Legal gun owners never is stop gun killer, right?

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... shootings/

[sarcasm]is definite truth that legal gun carry is never stop killers![/sarcasm]

[JimC]

That is never our contention. Clearly, on occasions, it will happen. Our contention would be that the number of lives saved in such circumstances is far outweighed statistically by the number of extra gun deaths that occur in the US vs comparable developed nations.

[rainbow]

That is never our contention. Clearly, on occasions, it will happen. Our contention would be that the number of lives saved in such circumstances is far outweighed statistically by the number of extra gun deaths that occur in the US vs comparable developed nations.

The US is a 'developed nation'?

[Tero]

If the gun owner is attacked, clearly he/she is having is a benefit from the gun.

Simpler solution: take away both of their guns. Let them use knives, axes, swords.Much smaller mass killings.

The clean up alone would be a big savings. We would only need to hose down the blood in the future knife-only era. Taser victims (still allowed) would have a few very clean heart attacks.

[mistermack]

Do legally held guns justifiably kill more criminals, or wrongly kill more innocent people?

Of course, any current figure will be wrong, tilted in favour of the "justifiable" figure, because dead innocent people find it hard to argue their case.

Even so, I suspect that there are far more innocent people killed by legal guns, than criminals.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

If the gun owner is attacked, clearly he/she is having is a benefit from the gun.

Simpler solution: take away both of their guns. Let them use knives, axes, swords.Much smaller mass killings.

The clean up alone would be a big savings. We would only need to hose down the blood in the future knife-only era. Taser victims (still allowed) would have a few very clean heart attacks.

Yes, criminal man is give you his guns willingly when you come for take! When you is get all criminals to give you guns, maybe we is talk about handing over many fine glorious Kalashnikov rifles, and Simonov carbines, and Makarov pistols of glorious Russia manufacturing... Maybe.

[NineBerry]

This thread grammar terrible has.

[JimC]

This thread grammar terrible has.

It's Avto, in reality a guy from America, pretending to be a Russian with broken English.

It can be mildly amusing at times...

[Seth]

That is never our contention. Clearly, on occasions, it will happen. Our contention would be that the number of lives saved in such circumstances is far outweighed statistically by the number of extra gun deaths that occur in the US vs comparable developed nations.

You forget the millions of times every year that NO ONE is shot, and more importantly NO ONE is criminally victimized because a law-abiding citizen merely displays a gun, thereby causing the potential crime to not occur. Few of these sorts of defensive gun uses are even reported because no crime occurred and no one was injured or killed. I know you don't care to address anything other than gun-caused deaths because that's part of your mendacious anti-gun agenda, but the fact remains that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are used millions of times per year to thwart and prevent crime altogether, and that is worth a great deal to any sane person. The number of times guns are used by citizens to actually kill a dangerous criminal are limited, but the deterrent effects of an armed citizenry on crime, and particularly violent crime, are clearly shown by the graphs previously posted here...and the fact that violent crime in the US continues its steady decline year after year even as millions more guns (more than 2 million this year alone according to NICS) enter our society.

Aside from that salient point, your contention is crap because it reduces the right of each and every individual to absolute safety from criminality to the status of a statistical assignment of their rights which depends on some bureaucrat's judgment of how much their safety is worth compared to the putative overall safety of the community as a whole, which asinine calculus is based on the utterly false notion that "guns are bad, end of story" and an equally idiotic religious belief that criminals won't get guns if law-abiding citizens are denied guns, which has been utterly disproven again just last week in Australia.

First, it's a bullshit argument because you falsely presume that limiting the number of guns in society will result in a reduction in gun deaths, a contention that I once again point out to you is completely bogus and entirely unsupported by facts. Indeed, as we have just discussed previously, the exact opposite is true.

The reason your "factoid" is so entirely bogus is because it makes the specious and unproven assumption that all guns are equally "dangerous" as tools of crime. That's obviously not the case. In the US, fewer than 4 ten-thousandths of one percent of all guns in the US are EVER used in a crime of ANY kind. The other 99.9996% of guns sit quietly and obediently in a closet or gun safe somewhere and only come out for lawful purposes. Therefore it is entirely specious to suggest that the raw number of guns in a society is a determining factor in the amount of gun crime in that society. It's not. The most important factor is not how many guns there are but rather who is in possession of them. Any gun, from a .22 single shot rifle to a fully-automatic Minigun that fires 6000 rounds per minute is completely, utterly and absolutely devoid of criminal liability so long as it is not used to commit a crime, and therefore all such firearms are legally, ethically and morally neutral inanimate objects that represent exactly zero risk to the public or anyone else.

On the other hand, one-hundred percent of guns possessed by criminals are obviously dangerous tools of crime, just like baseball bats, pint glasses, knives or bottles of acid.

We don't need gun control, we need criminal control. I advocate immediate, lawful permanent solutions when it comes to dangerous, violent criminals who attack others.

We also need to get rid of idiots who think that criminals can't get ahold of guns in "gun free" societies (which are a complete fiction in the first place) because such idiots are dangerous to the rest of humanity.

I say we send them all to New Zealand and then embargo the islands entirely and let the Kilkenny Cat forces go to work.

[Seth]

If the gun owner is attacked, clearly he/she is having is a benefit from the gun.

And therein lies the entire point. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any right or power to deny a law-abiding citizen who is criminally attack the most effective tools of self-defense ever invented by man.

Simpler solution: take away both of their guns. Let them use knives, axes, swords.Much smaller mass killings.

You can't "take away both of their guns." That ship has sailed. Guns exist, and will always exist and criminals will always find ways to get guns, or at need simply manufacture them for themselves. That would always place the law-abiding potential victim at a severe disadvantage, which of course is exactly what you want, because you require the blood of innocents in order to support your dangerous and deranged agenda. Without armed criminals killing people you wouldn't have anything to bitch about, so you revel in the bloodshed of innocents because it gives you a supposed moral platform from which to pontificate about the rights of others and how you ought to get to control them.

Your denigration of everyone else's civil rights to the status of a statistically-allocated government benefit demonstrates that you have no understanding of the Constitution or the founding principles of our nation, and you do not therefore deserve to enjoy the very rights that you disparage and deny to others.

Why don't you head to North Korea, where there are no individual rights at all, which seems to jibe nicely with your personal beliefs?

[NineBerry]

Neither you, nor anyone else, has any right or power to deny a law-abiding citizen who is criminally attack the most effective tools of self-defense ever invented by man.

You mean Smartphones?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/7-p ... d-bullets/

[Seth]

Neither you, nor anyone else, has any right or power to deny a law-abiding citizen who is criminally attack the most effective tools of self-defense ever invented by man.

You mean Smartphones?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/7-p ... d-bullets/

Indeed, if that's useful. Or guns, knives, OC spray, bullet proof vests, armored cars or anything else they might choose to carry because they feel they need to do so.

If I want to walk around downtown dressed in full military combat gear with my Level IV body armor, Kevlar helmet, handgun, knife and Colt M4 rifle along with 300 rounds of ammunition I can do so. It's my right to do so if I choose to do so and I don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so, nor can I be denied my right to do so.

Of course, I will undoubtedly be approached by the police and asked a number of questions, which I may or may not deign to answer, and they will likely demand that I identify myself and give an explanation of my actions, which they are permitted to do by law. But, so long as they do not have probable cause to believe that I am involved in, am about to be involved in, or have just become involved in the commission of a crime (which merely possessing and openly carrying firearms is not in Colorado), the worst they can lawfully do is to stand around and watch me to be sure I don't do something illegal.

The thing is, no person's right to keep and bear arms can be conditioned on the public's fear factor. It is legally irrational in the United States for a person to invoke their personal fear of firearms as an excuse to interfere with the rights of another person to peaceably keep and bear arms.

If you are afraid of open carry, then stay at home.

[NineBerry]

I wouldn't be afraid of open carry laws if I was also allowed to openly carry an atomic bomb with me. Strictly as a deterrent for self-defense of course. You see, my aiming skills are not so good. So the only way to be safe from gun owners with better aim, would be with a more potent weapon that is easier to use.

[Seth]

I wouldn't be afraid of open carry laws if I was also allowed to openly carry an atomic bomb with me. Strictly as a deterrent for self-defense of course. You see, my aiming skills are not so good. So the only way to be safe from gun owners with better aim, would be with a more potent weapon that is easier to use.

More hyperbolic horseshit. Atomic bombs are not individual weapons of personal defense, they are, by definition, weapons of mass destruction and area weapons and therefore don't qualify under the 2nd Amendment.

[Tero]

Cops shoot armed criminal
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/05/ma ... spree.html

Good plan, ours is jails full the dope heads before already!