Zimmerman Trial

#601
#601
Mods should create a thread for note and trut to philosophize about gun issues and clear this thread for its subject, the Zimmerman trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#602
#602
notabed22 said:
Granted, there's a reasonable chance that - should the firearm be used to kill the suspect - I would try and paint the killing as unnecessary and attempt to vilify the action... but I'd definitely be appreciative of it at the time.
Click to expand...

If you don't want people to believe you're trolling, then this ^ is pushing it too far.
 
#603
#603
notabed22 said:
Probably the use of ellipses instead of new sentences, unusual spelling/grammatical mistakes, throwing lines out in every possible direction to try and arbitrarily land an insult that will stick... maybe it's just one of those things.

Or, on the other hand, it could be that you posted a picture of yourself and just didn't look very bright.



I swear to God. I don't have any other excuse as to why I registered as a member of the Constitution Party other than that I was casually trolling IRL.
Click to expand...

Haha...bc I use ellipses, that makes me dumb...this is not an English class or I would write correctly...

So I look dumb...nice...lol

Your just a little whiny punk...I don't need to see a pic to make that observation...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#604
#604
notabed22 said:
This isn't about eradicating gun ownership, at least not in the sense that doing so would be feasible. It's about having less guns in the hands of civilians in general.
Click to expand...

You mean law-abiding citizens, right? Criminals won't really care whether guns are illegal. Shoot, they might prefer it... easier marks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#605
#605
Still didn't answer my question. How will keeping as many guns out of the hands of civilians as possible, keep them out of criminals hands?
 
#607
#607
YorkVol said:
As usual, you missed the point. The point is you are willing for your cause to be furthered so long as it at someone else's expense and not your own.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously. I'd rather not die or have to kill someone.

Vol Main said:
Mods should create a thread for note and trut to philosophize about gun issues and clear this thread for its subject, the Zimmerman trial.
Click to expand...

TRUT is the pseudo-philosopher. I'm more of a knockoff pundit.

bamawriter said:
You mean law-abiding citizens, right? Criminals won't really care whether guns are illegal. Shoot, they might prefer it... easier marks.
Click to expand...

It's all about decreasing the number of guns and the number of people who own them.

OrangeBlood4life said:
Still didn't answer my question. How will keeping as many guns out of the hands of civilians as possible, keep them out of criminals hands?
Click to expand...

You're asking a question about something I did not say, claim or allege.
 
#608
#608
notabed22 said:
It's all about decreasing the number of guns and the number of people who own them.
Click to expand...

I understand. But given that it's totally impossible to eliminate all guns, who is that you expect will be in possession of this reduced number of firearms?
 
#609
#609
notabed22 said:
Well, obviously. I'd rather not die or have to kill someone.



TRUT is the pseudo-philosopher. I'm more of a knockoff pundit.



It's all about decreasing the number of guns and the number of people who own them.



You're asking a question about something I did not say, claim or allege.
Click to expand...

I could almost respect you for the fact that you are maintaining your stance despite all the opposition. However, the fact that you would not want to further your cause at your own inconvenience takes away any semblance of respect I may have had. I guess it is because I've fought in too many wars, endured too many days and nights away from my family and lost too many friends to respect anyone who isn't willing to sacrifice in the smallest way for what they believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#610
#610
The State calling the latent fingerprint expert to the stand is a waste of everyone's time
 
#611
#611
bamawriter said:
I understand. But given that it's totally impossible to eliminate all guns, who is that you expect will be in possession of this reduced number of firearms?
Click to expand...

In my dream world, 100% of civilians in possession of firearms would be criminals. No, this isn't because I want criminals armed... it's because if the civilian possession of firearms was illegal, then every single civilian with a firearm would be a criminal. I'm sure that there are at least one or two sane posters on VolNation with firearms in their homes but, if they refused to turn in their weapons, they'd become the criminals of whom they are so scared. Fascinating, really.

By nature of "banning guns," you're going to see a drastic increase in criminal firearm possession because everyone with a gun would be a criminal. Just simple math.

YorkVol said:
I could almost respect you for the fact that you are maintaining your stance despite all the opposition. However, the fact that you would not want to further your cause at your own inconvenience takes away any semblance of respect I may have had. I guess it is because I've fought in too many wars, endured too many days and nights away from my family and lost too many friends to respect anyone who isn't willing to sacrifice in the smallest way for what they believe.
Click to expand...

The sacrifice you're asking me to make, though, is to place myself in a dangerous situation and either kill or be killed. So, yea, I'd rather avoid that situation.
 
#612
#612
notabed22 said:
By nature of "banning guns," you're going to see a drastic increase in criminal firearm possession because everyone with a gun would be a criminal. Just simple math.
Click to expand...

And, by definition, 100% of armed criminals would have overwhelming advantage over a disarmed populace. Just simple math.
 
#613
#613
notabed22 said:
In my dream world, 100% of civilians in possession of firearms would be criminals. No, this isn't because I want criminals armed... it's because if the civilian possession of firearms was illegal, then every single civilian with a firearm would be a criminal. I'm sure that there are at least one or two sane posters on VolNation with firearms in their homes but, if they refused to turn in their weapons, they'd become the criminals of whom they are so scared. Fascinating, really.

By nature of "banning guns," you're going to see a drastic increase in criminal firearm possession because everyone with a gun would be a criminal. Just simple math.
Click to expand...

That was a brilliant little dodge you just pulled off.

I'll rephrase my question:

Would you expect the people who are using guns to commit crimes prior to your dream ban to surrender those guns willingly after the ban?
 
#614
#614
hndog609 said:
And, by definition, 100% of armed criminals would have overwhelming advantage over a disarmed populace. Just simple math.
Click to expand...

I have faith that people would adjust and find alternate methods with which to defend themselves. Or do something crazy like rely upon the police for protection.

bamawriter said:
That was a brilliant little dodge you just pulled off.

I'll rephrase my question:

Would you expect the people who are using guns to commit crimes prior to your dream ban to surrender those guns willingly after the ban?
Click to expand...

No, I do not expect all of them to surrender their firearms. Hell, I don't expect many of them to at all. I do think that some will, but it's certainly a small percentage.
 
#615
#615
notabed22 said:
I have faith that people would adjust and find alternate methods with which to defend themselves. Or do something crazy like rely upon the police for protection.



No, I do not expect all of them to surrender their firearms. Hell, I don't expect many of them to at all. I do think that some will, but it's certainly a small percentage.
Click to expand...

Then what's the purpose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#616
#616
notabed22 said:
I have faith that people would adjust and find alternate methods with which to defend themselves. Or do something crazy like rely upon the police for protection.
Click to expand...

Think of every crime that's happening right now;murder, rape, whatever, and ask yourself "Where were the police?"?

I'm hard-pressed to think of anything more delusional than the idea of counting on the police to actually be right where you need them to be right when you need them to be there. That's not even giving the cops a hard time...it's an utterly impossible thing to expect of them.
 
#617
#617
notabed22 said:
No, I do not expect all of them to surrender their firearms. Hell, I don't expect many of them to at all. I do think that some will, but it's certainly a small percentage.
Click to expand...

So, after your ban, those that hold onto their guns would be those who choose not to comply with the law. Some of those, perhaps most of those, already had an inclination toward other kinds of crime.

Given that you are smart enought to know that a total disarming of the populace is simply impossible, your dream scenario ends with that particular segment of the populace armed, while the entire law-abiding segment is not. Am I following?
 
#618
#618
hog88 said:
Then what's the purpose?
Click to expand...

... to have fewer people with guns?

hndog609 said:
Think of every crime that's happening right now;murder, rape, whatever, and ask yourself "Where were the police?"?

I'm hard-pressed to think of anything more delusional than the idea of counting on the police to actually be right where you need them to be right when you need them to be there. That's not even giving the cops a hard time...it's an utterly impossible thing to expect of them.
Click to expand...

Okay then, don't call the police. Just defend yourself with things other than firearms.

bamawriter said:
So, after your ban, those that hold onto their guns would be those who choose not to comply with the law. Some of those, perhaps most of those, already had an inclination toward other kinds of crime.

Given that you are smart enought to know that a total disarming of the populace is simply impossible, your dream scenario ends with that particular segment of the populace armed, while the entire law-abiding segment is not. Am I following?
Click to expand...

Oh, you're following completely. This is where it gets good, too.
 
#619
#619
#620
#620
notabed22 said:
Okay then, don't call the police. Just defend yourself with things other than firearms.



Oh, you're following completely. This is where it gets good, too.
Click to expand...

So Jimmy McShooty breaks into my house with a gun. I'm a law-abiding guy, so I'm not armed. I have access to all kinds of things, but not a firearm. I've called 911, but the police are never going to get there in time.

I think we can agree that my chances of survival are pretty slim. So how does your dream ban handle my issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#622
#622
hndog609 said:
Calling the police is fine. I so VERY wish this story ended up with the other guy shot.

911 tape reveals horrific last minutes for murdered Dallas woman | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

If the criminals you've already admitted will be armed with firearms why in blue hell would I want the be the one at a disadvantage?
Click to expand...

There are other means of defense aside from firearms.

A guy could conceivably come to rob you with a rocket launcher, armored tank and a team of child soldiers. That does not mean that you should be allowed to legally own rocket launchers, armored tanks and child soldiers just to avoid a potential disadvantage.

bamawriter said:
So Jimmy McShooty breaks into my house with a gun. I'm a law-abiding guy, so I'm not armed. I have access to all kinds of things, but not a firearm. I've called 911, but the police are never going to get there in time.

I think we can agree that my chances of survival are pretty slim. So how does your dream ban handle my issue?
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm not sure I can agree there. If a guy with a gun breaks into your house with the intent to kill you and you don't have any good way with which to defend yourself then, yea, you're less likely to survive.

But, hey, what about the stuff you just mentioned? The "all kinds of things" to which you have access? Do you have a TASER? A baseball bat? A knife? A blowdart? Those are all things with which you can protect yourself. And, again, we don't know if he's even there to kill you. The criminal might be there to steal things, in which case your chances for survival are pretty high.
 
#623
#623
notabed22 said:
There are other means of defense aside from firearms.

A guy could conceivably come to rob you with a rocket launcher, armored tank and a team of child soldiers. That does not mean that you should be allowed to legally own rocket launchers, armored tanks and child soldiers just to avoid a potential disadvantage.
Click to expand...

If this is the best argument you have then it should be apparent you have no actual argument at all. (and that's not even counting that a firearm could be very effective against someone with a rocket launcher)

Again, some of your points are so unwieldy it's nigh impossible to take you as anything but a troll.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top