Search results

The gun culture and number of guns is partially to blame for causing harm. There are times when offensive force is used to prevent offensive force, like a pre-emptive strike. These situations should be highly scrutinized, but not mischaracterized as causing harm when they do legitimately reduce...

Ah, the rocks and knives argument. If those are just as capable of harm/defense, why do people choose guns over them? If the government applies arbitrary or unjustified offensive force, then the people have the power to change the law and hold it accountable. If they don't have that option...

Remember, you were the one that came to this thread to nit pick and dismiss the OP even when you mostly agree with what I'm saying and vice-verse.

So you agree the weapons are part of the problem and should be reduced. I would extend that to world conflicts, sure. At the same time, there is a reality to confront that makes that issue a bit more complex, same with gun laws. Here is my advice: stop with the oversimplification of everything...

If laws don't work, then shouldn't we repeal our immigration laws, murder laws, rape laws, etc.? Laws deter crime by making them more difficult to commit and providing an explicit punishment. Laws are stronger, more credible when they stand on the side of logic and morality. You might want to...

Arming them empowers them. The mentally ill are included in "everyone" when you follow the logic that more guns = more safer.

They are empowered to defend themselves and to attack others. It goes both ways is what I'm saying. Most will act as you describe but if you empower/arm everyone with guns there will be many that don't.

I'm not a 'non-gun type' I'm a 'logic' type that actually owns guns and understands the complexities of the situation. Most of the time, you don't know the good guy from the bad guy until after the fact. Your argument is illogical. The right people are empowered to defend themselves, until they...

More condescension and redundant, empty platitudes. Would you consider that people on a wide scale refusing to associate with another person/group does harm to the person/group being discriminated against? Because that is exactly why we have anti-discrimination laws. Peace, aka the absense of...

They only contradict to you because you think peace isn't the absence of harm but the absense of being butthurt you can't harm someone else. You are so twisted up it is impossible to find common ground. Yeah, I think authority is good for preventing and punishing harmful acts. Childish...

Lol accusing me of strawman is highly ironic. Murder, slavery, rape, discrimination exist on a huge scale in your utopia. Why? Because you don't believe authority or the law should exist to prevent/punish those actions. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism to right those wrongs...

True, and gun policy should reflect that. Preventing some/those people from owning guns would help. The law may not be 100% effective but it should still stand on the side of logic and morality. Adding more guns to the equation will result in more misuse of guns, even if most people follow the...

Right, and I'm saying there are unintended consequences to pushing more guns as the answer.

I'm saying mass training and education may actually lead to empowering the wrong people.

That's a cheap shot aimed to dismiss my argument. Im not the most savvy but the nit picky terminology is irrelevant. In the other instance we were talking about two different things (which was my fault, you did say education and I jumped to training). Still, my argument stands: adding more guns...

I would like you to answer those questions as they are to my point. Will gun safety education and training assure every person will not use them to cause harm?

Then how would you know what the teletube is telling people?

The skills it takes to defend yourself are tranferrable to offense and in both cases the main purpose is to hurt/kill with a gun. I thought we were talking about more extensive gun training. The hunter safety course I took didn't teach us too much about shooting.

OK so you are being trained to kill when necessary (nit picking?) But it also possible to use those learned skills to go on the offensive.

Then what is the point of shooting a gun in self defense then? I'm pretty sure you are trying to hurt/kill whoever you are defending yourself from. Edit: saw your late edit. I would shoot someone trying to kill me but some view killing as the worse thing a person could do and might not.