What Did President Trump Do Now?

FRED HALE SR. · 02-24-2017, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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.

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.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-24-2017, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Right but YOU'RE the smart one nobody has ever thought that before they accidentally killed their kid before

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.

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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.

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.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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, and 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?

DwnWthVwls · 02-24-2017, 04:21 PM

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.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-24-2017, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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

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.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-24-2017, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

The reason urban areas overwhelmingly support stricter gun laws is because violence being made lethal is such a problem there

Where as in rural areas it's just like "Wtf why is this the govs problem"

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

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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

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.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

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

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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.

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.