

Citizens are ultimately responsible for their government then?

Indeed, since all power and authority granted to government comes from the People to begin with.

[Jason]

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

If they advocated for or supported disarming the law-abiding citizenry, then yes. Those who advocate for and support ARMING the law-abiding citizenry, and those who actually lawfully carry arms are the only ones not culpable.

That's a yes. Seth holds all those who do not support arming citizenry responsible for the crimes that occur in their society. That's something new.

Citizens are ultimately responsible for their government then?

Indeed, since all power and authority granted to government comes from the People to begin with.

Are not the American citizens who support maintaining your right to bear arms in the face of massacres like Sandy Hook responsible for all those dead then?

[Hermit]

Hooray. The safest country in the world, going by the rate of privately owned firearms per inhabitant, had another massacre - 14 dead at a social service centre for mentally handicapped at San Bernardino, California. Must be nice living in the USA, but I prefer to live in a more dangerous environment - here in Australia with a sixth of the gun to inhabitant ratio, a quarter of the murders and next to no massacres.

[Seth]

Just answer the question. Are the citizens of Paris, hell might as well say all of France, responsible for those 130 dead or not?

If they advocated for or supported disarming the law-abiding citizenry, then yes. Those who advocate for and support ARMING the law-abiding citizenry, and those who actually lawfully carry arms are the only ones not culpable.

That's a yes. Seth holds all those who do not support arming citizenry responsible for the crimes that occur in their society. That's something new.

Citizens are ultimately responsible for their government then?

Indeed, since all power and authority granted to government comes from the People to begin with.

Are not the American citizens who support maintaining your right to bear arms in the face of massacres like Sandy Hook responsible for all those dead then?

No, just the ones who want to disarm law-abiding citizens. One need not be successful in one's resistance to government tyranny and oppression to be morally validated in resisting it in whatever ways are possible under the existing conditions. Only those who argue for banning guns are responsible because it is they who create and support the government systems that result in guys like this:

black eye avatar.jpg (20.69 KiB) Viewed 3434 times

[Seth]

Hooray. The safest country in the world, going by the rate of privately owned firearms per inhabitant, had another massacre - 14 dead at a social service centre for mentally handicapped at San Bernardino, California. Must be nice living in the USA, but I prefer to live in a more dangerous environment - here in Australia with a sixth of the gun to inhabitant ratio, a quarter of the murders and next to no massacres.

Oh, you'll get yours eventually, when the jihadis do the same thing there.

And of course, as usual, the massacre took place in a "gun-free zone," as has been the case with every other mass shooting in recent history.

The one time some jihadi fucks tried to shoot up a place that wasn't a "gun-free zone" they got very quickly dead, as is appropriate.

[Blind groper]

Seth has selective blindness.

I have already pointed out that the most successful campaigns to end oppression are those that do NOT involve guns, such as Mahatma Gandhi, and the campaigns in Myanmar, Tunisia, Egypt, Botswana and so on. The campaigns that DO involve guns end in long term civil wars that destroy economies and kill thousands of people. Guns cause very bad outcomes.

On DGU's
I have been threatened several times in my adult life, and never needed a gun. I have friends who have told me of their experiences being threatened, and they did not need a gun either. My guess, based on the range of similar experiences, is that only in one case in a thousand is a gun actually needed when threatened. In the other 999 cases out of 1000, the outcome is better when no guns are involved.