Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

Sure there is, if you are able to remover yourself from the collectivist mindset and look at things from the individual perspective.

You're a woman. If a 6'3" 200lb athletic guy with a knife is attacking you do you think your odds of survival are better with a rape whistle or a gun?

You seem to think being totally unarmed woman vs over powering or even armed man is the best way to go.

This is why people end up repeating themselves - because you utterly ignore what they say. I've provided many examples, where I, as an individual, have clearly benefited from the absence of guns in the situation. These are ACTUAL situations I've been in, not hypothetical things you make up. In that instance, I freaking AM looking at it as an individual - that was the basic problem everyone had with my argument, that I was apparently 'denying other women the right to protect themselves', so apparently not being concerned enough about the collective.

 

[KimGordon67]

There you sit judging our gun policy while getting all touchy about us sending the same judgmental shit back at you LOL my gawd the smug could not be any thicker.

How about don't tell us we're wrong because we see and do things differently from the very government we told not long ago to fuck off and mind it's own bidnizz...and we won't call you a bunch of collectivist pussies.

And again with the need for the repetition that you keep complaining about ... "So yes, maybe living in the US in the 21st century gun ownership is fairly sensible (maybe)."

 

[BotanyBoy]

This is why people end up repeating themselves - because you utterly ignore what they say.

I'm not ignoring what they say, I'm not accepting personal anecdotes and feelings as the only authority on the subject of an armed populations.

I keep repeating myself because you're ignoring what I'm saying.

I've provided many examples, where I, as an individual, have clearly benefited from the absence of guns in the situation. These are ACTUAL situations I've been in,

Yes you benefited from the absence of guns. No doubt.


From and individualist and pro civil rights stand point your personal experience is irrelevant in deciding if others around you get to have their individual rights.

Because there are a LOT of situations where a person is not so lucky and a mother fucker could have REALLY used a gun...even in Jolly ol' England.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329089-19F1FAAA000005DC-790_634x476.jpg

And you along with others are absolutely defiant about recognizing that guns = the international standard in personal defense weaponry.

That's why nobody on the anti-gun side would DARE answer my question as to if they believe in a persons right to self defense. Because the ONLY rational, logical course of thought that supports that is that you also have to support people having the right to arm themselves with a gun. Restrictions and such are debatable beyond that but it has to go to that level, or you don't believe in a persons right to self defense.

not hypothetical things you make up.

The hypothetical things I'm making up are realities that exist in the world and I'm presenting them to try and get you past f "I, as an individual, have clearly benefited from the absence of guns in the situation." and realize that is not always the case. Just because you've managed without doesn't mean everyone has or will.

Lead you down the though path so you understand that the reason all the anti-gun politicians and celebrities out there have armed security with guns because guns are without a doubt the most effective, affordable and prevalent personal defense tool out there.

The self defense standard 100% worldwide is the gun, even in YOUR country where they have been banned.

- that was the basic problem everyone had with my argument, that I was apparently 'denying other women the right to protect themselves', so apparently not being concerned enough about the collective.

Other women =/= the collective, they are individuals.

You want the government (the collective) to deny them (individuals) the right to self defense by advocating the government taking their guns from them.

Do you not? You're pro gun ban right?

And again with the need for the repetition that you keep complaining about ... "So yes, maybe living in the US in the 21st century gun ownership is fairly sensible (maybe)."

And you just keep talking past everything I said.

Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by sensible.

Care to elaborate?

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not ignoring what they say, I'm not accepting personal anecdotes and feelings as the only authority on the subject of an armed populations.

I keep repeating myself because you're ignoring what I'm saying.





Yes you benefited from the absence of guns. No doubt.


From and individualist and pro civil rights stand point your personal experience is irrelevant in deciding if others around you get to have their individual rights.

Because there are a LOT of situations where a person is not so lucky and a mother fucker could have REALLY used a gun...even in Jolly ol' England.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329089-19F1FAAA000005DC-790_634x476.jpg

And you along with others are absolutely defiant about recognizing that guns = the international standard in personal defense weaponry.

That's why nobody on the anti-gun side would DARE answer my question as to if they believe in a persons right to self defense. Because the ONLY rational, logical course of thought that supports that is that you also have to support people having the right to arm themselves with a gun. Restrictions and such are debatable beyond that but it has to go to that level, or you don't believe in a persons right to self defense.




The hypothetical things I'm making up are realities that exist in the world and I'm presenting them to try and get you past f "I, as an individual, have clearly benefited from the absence of guns in the situation." and realize that is not always the case. Just because you've managed without doesn't mean everyone has or will.

Lead you down the though path so you understand that the reason all the anti-gun politicians and celebrities out there have armed security with guns because guns are without a doubt the most effective, affordable and prevalent personal defense tool out there.

The self defense standard 100% worldwide is the gun, even in YOUR country where they have been banned.



Other women =/= the collective, they are individuals.

You want the government (the collective) to deny them (individuals) the right to self defense by advocating the government taking their guns from them.

Do you not? You're pro gun ban right?





And you just keep talking past everything I said.

Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by sensible.

Care to elaborate?

You're not accepting personal anecdotes (while also presenting examples that are basically 'anecdotes'), but you're not accepting actual research either? What does that leave us with ... 'common sense'. Awesome. That's always worked out well in the past.

I've explained my position on the self defense argument ad nauseum - even you accepted that I'd answered the question ... but you're just posing it again.

I don't need to support a gun ban - the context in which I live is working out just fine.

I'm seriously not responding to your posts any more - it's quite literally a waste of my time and thought.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So simple. "Extreme vetting" before someone can buy a gun. Domestic abuse? No gun.

And - All sales are registered. All Sales. You don't register the sale (or that it was "stolen" (sic) ) and you are responsible for the crime it was used in committing.

That would be a well regulated approach.

 

[badbabysitter]

First of all, I would like to go on record as saying I am fully behind people being able to own guns, fuck, own all the guns you freaking want to. I just believe with regulating the shit out of them so as to ensure that you have a nation of responsible gun owners and not a bunch of yahoos just looking for a chance to shoot someone.

But I would like to criticize some pro-gun talking points which are not based in reality.

The whole thug out of a Batman comic book that Botany keeps presenting as somehow proof that a gun would magically protect the aforementioned woman from harm; is complete hogwash

If that comic book bad guy is attacking me with a knife, I am already too late to go for my gun. He is within five feet of me. By the time I have retrieved my firearm, turned off the safety and aimed it at the Riddlers henchman, I have already been stabbed at least a dozen times.

The only way I would be able to defend myself successfully with a gun against the Pengiun's associates is if I knew the attack was going to take place and I had enough time to draw my weapon , aim it, and hit Two Face's right hand man.

But that is not reality.

Reality is that an assailant can cover 20 feet in a second and a half.

That is why the police do not use weapons at close range.

That is why the police do not advocate firearms for personal defense outside of the home

That is why not a single solitary respectable school of self defense ever recommends firearms.

That is why I; with over three thousand hours of hand to hand training, would never go for a firearm

In fact, studies have shown that people carrying firearms are more likely to die from their own firearms being used against them as opposed to unarmed or melee using victims


When a woman is assaulted it is rarely from a man a block down the street, yelling at her their intentions and then casually sauntering up to them while the woman readies her gun

Most assaults are from people they already and know, so unless you recommend that woman keep their guns in their hands at all times whilst maintaining at least 21feet from everyone they know at all times.. your magic gun theory just doesnt cut it

Secondly, most attacks that do occur are usually from behind as it is far easier to subdue a smaller opponent if they cant kick or punch you, and far more easier to pin from behind. So once again.. the magic gun protection from the comic goon also doesnt match reality

 

[KimGordon67]

First of all, I would like to go on record as saying I am fully behind people being able to own guns, fuck, own all the guns you freaking want to. I just believe with regulating the shit out of them so as to ensure that you have a nation of responsible gun owners and not a bunch of yahoos just looking for a chance to shoot someone.

But I would like to criticize some pro-gun talking points which are not based in reality.

The whole thug out of a Batman comic book that Botany keeps presenting as somehow proof that a gun would magically protect the aforementioned woman from harm; is complete hogwash

If that comic book bad guy is attacking me with a knife, I am already too late to go for my gun. He is within five feet of me. By the time I have retrieved my firearm, turned off the safety and aimed it at the Riddlers henchman, I have already been stabbed at least a dozen times.

The only way I would be able to defend myself successfully with a gun against the Pengiun's associates is if I knew the attack was going to take place and I had enough time to draw my weapon , aim it, and hit Two Face's right hand man.

But that is not reality.

Reality is that an assailant can cover 20 feet in a second and a half.

That is why the police do not use weapons at close range.

That is why the police do not advocate firearms for personal defense outside of the home

That is why not a single solitary respectable school of self defense ever recommends firearms.

That is why I; with over three thousand hours of hand to hand training, would never go for a firearm

In fact, studies have shown that people carrying firearms are more likely to die from their own firearms being used against them as opposed to unarmed or melee using victims


When a woman is assaulted it is rarely from a man a block down the street, yelling at her their intentions and then casually sauntering up to them while the woman readies her gun

Most assaults are from people they already and know, so unless you recommend that woman keep their guns in their hands at all times whilst maintaining at least 21feet from everyone they know at all times.. your magic gun theory just doesnt cut it

Secondly, most attacks that do occur are usually from behind as it is far easier to subdue a smaller opponent if they cant kick or punch you, and far more easier to pin from behind. So once again.. the magic gun protection from the comic goon also doesnt match reality

Quite. Thanks for a much better explanation of this than I was able to provide.

 

[richard_daily]

This is why people end up repeating themselves - because you utterly ignore what they say. I've provided many examples, where I, as an individual, have clearly benefited from the absence of guns in the situation. These are ACTUAL situations I've been in, not hypothetical things you make up. In that instance, I freaking AM looking at it as an individual - that was the basic problem everyone had with my argument, that I was apparently 'denying other women the right to protect themselves', so apparently not being concerned enough about the collective.

You haven't benefited from it, because if someone else had a gun, it's likely they would have put a stop to the random stranger who attacked.

Rapists don't only strike once. They work up to it, and do it over and over and over.

 

[badbabysitter]

You haven't benefited from it, because if someone else had a gun, it's likely they would have put a stop to the random stranger who attacked.


Rapists don't only strike once. They work up to it, and do it over and over and over.

The random stranger is the exception. Not the norm

Rapists are usually someone you know

People keep forgetting that part

 

[richard_daily]

The random stranger is the exception. Not the norm

Rapists are usually someone you know

People keep forgetting that part

Unless you live in Australia, where stranger rape is on the rise, and has been for well over a decade... incidentally about the same time they banned guns.

 

[KimGordon67]

You haven't benefited from it, because if someone else had a gun, it's likely they would have put a stop to the random stranger who attacked.

Rapists don't only strike once. They work up to it, and do it over and over and over.

I'm not responding to any more of your victim-blaming crap.

 

[badbabysitter]

Unless you live in Australia, where stranger rape is on the rise, and has been for well over a decade... incidentally about the same time they banned guns.

Still the exception, not the norm

More assaults being reported doesnt make guns any more magical in close quarters

 

[richard_daily]

I'm not responding to any more of your victim-blaming crap.

I'm not victim blaming.

You also said you weren't going to post in this thread anymore, because it's a merry go round.

 

[KimGordon67]

You haven't benefited from it, because if someone else had a gun, it's likely they would have put a stop to the random stranger who attacked.

Rapists don't only strike once. They work up to it, and do it over and over and over.

I'm not responding to any more of your victim-blaming and utterly unsupported crap. You've provided precisely no evidence to support this (except some random reference to Australia, and even then, there's no actual stats or research, just you 'saying it's so').
And it's been outlined, in extremely clear language, above why women having guns for self defence is ridiculous.

Why is it that you find it so hard to believe that we're actually safer being attacked by an unarmed assailant? Do you really have that little respect for women's ability to defend themselves - even when they're TELLING YOU that's what they've done?

 

[richard_daily]

Still the exception, not the norm

More assaults being reported doesnt make guns any more magical in close quarters

In Australia, it's the norm.

In the US it's not.

One doesn't have guns, the other does.


I'd take a knife wound to the arm if I needed to. Attackers don't come at random, charging in from less than 20 feet. If you have even a basic understanding of situational awareness, you realize that your example is even less likely than stranger rape in the US.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm not responding to any more of your victim-blaming and utterly unsupported crap. You've provided precisely no evidence to support this (except some random reference to Australia, and even then, there's no actual stats or research, just you 'saying it's so').
And it's been outlined, in extremely clear language, above why women having guns for self defence is ridiculous.

Why is it that you find it so hard to believe that we're actually safer being attacked by an unarmed assailant? Do you really have that little respect for women's ability to defend themselves - even when they're TELLING YOU that's what they've done?

I know plenty of women, friends, lovers, and family members, who have been assaulted, or been in sketchy situations and would prefer to be able to defend themselves adequately.

You are one person. I know far more women who disagree with you.

I'd take their opinions over yours. No offense. You have a clear anti-gun sentiment and anti-gun stance, and that's your right. Don't ever own one.

I feel the same about guns as I do about abortions. If you don't like them, you don't have to have one.

 

[badbabysitter]

.
And it's been outlined, in extremely clear language, above why women having guns for self defence is ridiculous.

I am not entirely saying that, everyone is entitled in thier home to protect themselves any way they want.

I just find it based on my experience, and the expertise of professionals in the field .. that a woman is far more safe without a gun then with one

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not victim blaming.

You also said you weren't going to post in this thread anymore, because it's a merry go round.

See post 652. What you're doing pretty much fits the actual definition of victim-blaming.

 

[richard_daily]

I just find it based on my experience, and the expertise of professionals in the field .. that a woman is far more safe without a gun then with one

Who are the professionals that claim this?

 

[richard_daily]

See post 652. What you're doing pretty much fits the actual definition of victim-blaming.

No, you have a right to choose to not defend yourself.

That's your actual right.

Just don't expect everyone else to abide by your logic of giving up their right to self defense.

 

[KimGordon67]

I am not entirely saying that, everyone is entitled in thier home to protect themselves any way they want.

I just find it based on my experience, and the expertise of professionals in the field .. that a woman is far more safe without a gun then with one

Sorry ... I was paraphrasing because I'm tired of writing basically the same thing over and over again.

I get that we're coming from slightly different philosophical perspectives on this, but it's nice to see some actual evidence being presented, instead of random hypothetical scenarios that somehow take priority over actual experience.

 

[badbabysitter]

I know plenty of women, friends, lovers, and family members, who have been assaulted, and would prefer to be able to defend themselves adequately.



You are one person. I know far more women who disagree with you.

I'd take their opinions over yours. No offense. You have a clear anti-gun sentiment and anti-gun stance, and that's your right. Don't ever own one.

I feel the same about guns as I do about abortions. If you don't like them, you don't have to have one.

Then do a favour for those women and encourage them to take up self defense classes

I am one of those women that has been assaulted, and even with my knowledge I still a bare 4 inch scar along my collar bone from where a guy who couldnt take no for an answer slashed me with a knife.

And if I hadnt had the training I do , there is zero doubt in my mind I would be dead right now

A gun wouldnt have helped me, but classes did

 

[badbabysitter]

Who are the professionals that claim this?

little organization you may have heard of, they're called the police.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're not accepting personal anecdotes (while also presenting examples that are basically 'anecdotes'), but you're not accepting actual research either?

Show me research that says you're more likely survive an attack from an armed assailant if you're unarmed.....you'll never find anything of the sort, because it's bullshit.

I've explained my position on the self defense argument ad nauseum - even you accepted that I'd answered the question ... but you're just posing it again.

I accepted that you owned your anti-gun stance and said you'd rather not be armed against an armed attacker.

I don't recall you ever saying you believe in peoples right to defend themselves.

You clearly don't believe they have a right to do so effectively.

That is why not a single solitary respectable school of self defense ever recommends firearms.

LMFAO......except every security force on the face of the planet.

Clearly "respectable" = anti-gun in the case of badbabysitter.

If guns are such a HORRIBLE and ineffective defense weapon then how come they are the global standard BBS?

https://nebraskafirearms.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hillary-security-detail-1.jpg

 

[BotanyBoy]

little organization you may have heard of, they're called the police.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

If the police think guns are a terrible defense option against hostile threats then why the fuck do they carry them???