Gun control debate (merged)

#13,802
#13,802
OHvol40 said:
We have too many people shot every day for the “self-defense” contention to make sense. We have WAY more guns than any other developed nation but what do the stats say? They say that hinders us rather than helps. Me and my colleagues live that reality.
Click to expand...
And I’ve acknowledged that. However what you see everyday does not give you the right to impose limitations on my freedoms as a law abiding citizen. I would hope you can see that.

But that is your answer. If Paul Revere rides again yeah I’ll have to run home and grab the ARs (yes... multiple😈) from the gun safe. However that is a totally separate issue from out and about and popping a cap in somebody’s ass before they do so to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols
#13,803
#13,803
NorthDallas40 said:
And I’ve acknowledged that. However what you see everyday does not give you the right to impose limitations on my freedoms as a law abiding citizen. I would hope you can see that.

But that is your answer. If Paul Revere rides again yeah I’ll have to run home and grab the ARs (yes... multiple😈) from the gun safe. However that is a totally separate issue from out and about and popping a cap in somebody’s ass before they do so to me.
Click to expand...

Just because everyone doesn’t have to live the reality of gun violence here on a daily basis doesn’t mean it’s not real and it’s not a problem.
 
#13,804
#13,804
Mick said:
You are going to have to explain yourself about the "unconstitutional times we are in" comment. What's your beef, idiocy is a right?
Click to expand...
Pretty much is.

You said our problems harkened back to the constitutional times. If you are able to single a time as the Constitutional times, that would make our current times the non Constituional times? Anti Constitutional times? Post Consitutional times?
 
#13,805
#13,805
OHvol40 said:
We have too many people shot every day for the “self-defense” contention to make sense. We have WAY more guns than any other developed nation but what do the stats say? They say that hinders us rather than helps. Me and my colleagues live that reality.
Click to expand...

You and your colleagues see heart disease, diabetes, Pneumonia and unexpected injuries also I would imagine . All except for one are usually from poor judgement and bad decisions ( the one is debatable ) . All are in the top 10 for deaths in this country . Yet here we are in the gun thread talking about how we need more restrictions on firearms instead of helping fix the real problem .. PEOPLE .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Carl Pickens, BennesseeVols and 1 other person
#13,808
#13,808
OHvol40 said:
Just because everyone doesn’t have to live the reality of gun violence here on a daily basis doesn’t mean it’s not real and it’s not a problem.
Click to expand...
And just because tomorrow somebody is going to come into your OR with a bullet hole in them that I didn’t put there doesn’t mean I’m responsible for it and should have my rights diminished

absolutely hold me accountable for my actions including responsible gun ownership. But GTFO with holding me accountable for the sins of others. Fair enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, DynaLo, BennesseeVols and 2 others
#13,810
#13,810
OHvol40 said:
Your post was a hypothetical, a different hypothetical than the one I hear from single-issue 2A people. So I’m not interested in addressing yours, I’m interested in addressing theirs. It’s one of the defenses for unfettered armament of the US... so I want to explore that.
Click to expand...

My point was my "hypothetical" is (at least in any America that resembles the one we have) how a real armed citizenry plays into modern defense against Federal tyranny. The flaw in your approach to the argument IMHO is in it's narrow binary (only small armed civilians vs front line military) instead of the much more complex scenario surely to take place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#13,814
#13,814
OHvol40 said:
You consistently avoid my simple question with a simple explanation. Do citizens of the US armed with small arms stand a chance against an invasion of the US military?
Click to expand...
Would honestly depend on the goal of the US Military in your hypothetical.

If the US Military wanted to raze a city to the ground and then roll in? No, they could launch a Trident II if they wanted to, and there would be nothing an armed citizenry could do about it.

If the US Miltary rolled into a US City with the goal of occupying and controlling it? Yes, I believe history has shown us that a determined opposition equipped with various small arms could harass and rebuff that force for an extended period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and BennesseeVols
#13,815
#13,815
0nelilreb said:
You and your colleagues see heart disease, diabetes, Pneumonia and unexpected injuries also I would imagine . All except for one are usually from poor judgement and bad decisions ( the one is debatable ) . All are in the top 10 for deaths in this country . Yet here we are in the gun thread talking about how we need more restrictions on firearms instead of helping fix the real problem .. PEOPLE .
Click to expand...

Well everyone has to die from something, but not everyone gets to live to see what that would be naturally. So what is your solution to the “people” problem?
 
#13,817
#13,817
NorthDallas40 said:
And just because tomorrow somebody is going to come into your OR with a bullet hole in them that I didn’t put there doesn’t mean I’m responsible for it and should have my rights diminished

absolutely hold me accountable for my actions including responsible gun ownership. But GTFO with holding me accountable for the sins of others. Fair enough?
Click to expand...

That’s exactly my point. Gun ownership is a responsibility, not a right. Coming from a fellow gun owner mind you.
 
#13,820
#13,820
hndog609 said:
My point was my "hypothetical" is (at least in any America that resembles the one we have) how a real armed citizenry plays into modern defense against Federal tyranny. The flaw in your approach to the argument IMHO is in it's narrow binary (only small armed civilians vs front line military) instead of the much more complex scenario surely to take place.
Click to expand...

That’s your hope, and mine. It’s not the contention of most 2A people though.
 
#13,822
#13,822
OHvol40 said:
The US isn’t allowed to study gun violence in a scientific way, thanks to the gun lobby.
Click to expand...

Wait what ? Since when has all the studies stopped ? I’ll bet there’s been more studies done on everything related to gun ownership than just about any other topic .
 
#13,823
#13,823
85SugarVol said:
Would honestly depend on the goal of the US Military in your hypothetical.

If the US Military wanted to raze a city to the ground and then roll in? No, they could launch a Trident II if they wanted to, and there would be nothing an armed citizenry could do about it.

If the US Miltary rolled into a US City with the goal of occupying and controlling it? Yes, I believe history has shown us that a determined opposition equipped with various small arms could harass and rebuff that force for an extended period of time.
Click to expand...

Maybe a couple years, at most.
 
#13,825
#13,825
OHvol40 said:
Well everyone has to die from something, but not everyone gets to live to see what that would be naturally. So what is your solution to the “people” problem?
Click to expand...

Can you stop someone from smoking ? Make then stop eating little debbies ? Stop them from doing stupid things that cause them them to end up in your OR? Nope you can’t at all but you think we should have even more restrictions on the one thing that is our right ? Smh
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top