New state law to open more public buildings to firearms

Post Reply New Topic

And do you object to some precautions with people building bombs or being free with radioactivity or owning bazookas or playing games with anthrax and botulism? How do you feel about all those precautions before people can board aircraft? Do you feel annoyed with big brother being careful with decayed meat in a grocery or restaurant? Should we get into drunken driving?

Ridiculous comparisons. Nobody would use a pipe bomb in their pocket for protection. Neither would they try to carry a bazooka or poison an attacker with some anthrax.

Hahaha how pathetic he's still grasping at straws and resorting to red herrings. So Sand, since you think the government should step in to prevent statistically miniscule gun accidents should the government also ban WD-40, cars, swimming pools and ropes since poisoning, traffic accidents, drowning and suffocation have much higher accidental death rates? That's a lot more fitting than your straw man that attempted to paint TEGH as an anarchist.

We're talking about "big brother" and where that concept is valid. I am not interested in some crazy schmuck with a hand gun mistaking me for somebody he hates and popping me or some hysterical woman with a pocket pistol objecting to the way I look or dress. The law arrests real criminals all the time and spends a good deal of money and care and time convicting them and going through appeals before they end up on death row. Are you saying a goof with a gun is equally careful? I am not happy in a society that encourages people with doubtful judgment to execute others with half assed consideration and momentary reactions.

Your attempt to distract from the subject at hand failed.

That's no distraction, that's the facts of general lethality and I don't like it.

No, it's not a fact. People don't generally just go around shooting others.

Of course not. As long as they don't have guns. Otherwise, statistics indicate something else.

Here is one case out of many.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/200 ... hn-tabbutt

Do you recommend telling this guy it really doesn't matter because it's statistically insignificant?

Last edited by Sand on 03 Jul 2011, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

The point is that easily available cars kill people easily. However you classify the deaths it is the cars that make them easily available. The figures speak out very loudly and cannot be shunted aside.

There are going to be some shootings if a society has some guns. Just like you are going to have far fewer DUI accidents in societies where most people either hike for days or ride camels or water buffaloes. Even then, high alcohol consumption and high dependence on personal cars will lead to drastically different DUI statistics in different countries. Like DUIs and car accidents, the number of shootings vs. the number of guns available will vary greatly by country.

Quoting other accidental problems is another attempt at distraction. Controlling guns will not prevent surgical mistakes, falling off ladders or astronauts dying in space. But controlling what we can control is the problem at hand and that is what we are discussing.

Of course we can help those issues. Banning surgeons, spacecraft, and ladders will make all those problems go away!

Sorry. I assumed you were capable of examining the problem. My bad.

...And there's WAY more cases out of many where people successfully use a gun to either save their own lives or save the lives of others. That's why I brought statistics to the table and not freaking anecdotes. Leaving many people defenseless just to prevent less than 1% of accidents from occurring is an insane trade off to make. What the hell do you mean by statistics indicate something else? My statistics indicate that shots aren't even fired in the majority of cases where a gun owner brandishes a gun.

And my statistics have shown that gun control doesn't prevent homicides, crooks from having access to guns or affect the overall suicide rate. The real problem is disarming gun owners and leaving them incapable of defending themselves while crooks are still able to obtain guns illegally.


My statistics have shown that in the vast majority of cases where a registered gun owner pulls out a gun, a shot isn't even fired. Yeah so much for a society encouraging doubtful judgment leading to people being executed with half assed consideration . You're pathetic, you don't have anymore statistics or facts to bring to the discussion so you resort to grasping at straws, red herrings and insulting gun owners.

http://www.gunmyths.com/2009/03/29/myth-only-police-should-have-guns/

B-b-b-b-but a goof with a gun can't be trusted because the cops are way more careful!

Sand wrote:

No, you’re the one incapable of examining the problem, as always.
I'd thought we’d laid this argument to rest months ago but you seem to enjoy losing this debate over and over and you’ll lose this time (you already have, but…….) just the same.
If guns cause death and crime then eating utensils cause obesity which in turn causes health issues and ultimately an early death.
Same logic applies.

I guess you’re ultimate solution is the banning by legislative action of all privately owned firearms in the United States.
So let’s look at the stumbling blocks to that law or laws being passed:

The citizenry: The American people in general are not supportive of gun laws now. The increase in private gun ownership in the past two years has been huge and they know why they have them.

Congress: You could never get enough legislators to sign up to a gun control bill for the reason stated in item #1. What they want more than anything is another term in office and a move like that will heavily jeopardize that wish.


That aside and we did all the sudden have a national gun ban.

Black market: The passage of law that would ban guns would in effect create an instant black market. It would d be the largest black marked that there has ever been and all the crime that goes with it.

New class of criminal: There would be a new class of criminal to apprehend (try to apprehend in most cases), prosecute, and incarcerate to add to the existing burdens.

Increased violent crime: Those that surrender their guns out of fear of arrest would be still be vulnerable to those that they were before with no effective means of protection. The police would be too overextended to be effective.

I could go on into smaller yet still significant details but I think I’ve made the point once again.

Because they're afraid that the liberals are going to take them away? Or just because they're afraid of the black man?

I doubt banning guns or regulating would stop crime. But I really have not enough willing suspension of disbelief to believe there is any problem that would be solved by being able to take your guns to the park. Ergo, I don't really see why would people care about this.