Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ahole-ic" data-source="post: 7408215" data-attributes="member: 619324">If it&#039;s a tautology, that just proves how indefensible your argument is. Your argument is based on a flawed premise. You are making the case that, we should govern based on accidents. That is what your statistics were about and that is what your nuclear analogy was about, so that is your only point so far. With that being said, how many car accidents are there a year? How many boat and motorcycle accidents? Since those totals are FAR greater than gun accidents, wouldn&#039;t it make more sense based on your logic in your argument to ban those first?Next, you mentioned jared loughner. The premise of your argument is that since he bought a gun brand new and used it in an illegal way, that had he not been able to buy a brand new gun the crime would be prevented. That of course cannot be substantiated. Guns are, and always will be easy to obtain illegally. There are no laws that can be written to prevent it. Drugs are illegal right now, yet anyone can buy them anywhere. Your entire argument cannot be backed up with logic.Fully automatic and concealable weapons are necessary for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from these criminals. If a group of males breaks into a home to ****, kill, and burglarize, an individuals only hope is to be able to sling more lead down range faster than they can. This levels the playing field. Concealable weapons are small and compact and much easier to manuever around corners in your house. A shotgun can get a person killed by making noise when bumping into walls, or being seen before the person rounds the corner.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ahole-ic, post: 7408215, member: 619324"] If it's a tautology, that just proves how indefensible your argument is. Your argument is based on a flawed premise. You are making the case that, we should govern based on accidents. That is what your statistics were about and that is what your nuclear analogy was about, so that is your only point so far. With that being said, how many car accidents are there a year? How many boat and motorcycle accidents? Since those totals are FAR greater than gun accidents, wouldn't it make more sense based on your logic in your argument to ban those first? Next, you mentioned jared loughner. The premise of your argument is that since he bought a gun brand new and used it in an illegal way, that had he not been able to buy a brand new gun the crime would be prevented. That of course cannot be substantiated. Guns are, and always will be easy to obtain illegally. There are no laws that can be written to prevent it. Drugs are illegal right now, yet anyone can buy them anywhere. Your entire argument cannot be backed up with logic. Fully automatic and concealable weapons are necessary for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from these criminals. If a group of males breaks into a home to ****, kill, and burglarize, an individuals only hope is to be able to sling more lead down range faster than they can. This levels the playing field. Concealable weapons are small and compact and much easier to manuever around corners in your house. A shotgun can get a person killed by making noise when bumping into walls, or being seen before the person rounds the corner. [/QUOTE]

Verification