Fox News angry that mall is gun free zone

I want to restrict a civil right ? That's new. Do you have any evidence of this ?
Uh, you just listed a whole bunch of restrictions you'd like to see on the right to keep and bear arms? :boggled:

Why limit yourself to conceal carry people when I'm obviously talking about people with guns ?
Just how do you think a mall is going to stop that? By posting a "no guns" sign?
 
Last edited:
"Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks!"

That would have worked a little better. But you are incapable of it.

We know.
Oh boy, you really pwned me on that one! Now go brag to all your little friends.
 
I'll bookmatk this post next time someone repeats the no one wants to take your guns" nonsense.

And you've shown no evidence this would result in fewer suicides. How do they manage in the UK, France and Denmark, 2 countries with very similar suicide rates?
Completed suicides. You seem to be ignoring that. There are many methods by which people attempt suicide. Firearms result in a considerably greater chance of completion. The statistics are available, if you'd care to look at them.

And of course I want to take your guns. If you're not a registered hunter, or a sport shooter, or any one of a number of professions who have a legitimate requirement for one (and honestly I don't know if you are or not) then there is no need for you to have a gun and I want you to turn it in peacefully and be suitably compensated for its value. If you do not wish to do that, then you are a criminal and you will be arrested and charged and have your gun confiscated.

Just don't try to claim that I am arguing for a total ban like you have done before.
 
Completed suicides. You seem to be ignoring that. There are many methods by which people attempt suicide. Firearms result in a considerably greater chance of completion. The statistics are available, if you'd care to look at them.
Why don't you present them? Your claim, you provide the evidence.

And of course I want to take your guns. If you're not a registered hunter, or a sport shooter, or any one of a number of professions who have a legitimate requirement for one (and honestly I don't know if you are or not) then there is no need for you to have a gun
Of course there is, for lawful self defense of my property and person.

and I want you to turn it in peacefully and be suitably compensated for its value. If you do not wish to do that, then you are a criminal and you will be arrested and charged and have your gun confiscated.
You'll have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2md Amendment first, good luck!

Just don't try to claim that I am arguing for a total ban like you have done before.
Of course you are, for those who wish to own guns for self defense.
 
Why do you think that keeping and bearing arms should be a right?
Because self defense is as basic a human right as there is and a firearm is perhaps the most effective tool with which to accomplish that. It's also recognized as such by the Supreme Court.

If you choose to rely on less effective means or even choose not to defend yourself at all go right ahead, no one is stopping you.
 
Completed suicides. You seem to be ignoring that. There are many methods by which people attempt suicide. Firearms result in a considerably greater chance of completion. The statistics are available, if you'd care to look at them.
And to revisit this point there are no stats on attempted suicides in the USA, and I really doubt there are reliable stats elsewhere either given the nature of the beast. Besides the fact that many failed attempts never get reported it's also impossible to accurately differentiate between self harm and a serious suicide attempt.

eta: and if you want to just go by hospitalizations for self-harm as an approximation for suicide attempts the rate in Australia is 117.9/100,000 according to this site while the US rate is 209.7/100,000 according to the numbers presented on this site. Given that the US suicide rate is nowhere near that much greater than Australia's rate the only thing you could conclude is that suicide attempts are less successful in the gun-infested USA than in paradise on earth Australia.
 
Last edited:
Because self defense is as basic a human right as there is and a firearm is perhaps the most effective tool with which to accomplish that.

A gun may be the most effective tool for killing somebody, but for defense pepper spray or a taser are much better. If I'm defending myself, I don't want to seriously injure or kill my opponent, both for ethical and legal reasons. Simply put, a gun is an overpowered tool for self-defense of the average citizen. In self-defense, the goal should be to incapacitate, not kill.

We should leave these tools to the people who are trained in their use and legality: police and military. You don't have the right to put handcuffs on people and hold them captive. You shouldn't have the right to own a gun, either.

It's also recognized as such by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has decided a lot of stupid things. That's an appeal to authority.
 
A gun may be the most effective tool for killing somebody, but for defense pepper spray or a taser are much better. If I'm defending myself, I don't want to seriously injure or kill my opponent, both for ethical and legal reasons. Simply put, a gun is an overpowered tool for self-defense of the average citizen. In self-defense, the goal should be to incapacitate, not kill.
Pepper spray and tasers are not more effective. Pepper spray is as likely to incapacitate you as the bad guy in a confined space, if the wind is blowing at you it will only affect you. Tasers are one shot, and both prongs have to embed in skin. Heavy clothing defeats them, and useless against multiple attackers. Both often have no effect on drugged up perps even when everything goes perfect aim-wise. If you prefer to put your life in the hands of pepper spray or a taser go right ahead, I'll use the far more effective firearm.

We should leave these tools to the people who are trained in their use and legality: police and military. You don't have the right to put handcuffs on people and hold them captive. You shouldn't have the right to own a gun, either.
Of course you are entitled to make a citizens arrest. In Illinois, for example, it is perfectly legal for anything other than an ordinance violation.

The Supreme Court has decided a lot of stupid things. That's an appeal to authority.
It's not an appeal to authority when the person or persons are an actual authority in the subject, which the Supreme Court certainly is when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution.
 
If I'm defending myself, I don't want to seriously injure or kill my opponent, both for ethical and legal reasons. Simply put, a gun is an overpowered tool for self-defense of the average citizen. In self-defense, the goal should be to incapacitate, not kill.
Shouldn't the person whose life is threatened have the right to decide for themselves what defense strategy they prefer to adopt?
 
Why don't you present them? Your claim, you provide the evidence.
No, given your history with evidence I don't think I'll bother. You have a remarkable tendency to ignore evidence, handwave it away, or claim that it says something that it doesn't. If you want to base an argument on evidence, you need to look at it honestly and quite frankly I don't believe that you will do that.

Of course there is, for lawful self defense of my property and person.
Unlawful, you mean. It's only lawful under America's ridiculous, archaic and dangerous laws which should be changed as I have outlined in the past.

You'll have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2md Amendment first, good luck!
As I have always claimed, this is entirely possible. The very existence of an amendment shows that the law can be amended. No law is immutable.

Of course you are, for those who wish to own guns for self defense.
Which is not total. You have in the past claimed that I argue for a total ban, which is not true. In fact, I am only arguing that one of the many categories of gun owners should not have them - those who claim "self-defence" as a reason. Everyone else can and should keep their guns, under appropriate restrictions on use and storage.
 
A gun may be the most effective tool for killing somebody, but for defense pepper spray or a taser are much better. If I'm defending myself, I don't want to seriously injure or kill my opponent, both for ethical and legal reasons. Simply put, a gun is an overpowered tool for self-defense of the average citizen. In self-defense, the goal should be to incapacitate, not kill.
A gun is the most effective and appropriate tool for defending yourself against someone who has a gun. If your attacker doesn't have a gun, it's likely unnecessary.
 
I thought it was just heated encounters, now it is encounters with assault/battery thrown in?

No. Read that again: it's heated arguments in which you may fear escalation.

I would rather a person who was trying to assault me not have a gun. I could care less if merely involved in a heated argument. Keep the goalposts in one location per thread please.

What ? That was my original scenario. Where the hell did they move ?
 
Your posts.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Firearm ownership is currently a civil right in this country, ergo, any restriction is a restriction on a civil right.

We're not talking about preventing people from owning firearms. Please find a post in this thread where I said anything of the sort.

Aside: Would you agree with restricting individuals rights to own weapons of mass destruction ? Assuming they are small enough to not play semantics with the word "keep and bear", that is. Come on. All rights are restricted.
 
The usual argument is that declaring a location a "gun free zone" puts a massive bullseye on that location. Criminals and terrorists will deliberately target that location because they know that no one there is likely to be able to retaliate.
It's frequently come up in response to school shootings and "gun free" schools.
I don't understand. How does carrying a piece in case you have to shoot at a bomb (not bomber) make things safer?
 
Your question is based on a misreading of my post. I never said that all guns are designed to kill people.

My question is quite straight-forward, and can stand on its own. Yet you continue to avoid it. That's not an encouraging sign about your confidence in your argument.
 
A gun is the most effective and appropriate tool for defending yourself against someone who has a gun. If your attacker doesn't have a gun, it's likely unnecessary.

Thought experiment.

Someone is in your home, armed with a machete, and advancing on you.

Within reach, you have pepper spray, a TASER, a machete and a handgun.

Which would you reach for?

Now try to put yourself in the place of a 95 lb elderly woman. Or man.

Just curious.

In general, if faced with an armed adversary, most would hope for superiority in weaponry, not equality.

I respect your decision to get into a machete fight, if that's what your choice would be. It would not be mine.
 
No, given your history with evidence I don't think I'll bother. You have a remarkable tendency to ignore evidence, handwave it away, or claim that it says something that it doesn't. If you want to base an argument on evidence, you need to look at it honestly and quite frankly I don't believe that you will do that.
I did, in post #328. Now who is ignoring evidence and refusing to "look at it honestly"?

Unlawful, you mean. It's only lawful under America's ridiculous, archaic and dangerous laws which should be changed as I have outlined in the past.
No, lawful. And I'm glad I don't live in a country where if some street thug or thugs decides to attack me I don't have to give them a fair fight, especially if I'm at a physical disadvantage to them due to age, sex, size, disability, or numbers. I'm glad I am allowed to use overwhelming force in order to defend myself against a fight I didn't seek out or agree to, or be expected to just hand over all my stuff in the face of threats.

As I have always claimed, this is entirely possible. The very existence of an amendment shows that the law can be amended. No law is immutable.
As I said, good luck!

Which is not total. You have in the past claimed that I argue for a total ban, which is not true. In fact, I am only arguing that one of the many categories of gun owners should not have them - those who claim "self-defence" as a reason. Everyone else can and should keep their guns, under appropriate restrictions on use and storage.
You still want to ban them for the purpose most people have them, no matter how you want to sugarcoat and deny it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it used to be. Could you quote me on that ?
I must have mistaken you for someone else, glad you're on board against further restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms!
 
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Because self defense is as basic a human right as there is
It's an instinct, not a right.
and a firearm is perhaps the most effective tool with which to accomplish that.
And perhaps it isn't. You can't defend yourself with a gun, you can out be more aggressive than the other person.
 
It's an instinct, not a right. And perhaps it isn't.
Several hundred years of common law (predating the US Constitution actually), the US Constitution, every US state constitution, and multiple court decisions (up to and including Supreme Court decisions) disagree with you.

I'd love to hear you cite evidence of this ridiculous claim, but we both know that you just made this up, didn't you?

You can't defend yourself with a gun, you can out be more aggressive than the other person.
Well then, no need for the police to be armed, politicians or their bodyguards to be armed, or Bloomberg and his rich friends. I'll disarm after they do, deal?
 
Well then, no need for the police to be armed, politicians or their bodyguards to be armed, or Bloomberg and his rich friends. I'll disarm after they do, deal?

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8511/8438669292_173a00fb6e.jpg

One could, I suppose, make the case that the Secret Service is not tasked with defending the president, with firearms a tool in that protective strategy. They're not defending the president, they are using aggression to protect him.

At that point the word "defending" has been redefined to the point its barely recognizable.
 
My question is quite straight-forward, and can stand on its own. Yet you continue to avoid it.

I don't avoid it. The question is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to what I said.

Stop trying to gain some moral high ground in all discussions, and focus on the actual arguments people are making, please.
 
I must have mistaken you for someone else, glad you're on board against further restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms!

The only "restrictions" I favour are not allowing felons or the mentally ill to get firearms, etc., the banning of some obvious weapons like rocket launchers, tanks and nukes. I presume you'd agree with those. The one I'm sure we disagree with is that I would disallow carrying in public, concealed or otherwise. None of that prevents you from owning weapons and using them for sport, practice or home defense.
 
I don't avoid it. The question is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to what I said.

It's directly relevant, because it goes to the question of how you determine what something is designed for. You have declared something to be true about the design purpose of guns with no supporting evidence or even listed criteria. I want to investigate how you make this determination.

So stop avoiding the question, or admit that you cannot make any claims about design purposes.
 
No. Read that again: it's heated arguments in which you may fear escalation.
Didn't you first claim that Wildcat would be less comfortable having an argument if someone was carrying a gun? I saw nothing about esclation in that post.

What ? That was my original scenario. Where the hell did they move ?
In post #307 you said “heated argument with someone he knew was carrying”. In post #313 it became “in heated arguments unarmed people sometimes punch each other” after I said it would be a wager you would lose.

Ranb
 
A while back there was a book called “Your Inner Child of the Past”. It’s been a long time, but the basic idea was that who we are as adults is largely influenced by our upbringing and childhood experiences.

I was born into a Reform Jewish family in 1949. As such, Israel had just become a nation, and I recall a lot of pride in my family about that. At the same time, it was hard for me not to gradually become aware of the Holocaust as I grew up. When I was ready, movies like Exodus and Judgment at Nuremberg could not help but make an impression on me.

Of course I felt the overall horror of those events. But what sticks in my mind was the images of fathers meekly lining up with their families along ditches outside of town to be machine-gunned and dumped into a pit already filling with bodies. Why did they not resist? It seemed downright shameful to let your family be murdered with absolutely no attempt to resist.

Later I found out that some brave souls did resist. In “The Wall” John Hersey tells of the Warsaw Ghetto, and the select few that chose to fight, and how valuable a gun was in that fight. “The Avengers - A Jewish War Story” Rich Cohen tells the story of what Jews with guns can do once they decide to fight. It’s naive to think a single Jew with a gun, or even a small group of such Jews, can win against a squad of SS. But they can die as men and women, and not like sheep to the slaughter, and perhaps in some small way help shape the outcome of a war.

The story often played out in this rough fashion:

A group of friends decides to resist. One has a Liberator pistol dropped by the Allies. He locates an isolated German soldier and shoots him, getting his sidearm in the process. This gets repeated several times, with some loss of life, but a small arsenal of handguns is slowly acquired. With those guns they plan an ambush of a German squad and, despite casualties defeats them and secures their weapons, including machine pistols. With those weapons they may even to be able to raid an arsenal. And so on. In any case this happened in one form or another in Warsaw, in the Polish and French countrysides - wherever determined Jews decided NOT to go gently into that good night.

In any case, that history helped shape who I am today. I do not fear death, per se´, but do fear being executed before my time, whether it be by a simple robber, a crazed gunman, a terrorist, or, admittedly remotely, a foreign or domestic military or government gone bad.

As such, the right and ability to bear arms is for me very, very important.

For those raised differently, or with other life experiences, I respect your decision not to bear arms. In the vast majority of cases, the powers-that-be will protect you from harm. I just feel that, in the final analysis, its important to be the master of one’s own fate, and that a firearm can be an important tool in the shaping of that fate.


“When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?”


The Clash - Guns of Brixton
 
Last edited:
It's directly relevant, because it goes to the question of how you determine what something is designed for.

Well it's simple, then: guns were originally designed as weapons of killing, and most of them today are designed to kill things. Not many guns are designed specifically for the firing range. As for killing humans, I couldn't guess whether they're the majority in the US as opposed to hunting rifles and such, but they're still a significant number, making your statement that guns are "not" designed for killing erroneous. At best.
 
Didn't you first claim that Wildcat would be less comfortable having an argument if someone was carrying a gun? I saw nothing about esclation in that post.

Why would you fear the guy with a gun in a heated argument if not for escalation ? This is getting ridiculous.

In post #307 you said “heated argument with someone he knew was carrying”. In post #313 it became “in heated arguments unarmed people sometimes punch each other” after I said it would be a wager you would lose.

Well yeah, because if a heated argument devolves into violence it's better without guns. That was the whole point of the original scenario. Just because you don't see the goalposts doesn't mean they weren't there.
 
...

For those raised differently, or with other life experiences, I respect your decision not to bear arms. In the vast majority of cases, the powers-that-be will protect you from harm. I just feel that, in the final analysis, its important to be the master of one’s own fate, and that a firearm can be an important tool in the shaping of that fate.


“When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?”


The Clash - Guns of Brixton

Geez!! The last thing any country needs: more armed dudes trying to shape their fate.
 

Back
Top Bottom