Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/21/2006 10:51:20 PM EDT
This shit annoys the hell out of me. I usually avoid these damn conversations, but his logic sucks. He doesn't live here for one thing. Anyhow, any vids that might be useful???

I posted the vid where the store clerk gets shot after handing over the money. Here's this bozos response:




1. If the criminal didn't have the gun in the first place, then he could not have shot the guy

2. Look at the video closely, if the clerk had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference, he had no opportunity to pull it out, if he had tried the guy would have shot him before he got it out. Also in that situation he would probably not have tried to fire back, he would have had no idea the criminal was going to shoot, most hold up situations end with the clerk handing over the money and the criminal leaving. The clerk would have assumed he wasn't going to be shot.

for the most part guns are useless in a self defence situation. Letting people have guns for "self defence" only lets people like the criminal get their hands on a gun to attack someone.



Here's the vid I posted: videos.caught-on-video.com/video/53904509-96B6-4998-B477-9BB42A1CC169.htm

To him, no guns on the street means no guns for the criminals. I guess that means lower crime.

I already posted that article about Australia's gun ban problems. Article here: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=440437
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:57:55 PM EDT
Here's an entertaining one:
youtube.com/watch?v=CwxRiDts4oc
Penn & Teller's Bullshit on gun control.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:29:03 AM EDT
He'll think differently when either the Indonesians or Chinese come a visiting. They've got too many people and not enough room. If the Australians keep on disarming themselves, they may be in for a rude suprise in the future.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:32:43 AM EDT

1. If the criminal didn't have the gun in the first place, then he could not have shot the guy


I love it when antigunners start off with this premise. I'm here to tell them that when it comes to guns in the hands of criminals, that train has already left the station and is too far down the tracks to come back.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 3:55:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:
If the Australians keep on disarming themselves, they may be in for a rude suprise in the future.



No... The gov't will protect them.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:07:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Girlieman:

Originally Posted By billclo:
If the Australians keep on disarming themselves, they may be in for a rude suprise in the future.



No... The gov't will protect them.



no, OUR govt will protect them....
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:11:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

1. If the criminal didn't have the gun in the first place, then he could not have shot the guy


I love it when antigunners start off with this premise. I'm here to tell them that when it comes to guns in the hands of criminals, that train has already left the station and is too far down the tracks to come back.



no shit. the criminal DID have the gun. isn't that proof that gun control doesn't to shit?

i love how anti-gunners quote their failures as reasons why they need MORE legislation. i also love how anti-gunners believe that if civillian gun ownership is outlawed, guns will cease to exist.


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:24:18 AM EDT
Aren't criminals, by definition, criminal? Doesn't this mean that they already do not follow the laws in the first place? This seems to be a concept even a child could understand; if they already live on the other side of the law, why would they all of the sudden follow a gun ban law?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:29:42 AM EDT
I find it easier to convince Liberals when you use the drug war as your example.

Can you still buy marijuana easily?
Yes.
It has been illegal for over 70 years and still sold every day everywhere.
Illegal guns would flow into this country and also be made in machine shops just like speed is made illegally if firearms were banned
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:32:16 AM EDT



1. If the criminal didn't have the gun in the first place, then he could not have shot the guy



"If."

Ask him about successful examples of prohibitions.

Laws in general (including gun control laws) only affect the behavior of law-abiding people, who don't pose a threat anyway.

He doesn't trust law-abiding people? Too bad.

My firearms are only a danger to those who would harm me and my family.


2. Look at the video closely, if the clerk had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference, he had no opportunity to pull it out, if he had tried the guy would have shot him before he got it out. Also in that situation he would probably not have tried to fire back, he would have had no idea the criminal was going to shoot, most hold up situations end with the clerk handing over the money and the criminal leaving. The clerk would have assumed he wasn't going to be shot.


Sometimes the crook gets the drop on the intended victim. However, it's false to use this to say guns are useless for defense.

Ask him if he'd rather be empty-handed or have the means to return fire when his own life is being threatened. Of course, his reply probably won't be based on anything we recognize as reality.


for the most part guns are useless in a self defence situation. Letting people have guns for "self defence" only lets people like the criminal get their hands on a gun to attack someone.



So sad he has so little confidence in his own abilities. Nice little sheep.

The FBI bases its statistics on facts, not opinions. The facts show approximately 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. With a gun ban that would have been 2.5 million more successful crimes and defenseless victims.

He can take his "The government will protect me" attitude and pound all the sand in the Outback with it.
Top Top