Give up my guns?

[Tsing Tao]

So you don't care about the NEW nut job (usually not a criminal) on a whim going to the local store, getting a NEW AR15 and killing kids in school. Noted.

Turn in what guns? I want you to surrender your right to defend yourself? You can't do that with a shotgun? Or five shotguns? WTH is wrong with you that you think you need handguns and AR15s to defend yourself? Maybe you need medication to reduce your anxiety.

First, the shooter in Texas used a shotgun. So even if you got rid of the AR15s through some magical spell, you'd still have nut jobs committing killings. Second, as I've stated - defending yourself with a shotgun when the enemy has a semi-automatic rifle puts the defender at a disadvantage.

I also noted you ignored the article on children dying in Chicago. This is because you don't really care about kids, you care about getting rid of guns.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Were these guns obtained from international contraband?

Dude, you have to be Ricter. Lately you've made posts that are on par with the Ricter Riddles of old. What are you talking about, international contraband?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Truly, truly, truly one of the scariest interview I have ever seen.

Really doesn't matter, because the chance they will pass such legislation is so minute, and even in the smallest chance they manage to get it passed, they will never be able to implement it. So it's fantasy put out there to get votes from rabid extreme left folks like Futurecurrents.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

Reply is inline below.

"futurecurrents, post: 4659405, member: 11181"]Agree. But we don't need AR15s and handguns to do that.
Although I have never owned a gun(but will soon), I believe handguns play an important in self defense situations. In home defense, obstacles and close quarters make a compact lethal weapon more effective than than a long weapon where you could be bumping into walls, etc.

FBI statistics indicate the typical distance of shootings is 14 feet. These statistics seem to support the value of handguns even more.


Guns like the AR15 and all handguns should be be banned.
The often used arguments of the right of self protection, criminals wouldn't turn in their guns, and drug related crime running rampant apply here.


="futurecurrents, post: 4659403, member: 11181"]But it's not about removing them from the bad guys. It's about making it harder for Johnny nut job to get one.......for the twentieth time.
Johnny Nutjob has killed people with vehicles, knives, explosives, etc. Not just guns. Due to continued advances in technology, availability of information on non-gun weapons, and political frenzy on this issue, it is likely we will see unconventional weapons used in the future for mass murder. Current and especially future weapons are much more efficient than guns because because of difficulty of detection of the weapon system as well as difficulty in even detecting an attack in real time.

More effort should be placed on detecting the Jonny Nutjobs by investigating citizen concerns and preindicational behavior on social media.

In addition, the more responsible citizens that carry guns, the safer we may be against nutjobs going off in public places.

The attack on legal gun ownership by the Left is about control. One of the main benefits in living in the United States is personal freedom. This includes the freedom to protect oneself in a sometimes unfriendly world were drug related crime runs rampant and mass shootings whether by terrorists or nutjobs are on the rise.

And I am talking about certain guns, not all guns......for the twentieth time.
In my travels around the United States, I have seen more and more billboards advertising shooting ranges and gun stores. In a way, the political frenzy over gun ownership appears to have been a bonanza for gun related businesses. In my own case, I joined the NRA recently and am looking to buy a handgun and train with it. Thus I actually have to thank the Left for getting me involved in an activity where I have started to meet some truly great people.

Thank you again.

 

[Cuddles]

Dude, you have to be Ricter. Lately you've made posts that are on par with the Ricter Riddles of old. What are you talking about, international contraband?

I'll make it easier since you couldn't connect the dots. Were these illegally used guns obtained from the ever growing supply of domestic guns in the gray/black market or the miniscule contraband market?

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'll make it easier since you couldn't connect the dots. Were these illegally used guns obtained from the ever growing supply of domestic guns in the gray/black market or the miniscule contraband market?

First, who knows where they were obtained without first arresting them and tracing the firearms? Second, what is the difference between the black market and the so-called "minuscule contraband market" you are referring to?

You're right, I cannot connect the dots when people don't make sense without asking for further clarification.

 

[futurecurrents]

First, the shooter in Texas used a shotgun. So even if you got rid of the AR15s through some magical spell, you'd still have nut jobs committing killings. Second, as I've stated - defending yourself with a shotgun when the enemy has a semi-automatic rifle puts the defender at a disadvantage.

I also noted you ignored the article on children dying in Chicago. This is because you don't really care about kids, you care about getting rid of guns.

So you don't care about the NEW nut job (usually not a criminal) on a whim going to the local store, getting a NEW AR15 and killing kids in school. Noted.

 

[Tsing Tao]

So you don't care about the NEW nut job (usually not a criminal) on a whim going to the local store, getting a NEW AR15 and killing kids in school. Noted.

Of course I care, as I've said several times now. You do realize that posting "noted" every time doesn't make something a true statement, right?

I care more about protecting myself and family.

If, God forbid, I had developed stomach cancer, the proper treatment wouldn't be to remove my stomach. That would kill the cancer, but at an unacceptable risk to me. You don't seem to grasp the concept of the trade off.

Noted.

 

[NeoTrader]

If, God forbid, I had developed stomach cancer, the proper treatment wouldn't be to remove my stomach. That would kill the cancer, but at an unacceptable risk to me.

I got your point and I agree with it. But just for the sake of clarification, this is a bad analogy, because the treatment for gastric cancer is, depending on the stage of the cancer, removal of the stomach. But you obviously have ways to surgically get around the problems this generates. And unfortunately, even if this is done, many times it doesn't kill the cancer... Gastric cancer is one of the most agressive cancers there is... But I repeat, in no way do I mean to invalidate your point. Which I agree with.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I got your point and I agree with it. But just for the sake of clarification, this is a bad analogy, because the treatment for gastric cancer is, depending on the stage of the cancer, removal of the stomach. But you obviously have ways to surgically get around the problems this generates. Gastric cancer is one of the most agressive cancers there is... But no I repeat, in no way do I mean to invalidate your point. Which I agree with.

Removal of the stomach is a potential solution. But it comes with a heavy cost. That is entirely my point.

There are many other potential treatments first. You don't just start removing organs the moment you find cancer has taken hold.