well idk considering they're two entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes.

oh wait, maybe there are some people who rely on a gun to get them to and from work...

so whats your gimmick here, do you want gun regulations or not? im not in agreement with the money thing. but certainly we need more mental health testing to own a gun.

100% agree

i think this is the first time we've come to an agreement so yeah good stuff i agree

I'll admit, my views on guns are pretty extreme, I don't think it should be a right. I see no reason for anyone to own one. If you want to argue it's for protection then prove you need protection and demonstrate how a gun will protect you. The DMV also doesn't do background checks which shows the two are looked at differently.

Agreed to a point. The wording and syntax of the 2nd is so messed up that I don't believe it is actually a right.

It absolutely should be a right. Its already become a travesty in California for the wait periods and background checks involved. You might as well be muslim entering the country at this time for comparisons. I think millions of people for many milleniums have demonstrated how guns can protect you, thats pretty much why they exist.

BS. Guns have caused way more harm than good for decades in the modern world. Step away from the muskets Fred.

Putting Muslims in your rebuttal shines a weird light on you. I live in California. I own a gun. STFU.

I'm not arguing it hasn't been demonstrated. I'm arguing it should be demonstrated on an individual basis. We will have to agree to disagree on your opening statement.

How about this, I'll reduce my stance to: Owning a gun should be a right if it is necessary for protection, but it should not be the right for anyone to get one because they like guns.

That was my point genius. I don't recall saying guns haven't done any damage? Are you on meds? I put muslims in my rebuttal to illustrate my point. I also live in California and own multiple guns. And you can take your stfu and shove it up your tiny urethra Dinosaur Jr.

well considering more gun related deaths come from handguns then assaults riffles AND the assault riffle ban from 94-04 had minimal affect, im not sure why you would ban one and not the other.

I certainly can get on board with the individual basis, that we can agree on. We can disagree thats what adults do, see Don its possible. There are people who collect guns and those that use them for the wrong reasons, its a real catch 22 though to take away everyones rights.

Calling Chula Donald in this thread>>>>>>>>

Well I live in a big city and certainly feel safer knowing I can defend myself in the event of a break in or subsequent assault by another individual.

chula "the donald" vista

I certainly agree that people don't need ak47's to feel safe. I still would love a rocket launcher though just for ****s and giggles. :yeah:

i dont really see why anyone would "need" an assault riffle so i get where youre coming from but im just giving you the numbers. if we're banning on the merits of how dangerous they are we should ban handguns as well since they kill more. if we're banning them in order to bring down gun related deaths, well we've seen in the past that didnt happen.

btw im just playing devil's advocate here, im not trying to defend mr texas' right to own an AR-15.

That can't be your only argument though. People can do just as much damage driving a car into a huge crowd of people. I'm sure there are other examples where this concept also applies but I can't think of one atm.

I think you have to also take into account that those numbers are inflated due to the average joes ability to own a handgun as opposed to a high power rifle. Also, i'm guessing that those numbers are also inflated by illegal weaponry that has not been registered.

I'll take a wait and see approach on that and get back to you. Guns certainly do make me safer, and will continue to do so.

Cars have purposes beyond plowing people down. Can you think of a non-lethal purpose for a gun?

very true. i just think it's a cop out acting like getting rid of assault riffles will eliminate many gun related deaths. as DWV mentiones, its not like there arent other methods of mass killing/high damage.

Target shooting/heirlooms for collecting/hunting/

getting through the line at the groccery store faster

Yes, fun. It's the reason most people want guns.

Honestly I'd rather not live in a society that decides its citizens' rights by pie charts and statistics. Guns may be more likely to kill you or a family member, but I'd rather live in a permissive society that gave me the option of defending myself as I see fit, within reason, than one that micromanages what I can and cannot do.

Wait, so you've been in a situation where you had your gun and it stopped you from being harmed? Cause you can't make that claim otherwise. Just because you perceived a threat and had your gun ready, if nothing ever happened that's not a valid justification.

Edit: I think guns give most people the illusion of safety.

I've read just about everything. Stupid people owning guns do stupid things. That I can't deny. And walking through California on a daily basis the stupidity is pretty much the masses so your argument isn't lost on me.

Actually I once had to pull out my gun while in my house and instruct someone to put a knife away and leave my roommate alone and leave. Was I gonna wait for the guy to stab my roommate before I reacted? Thats a pretty absurd scenario. It stopped him from being harmed. I have not encountered anybody else i've needed to pull a gun on. I hope nobody ever has to defend themselves, but that is not always gonna be the case.

Don't have any kids and live with just my girl. She also owns a gun and we both are MENSA members because of course that would be my argument. :yeah:

If you have something that can destroy the brain of a potential threat then I think that something obviously can make you safer in that circumstance. It's a gun for god's sake. Any argument against that is based on statistics, real statistics obviously, but that's really more about micromanagement of rights, which I give the finger to.

And if your threat escalates the situation with a gun because they're expecting one?

I think you need a better appreciation for statistics.. Good statistics are a great thing to make decisions based on, why you would be against that I don't understand.

Thats when you lay down your gun and start crying, just like the guy that brought a knife to a gun fight. Cause i'd rather not cause a conflict. :yeah:

Which kind of goes hand in hand with my argument for defending myself considering I live in an urban area.

Then they'd have a gun and you wouldn't. Obviously guns aren't the answer to society's ills, and cause many problems simply by their existence, but I do not see the ability of a person to defend themselves with something that doesn't rely on physical strength or the ability to be within two feet of the other person to be something that should be taken away. If a dude three times your size enters your home intent on doing whatever the ****, then you're ****ed, but if someone with an AK-47 enters your home with the intent to do the same and all you've got is a Derringer, then it's still probably a stalemate.

Non-lethal solution=taser

Because it's politics. When you start allowing statistics to decide politics is when cherry-picked statistics by whatever party is in power or can best make their case are allowed to pass bull**** laws. You can prove any point with the right statistic, and the right statistic pretty much always exists. I'm not for ideology deciding politics, but something besides numbers is a good counterbalance.

Bringing a taser to a gun fight. Solution. :yeah: