"I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes"
The students being a reference to the students he interacts with, i.e. an entire elementary school. In an elementary school in Maryland, which enforces some of the strictest gun laws in America, 100% of the "roblem students" came from broken homes. That is a fact.
As you're restating what I've already read and not answering the question, I'll hold to my previous conclusion.
Regardless of whether you intend to ever draw your firearm, it is better to have one than to not have one.
I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you
more likely.
...seriously? You saw "naked and unconscious" as THAT? I'm fairly certain he meant a woman who had been knocked unconscious and stripped naked.
That wouldn't really fit with the context of what he had been replying to. Of course someone who was assaulted and left somewhere isn't responsible for what happens after that.
We've been mature enough to avoid using them on you.
*All uses of 'you' were to the contextual person in my example, who willingly stripped off their clothing and slept in an alley. I did not mean to refer to anyone posting here.
He mention the knives being locked in a vault, not banned.
Knives in the kitchen aren't an object people commonly pick up to harm other people with.
Or tell me, do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?
YOU keep dragging this single point (that I made only once and never used as material since)
You've only explicitly stated it once. You've used it multiple times, and I pointed out each time. EmperorPalpatine has used it far more than you.
I'm not talking about bans, and neither was he.
One by one then, here we go.
I believe people have a right to own guns. Not only is it constitutional, it's a part of capitalism. The flaw is that those against guns constantly ask the same question: "Why do you NEED this? Why do you need a 30-round magazine, fore grip, scope, etc."
Page 96. Implying that the other side is against ownership of guns.
Gun bans to reduce crime:
Page 96. Explicit strawman of gun control to mean the same as gun ban.
Gun bans will not stop gun violence to any useful extent.
Page 96. Explicit strawman that the argument is about banning guns.
I didn't say "gun control" because I wasn't talking about gun control. I was talking about literally banning guns entirely, i.e. outright denying firearms to the public. I mentioned gun control afterwards. Gun BANS are indeed an issue because some believe that no one should ever own a gun at all. I was arguing against that, not control.
Page 97. Do I really need to explain how this is a strawman of the argument on gun control?
No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it.
Page 97. Admitting that you were arguing against gun bans, not gun control. The definition of a strawman when the topic is gun control.
Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.
Page 97. Classic front for the "gun ban won't work" argument, which is a strawman in this case.
These are all from you Matt. Don't tell me you aren't using it, when it's been in every single one of your posts.
Morals, discipline and responsibility are to blame, not guns.
The sad thing here is you're almost correct. It's a change in our society to blame. That's the pitiful part of the catechism, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's true. Except entirely missing the point. Guns are being using to kill people.
Society is to blame. Guns are objects, they are not inherently good or evil. It is how they are used that determines what they are. Currently, in our society, guns are being rampantly used for evil. We could reduce that if we wanted to.
Controlling guns is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable. People will still die.
Prosecuting criminals is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable result of criminals committing crimes. They will still commit crimes.
Yet we still do it. Do you think we should not?
But considering that even the people who get the most rigorous training (law enforcement, military) sometimes abuse their power regardless of their qualifications, what amount is enough?
That would be something for experts in training to decide. I'm not qualified to say what's a safe level of training. Yes, we can't ensure that the guns won't be misused, but we can take steps to ensure less are misused.
What's wrong with calling the police and waiting with a weapon just in case?
Nothing at all. That's exactly what I've been saying to do all along. Take measures to protect yourself, avoid the conflict, and defend yourself if necessary.
Yes, they could be putting themselves in more danger, but is that not their right?
It is their right, and I've said as much. I was arguing the idea that having a gun makes you less likely to be harmed. That simply isn't true unless the person has prior intent to harm. A robber wants your things, not to hurt you. They almost certainly aren't going to try and hurt you unless you threaten them. Pulling a gun out and confronting the robber could be the difference between getting shot yourself and having the police arrive a few minutes later.
So what's wrong for a homeowner with proper training to aim for an appendage?
Nothing at all. I said the exact same thing earlier, and I quote, "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet."
I meant past crimes beyond the current incident.
I'm not familiar with sentencing rates for burglars with a loooong record. Once or twice won't be more than a few years though, unless they hurt someone too. All the more reason for the burglar not to hurt the person.
I never said that all tools are equal, but where should the line be drawn for "harmful enough to need restrictions"?
I'd say, 'made to kill things' is a pretty obvious line. A knife, unless it's a combat knife, is made to cut food. I don't know whether combat knives are require some kind of license to buy. Likewise, pressure cookers are not made to be weapons.
As for when these things not made to be weapons should be restricted, I would say when it becomes a problem. If we're constantly seeing pressure cooker bombs, it's an obvious move to restrict the sale of pressure cookers. If they aren't being used to cause trouble often, there's no point.
Should there be public restrictions on them? Or should we wait for more attacks?
A dozen incidents. We see thousands of instances of gun violence every year. See the difference? Pressure cookers aren't being used nearly often enough to justify requiring checks on who they're being sold to. They aren't a problem. This seems common sense to me.
