The intent is never to kill but to stop (disable seems so violent to me) and yes many a bad guy is stopped by many alternative methods up to and including displaying a weapon. Limiting your choices is just downright ignorant. You should always have all your TOOLS if you need them and one should never assume when we leave the chateau that day that the only force we will face that day is a bad guy who intends something less than lethal. eh?
Only if you are shooting not to kill it is too easy to shoot to kill with a gun - ask Oscar Pistorius
This might make sense if Switzerland didn't totally refute this entire premise. They have the highest amount of guns per capita in the world and a lower murder rate than the U.S.
What a relief... After all, everyone's greatest concern is how national legislation would affect you as an individual...
is that because the BoR are Individual Rights? or like you , a mere matter of convenience. I aked you once before and you never answered...What Right are you excercising by telling me I don't have Rights you claim I don't have? You're like many other Libs/Socialists...always looking to lord over someone. Ya just can't leave anyone else alone. You demand that others live down to your standards. Whose Rights have I violated by owning?
It's shoot to stop not shoot to kill...if they die as a result of attacking me with a deadly weapon then I recon they could of prevented their demise by being law abiding, either way not my concern and I get to be alive.
Another sweeping generalization... Have I said guns should be banned, or have I said I am against banning?
You are in favor of registration. The WhiteHouse claims, like I have been saying all along, that registration can only work on a total ban, that registration can only be used as a precursor to a total ban. To support any of this is a warning that you are for this. How many people are you prepared to kill because they are only fighting for their Rights? So, what gives you the Right to define my Rights? You have stated that you are an atheist. Therefore your Rights do not come from God, as mine do. Therefore, you have no Rights granted to you through a higher power, only privileges granted through government. Again, you ignore my question, Who's Rights have I violated? Why would you violate my Rights?
Dude, you're starting to sound like a broken record... You keep raising they myth that registration will inevitably lead to confiscation, and I keep pointing out that no first-world democratic nation has ever confiscated firearms as a result of registration, despite registration being mandated in every other first-world democracy. As I don't think America is any less democratic than Switzerland, I don't believe that confiscation will occur in the US. Since no confiscation will occur, nobody is taking away your guns. Since nobody is taking away your guns, your rights are not being violated. It's really not that complicated, try to keep up. As for where rights come from, you choose to believe they come from God... I choose to believe they don't since no god wrote the Bill of Rights. Either way, our rights come from the same place.
here's where we part. My Rights are my Rights. I trust that they were put there for a reason. Your faith, or lack of, is irrelevent to me. What concerns me is that you are willing to sell any portion of my Rights, because you, personally don't believe. The WhiteHouse has said that registration is a precursor to seizure and confiscation. I would repost that link, but you've already seen it. They even admit it...... If the governmnet is saying it, what's not to believe................. You cannot agree that any part of the BoR that is compromised reduces that Right to a privilege. Why should I allow the government to determine my Rights? If the government had its way, there would be no Bill of Rights. If you have no need of the BoR, that's fine with me. But do not assume what is right for me, and I'll grant the same to you.
My religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with my views on gun control; so you're right, they should be irrelevent to you. I don't know why you keep bringing this up. How ironic that the only time you choose to believe anything from a politician is when it can be interpreted in such a way as to conform with your own world view. Another ad hominem attack.... I've never indicated that there should be no BoR.
I have never understood not shooting to kill. Someone goes into to harm me, I sure am going to harm them. If one shot puts them down and they live, Thats awesome, But if one shot kills them, They (The criminal) Should be held responsible for his own actions. If I go up to someone and slap them, And they hit me back, Should I be allowed to sue them, AND win? Or if I go to hit someone and they knowk me out, Is that not a good consequence because I took into my own actions to go and hit someone for no reason and they slugged me back? someone break into my house, I am not inviting them in, they did it themselves, Based on their consequences, its on them, not me. Its on me to protect those in the house.
BTW, could you provide a link that shows the White House is planning to confiscate weapons? All I've seen is a report that says you CAN'T effectively confiscate guns without registering them first, which is true and already well known. Saying this is proof of plans to confiscate is a "affirming the consequent" fallacy like saying "a banana is a fruit, therefore all fruits are bananas" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Affirming_the_consequent_and_denying_the_antecedent)
If a 90 year old woman slapped Mike Tyson and he decked her back, I would assume there would be some legal action given the disproportion between the initial threat and the response.
There would be legal actions BUT If a 90 yr old women went and slapped him, You would expect to get hit back. Regardless of who it is. Your going to base your attack back but your going to do something back. now if Mike Tyson goes and decks your mother, Will you not react to do something?
NRA Uses Justice Memo to Accuse Obama on Guns http://news.yahoo.com/nra-uses-justi...145927228.html "...The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items. It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes. The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban." Even they say it is ineffective unless a total ban is enacted, even then, they recognize the futility of trying to prevent murders by criminals because criminals will not follow the law. So, those who folks claim they merely want to see every gun registered is a liar. Whitehouse acknowledges that registration leads to confiscation.
What do you mean suddenly? You do realize that you are on the wrong side of history, don't you? Is there nothing an individual should do for themselves?
Maybe we should give them some of our 15-24 year old black males. It would lower our violent crime rate and increase theirs. Liberals love equality of outcome. This should help. If we want less gun crime we need to insist that the government will no longer provide a welfare benefit of any kind to single mothers. If you want a welfare benefit mom and dad must be married and live together. In a generation we would have this problem solved. - - - Updated - - - It is exceptionally difficult to keep your collectivism under wraps isn't it? Marxism is a disease. It kills. Try to keep it under control. I hate this software.
The trouble with shooting to kill is that it is a FINAL solution and subject to misinterpretation Ask Oscar Pistorius whether or not he should have shot to kill
NEJM did exclude gang deaths and STILL came to the conclusion that guns make you more vulnerable http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406
Huh. And no where does it say they excluded criminal activity/gang related deaths. Why do I continue to ask for the same thing, and you predictably fail to provide it?
we don't shoot to kill we shoot to stop the actions of the agressor in the face of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The agressor has the ability to not have deadly force applied by stopping their actions.
