- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 88,204
- Reaction score
- 39,395
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Now is as good a time as any to implement my New Years resolution. I'm avoiding these kinds of douchey threads in the future altogether.
Well, yes, I read that as well, thanks. But the point remains: no gun, Mcknight would still be alive. Many - would still be alive.
Why does he feel the need to carry one?
So you've constructed your sentence backwards: If someone got shot, there was a gun, which is a fatuous statement.
It wasn't me man it was the gun. You know guns are what kill people. Its said all the time. If you're a gun owner then your gun has killed something. You just were not around to see it. As we all know guns are blood thirsty murder machines that have no usefull purpose other than killing. Don't believe me just ask a gun banning liberal to tell you how a friend of a friend of theirs once bought a gun and that gun killed the whole family in their sleep two weeks later.
The basic question is whether or not a human being has an inherent right to protect themselves. If the answer is yes, then you have a right to own and to bear a firearm. If the answer is no, then you are a peasant and a slave and have no rights whatsoever.
I have the inherent right to defend myself but just not with guns. How does that make me a peasant and a slave with no rights whatsoever ? :doh
People who live under laws where the beneficent rulers can arbitrarily deny you the ability to carry a handgun, want that idiocy spread to the rest of the country. Jet argues that one case is typical for 10 million people who legally carry everyday..
Protection. It's a "just in case something happens" kind of thing.
McKnight possibly would be alive, however banning guns would likely end in more deaths and much higher violent crime. Stories like this are sad, but at the end of the day blaming the actions of an individual on an inanimate object is pure ridiculousness. I have been lucky enough to have never shot someone but have been in a situation where having a gun prevented someone from breaking into my house. If you were to ever find yourself in a situation that you needed a gun I think your opinion would change drastically.
There are too many legitimate defensive uses to justify disarming the public.... if that were even possible. You'd create more crime than you'd cure.
You're making it up again Gosh; when did I ever say disarm the public?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/joe-mcknight-shooting-ronald-gasser.html?_r=0
So basically what we currently have is, its seems a person broke the law and is currently being charged.
How does that possible equate to the OP makign a case to ban guns? oh thats right it doesn't lol
Are you hoping to see some minimum intelligence test to determine who can exercise their rights?
Well if you make sure you don't use/own a gun we are one step closer to it taking care of itself and all we can ask is you do your part.
How do you plan to keep guns out of the hands of idiots otherwise?
Well, yes, I read that as well, thanks. But the point remains: no gun, Mcknight would still be alive. Many - would still be alive.
If you're traveling and are going to be out on lonely roads at night etc, then I can see carrying
: truck drivers very often carry something with them in case of hijackings. But this notion of just carrying one around is silly, and as we have seen yet again, unnecessarily deadly. That's the point I'm making in this thread: funny how nobody ants to admit that Mcknight was shot and killed for nothing.
By making them show cause for carrying. We do that in California.
By making them show cause for carrying. We do that in California.
I hoping that showing cause for carrying will sweep the intelligence of lawmakers and the public to keep crap like this from happening.
We have courts to deal with such matters. When the guy is found guilty come back.
There is absolutely no way on earth you can make such a false statement. You have no idea of what may have transpired had there been no gun or what the reason was for the shooting. You are deliberately hyping this up to suit your agenda.
Millions of people carry every day with very very few incidents. People get killed daily in large numbers with other implements and this does not concern you in the least because you cannot hype those.
Do people carry concealed firearms without a license?
And you still have CCW holders in California committing murder. Other states don't want to be like California and will continue to be shall issue rather than may issue. It may surprise you, but the term "Californian" is a pejorative in most red states, not something to emulate.
Please: no gun, nobody gets shot. what are the odds that one of them would have choked the other to death?
It's amazing how you guys will stick up for guns against the most surmounting odds. It's exactly why (your) politics are despised by the majority of people.