Flood the market with guns!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: hellobruce

Why yes, of course! /sarcasm

I haven't heard of any shooting that was "prevented" or even stopped by other civilians using their guns.

And there were a LOT..

Less than 3% of all gun-related deaths are coming from self-defense

Yo u haven't heard of them because they're not publicized. It happens quite frequently, actually.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

You're right.
The fact is proven in places like Chicago vs any other place with gun laws on the flip scale.

And the so called "mass shooters" are nothing but cowards that go to "Gun Free Zones" to kill people. Knowing that they are safe from being killed until police show up. At that point they chose if they want to live and go to jail, or die.

Bad people do bad things and in all my life I never heard of (maybe it has happened I don't know) of a gun killing anyone.

But then again, even if everyone had a gun. A murderer could still kill a lot of people with home made bombs, so maybe we should look at the mental health / prescription drug problem as well.

To add to your educated post. I agree 100%. When any of my firearms load themselves and drive off in my truck & go do some mass damage ALL BY THEMSELVES. I'll renounce my citizenship and move to the land of defending ones self with a damn big stick. a reply to: DAVID64

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Thank you for agreeing with me. I to believe that since guns aren't sentient beings that means that everyone should have one. Obviously only things that are sentient and can drive trucks can be dangerous to possess.

a reply to: hellobruce

I'm sorry but I'm imagining this scenario in my head and it's like a bad SNL skit

Actually I agreed with David64......guns are objects. And with that said, I am off to purchase yet another firearm. Take one out the market for ya. a reply to: TsukiLunar

a reply to: openyourmind1262

And as objects they in no way can be dangerous. I totally agree with you 100%. Nonsentient constructs equals harmless.

A gun sitting is an object. A gun in the hand of a man becomes a firearm/weapon. It depends upon the man holding the now firearm. Is the man stable, is the man a criminal etc etc etc. In the hands of stable capable people a firearm is the best protection one can get. My man there was a time when all carried their guns out in the open..........Ever wonder why cops aren't held up more often? Might have something to do with the firearm shining on his/her hip. A massive deterent to crime I Open carry about every where I go. Never been a victim of a crime. Except an unfortunate home invasion a few years ago, that resulted in a death...if I had not been armed then....I would not be here..a reply to: TsukiLunar

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: hellobruce

Why yes, of course! /sarcasm

I haven't heard of any shooting that was "prevented" or even stopped by other civilians using their guns.

And there were a LOT..

Less than 3% of all gun-related deaths are coming from self-defense

You mean like these?

Source

But of course, plenty will say that it was never going to be a mass shooting so how do you know one was stopped. Silly argument that it has never been done.....

a reply to: openyourmind1262

Totally man. Things were a lot safer when everybody had a gun. After all, who would shoot somebody with a gun, when the person has a gun themselves? Guns have a protective force field that instantly makes you safe from other guns and people with guns.

Nothing has ever gone wrong when two people open fire on each other , because they both have guns so such a situation has been proven impossible.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
It really is the only answer to the issue. I think it's high time for liberals to realize that we all need a gun to stop shootings when they happen.

Think about it for a minute: if every one just opened fire at the first sign of a potential mass shooting, then more people live! Think of how many lives we would save! My estimates would be a billion people each year not dying if we had guns for everyone!

Crossfire builds character!

"But tsukilunar?" You say because you are a liberal who says stuff sometimes. " That makes no sense. If everyone had a gun wouldn't that mean there would be a logical increase in the number of shootings? After all most shooting that don't happen, also don't involve guns. And most shooting that do happen are not stopped by people with guns."

I would say that maybe not. And check and mate.

Discuss.

Because sarcasm is a valid argument? Yet another great lib trolling thread.....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You must be Hostess because that was a Zinger!

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You must be Hostess because that was a Zinger!

Proving my point....

My last comment applies here as well.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I like to assumes statistics on things that never actually happened. After all, if I can imply something that makes it a valid argument.

I have no right to argue whether Americans should have guns or not... I am not an American Citizen, so I won't argue. But if I may, I would like to offer a scenario over here in the UK, and see if you guys agree on the same principles that have been discussed here.

I would say IMO, knives are the foremost used weapon over here for crime. So on the basis of this topic, should we give EVERYONE in the UK knives, as that would stop knife crime?

I understand that you can literally walk into your local ASDA (Walmart for my US friends) and buy some knives for the use of cutting up some steak (Mmmmm...Steak), so for the basis of this post... Let's say we give every UK resident a combat knife, which sole purpose is to harm another human being.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

Testing the theory in practice will show the truth of the matter.

scenario: 8 yo shoots at, but misses trespasser only to find out it was the meter reader. Meter reader shoots back and kills 8 yo because he's a better shot. Neighbour shoots meter reader because he fears for his safety after hearing gunshots. Neighbour across the street shoots his neighbour because... well, because.

Neighbourhood erupts in mass shootings, police barricade several blocks but wait until gunfire settles down before attempting to infiltrate areas affected. Police snipers pick off armed individuals who are spotted, beginning with a man wielding an AK47 in a motorized wheelchair advancing towards police lines. Helicopters identify individuals hiding in bushes and pick them off with machine guns.

As the firefight wanes, police enter area with armoured vehicles to subdue any further violence and allow paramedics to do triage on the wounded and collect the dead.

Meanwhile, in another small town 56 miles west, a woman shoots at a trespasser, fearing for her safety. The mailman is wounded but able to get off several shots at the woman, killing her. Her son comes out of the house and unloads on the wounded mailman. A neighbour, hearing the gunshots, reaches for his newly acquired shotgun and runs outside. His neighbour, seeing him running with the shotgun, assumes 'active shooter' and takes a shot with his handgun...

wash
rinse
repeat

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I like to assumes statistics on things that never actually happened. After all, if I can imply something that makes it a valid argument.

OK, so lets go back to something that HAS actually happened. The world without guns. I guess nobody was ever killed back then. Must have been a nice time to live to not worry about death and killing.../sarcasm

Implying something definitely does NOT make it a valid argument. It makes it a speculation.

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: TsukiLunar

Testing the theory in practice will show the truth of the matter.

scenario: 8 yo shoots at, but misses trespasser only to find out it was the meter reader. Meter reader shoots back and kills 8 yo because he's a better shot. Neighbour shoots meter reader because he fears for his safety after hearing gunshots. Neighbour across the street shoots his neighbour because... well, because.

Neighbourhood erupts in mass shootings, police barricade several blocks but wait until gunfire settles down before attempting to infiltrate areas affected. Police snipers pick off armed individuals who are spotted, beginning with a man wielding an AK47 in a motorized wheelchair advancing towards police lines. Helicopters identify individuals hiding in bushes and pick them off with machine guns.

As the firefight wanes, police enter area with armoured vehicles to subdue any further violence and allow paramedics to do triage on the wounded and collect the dead.

Meanwhile, in another small town 56 miles west, a woman shoots at a trespasser, fearing for her safety. The mailman is wounded but able to get off several shots at the woman, killing her. Her son comes out of the house and unloads on the wounded mailman. A neighbour, hearing the gunshots, reaches for his newly acquired shotgun and runs outside. His neighbour, seeing him running with the shotgun, assumes 'active shooter' and takes a shot with his handgun...

wash
rinse
repeat

O brother....now we are doing theoretical thought experiments on the OP's ridiculously sarcastic scenario? Seriously?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yeah, really...

And, as for your scenario, it was harder and much bloodier, to kill in the 'Olden Times' before guns. You had to get in close before you could hack, bludgeon, strangle or stab. That takes a certain amount of fearless intent.

Shooting at a distance is so much more impersonal and safe.

Isn't it?

a reply to: masqua

I think a reasonable solution would be for all of us to carry around some sort of remote device that allows us to instantly end the life of anybody who we find threatening.