Question I answered in bold:
I provided an answer to one of your questions. You are for some reason constantly changing what you're looking for.
Maybe the reason you are having such difficulty getting an answer to your question is because you keep changing it.
Yes, it is irresponsible to allow widespread availability of firearms as is the case in the US.
wow.
The Nazi's showed their true form when they murdered one of their own and made him a martyr for their cause.
They showed their true form by blaming the Jews for the depression.
They showed their true form when they forced themselves into power. They were never elected.
They showed it again with Kristallnacht.
they used greater measures of force constantly against Jews. The people supported it more than most Westerners were/are willing to admit.
I'm not sure what the relevance of your points with regard to the person who raised the Holocaust in a gun control thread, but I'm missing the relevance to that and the discussion at hand.
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft."
This is a quote from a study done in the 90's. My question to you is, why don't these tens of thousands of lives matter to you?
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Here is a couple of other tid bits....
"*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon."
See, most often just showing a would be attacker that you are armed will end the conflict.
"*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."
A fifth is less than half right?
Veliko said:Yes, it is irresponsible to allow widespread availability of firearms as is the case in the US.
The Nazi's declared it illegal for Jews to own/possess firearms. Jews were subsequently murdered in the millions.
I don't see how that is either agreeing or disagreeing with what I said:
I don't see how that is either agreeing or disagreeing with what I said:
By saying that it is irresponsible to allow the populace to be armed, you are saying that arms should be removed from the population. I'm saying to you, and anyone else, that doing so dooms the lives of tens of thousands of people per year. People that don't make te news and that you will never hear about. Therefore, it is not irresponsible to allow the populace to be armed.
No it doesn't, stop talking such utter shite.
No it doesn't, stop talking such utter shite.
The same thing will happen to us of course...:sneaky:
Who is going to round us up when our guns are taken away? The Obama Secret Police? The Chinese? Koreans? Illinois Nazis?
Of course you only answered one question, just like the other person did, because the answer to the first reveals an inconvenient truth.
ok, so you are just trolling here then.No it doesn't, stop talking such utter shite.
Are you an expert and can back this with facts?
Don't even to be an expert to understand that.
Just think, how many times guns are used as for assault than for self-protection?
Most times, you even won't be fast enough to pull a gun out for self-protection.
Guy, who used guns in CT shooting, he was trying to protect himself from "unjust world" - in "his view of life"...what else could it be in his brainless head?
People get killed for whatever reasons - iPods, iPhones...calling names...etc...
More than half of US population are more or less paranoid - a few would admit that...
THE FACT...THE FACT ITSELF...FOR THE NEED OF A GUN, for so-called "self-protection", it says, that you're more or less ALREADY PARANOID...
And who knows, what might happen in your head tomorrow...
Nobody said anything about everyone having a gun. Having a choice is a great thing.
That poses an ethical dilemma though, if you need a gun to protect yourself against others who have guns, isn't making guns freely available forcing everyone to arm themselves with guns (whether they want to or not) lest they become victims?
I don't think you can claim that anyone other than yourself needs or does not need a gun for self defense. That is a decision made by the individual. What I believe is significant is that the individual has the right to have a gun, or not have a gun. Nothing is being forced.
Essentially you are forced to. Gun right advocates make the claim that guns are great for self defense, but if your defending yourself against perpetrators who have guns, then you essentially are forced to arm yourself.
No, you aren't? I'm not sure who is doing the forcing here.
I know many people who don't own guns. They have the right to, and they can own them legally, but choose not to. I also know many people who do exercise that right and do own guns. This is a personal freedom, you are not being forced either way.
I'm not clear on what you mean, but ownership of a gun does not make you a "perpetrator."
What i'm saying is, if guns are freely accessible, obviously bad people will be able to obtain them. If the only way to neutralize a threat that has a gun is with a gun, then you are at a severe disadvantage if you don't have one. That basically forces you to either a) have a gun to defend yourself or b) be a victim
It's not the only way to neutralize the threat, and in certain situations is the least favourable option.What i'm saying is, if guns are freely accessible, obviously bad people will be able to obtain them. If the only way to neutralize a threat that has a gun is with a gun, then you are at a severe disadvantage if you don't have one. That basically forces you to either a) have a gun to defend yourself or b) be a victim