Father shoots teen boy because of daughter...

[Biolink]

I'm a gun advocate, but guilty. Yeah she says she doesn't know the guy, and I'm sure the father was seeing red and foaming at the mouth, but you gotta you some deductive reasoning. Charge the idiot father and the girl for being a lying skank.

[Sweet Pea 50]

Just checked the link. This happened in Houston.

He is walking.

[876arrow]

What is the rate for guns being used for self-defense against violent crime in the way you're describing?

I don't know, and I don't care. The LESS they're used, the better. But it's the fact that good, law-abiding people have them in the first place to be able to defend themselves, is what makes me feel good.

Of course I'd like law-abiding citizens to have the ability to defend themselves. However, with the huge number of legal gun owners possibly resulting in an incredibly low rate of actual self-defensive firearm use, but an incredibly high number of guns available for the stealing (or other illegal methods of procuring them), do the benefits actually outweigh the costs?

Of course I've already said I'm for regulation rather than making gun ownership entirely a thing of the past.

If the citizens were disarmed, don't you think criminals would start licking their chops at that? The positives absolutely outweigh the negatives.

The face of gun murders is not the man who kills a boy he finds in bed with his daughter, the face of gun murders is the young man out on the street, being gunned down because he was suspected of being (or actually was) part of a rival gang.

Like I said - Chicago: guns banned. And how's that turning out for them?

Then go to the rural parts of the USA, where gun-ownership is most common. Violent crime with legally-owned guns is very rare. These are the parts of the USA with the lowest crime rate.

[samouraļ]

I don't know, and I don't care. The LESS they're used, the better. But it's the fact that good, law-abiding people have them in the first place to be able to defend themselves, is what makes me feel good.

Why are we even bothering to discuss this then?

If the citizens were disarmed, don't you think criminals would start licking their chops at that? The positives absolutely outweigh the negatives.

You just said you don't care what the stats say about the prevalence of self-defensive use of firearms. If the rate of self-defense is 0.08% of violent crimes, you think criminals will start "licking their chops" as soon as it's gone down to zero? If such numbers are accurate, the vast majority of criminals haven't even met armed resistance from civilians. So why should they get so excited?

The face of gun murders is not the man who kills a boy he finds in bed with his daughter, the face of gun murders is the young man out on the street, being gunned down because he was suspected of being (or actually was) part of a rival gang.

You're absolutely right. Are you suggesting such a kid should have a gun?

Like I said - Chicago: guns banned. And how's that turning out for them?

Then go to the rural parts of the USA, where gun-ownership is most common. Violent crime with legally-owned guns is very rare. These are the parts of the USA with the lowest crime rate.

Examples illustrating the complete opposite points to the ones you're making exist so there's no point in either of us mentioning any of them.

[Chalino Sanchez]

he shud have offered to suck the dads c0ck.

[876arrow]

Why are we even bothering to discuss this then?

It's irrelevant. I don't care how often guns are used for self-defence, all I care is that they ARE used. As long as there are victims of violent crime/theft in the USA, gun ownership is necessary.

You're absolutely right. Are you suggesting such a kid should have a gun?

Absolutely not. I'm suggesting that the problem with gun murders in the USA is mainly about young men using illegally-obtained guns. Deal with the reasons why so many young men join gangs and/or enter a life of crime.

Examples illustrating the complete opposite points to the ones you're making exist so there's no point in either of us mentioning any of them.

I gave you an example of an entire city that has banned guns, and they have some of the highest rates of gun murders in the country.

[Biolink]

CCW is legal here now

[samouraļ]

It's irrelevant. I don't care how often guns are used for self-defence, all I care is that they ARE used. As long as there are victims of violent crime/theft in the USA, gun ownership is necessary.

Why it makes no difference to you how often they're even used is beyond me. You're not explaining that, you're just saying it doesn't matter to you. Okay, but let's stop discussing this if that's all you want to say at this point.

Absolutely not. I'm suggesting that the problem with gun murders in the USA is mainly about young men using illegally-obtained guns. Deal with the reasons why so many young men join gangs and/or enter a life of crime.

That's fine.

But I did notice that you skipped over my point that you ignoring the prevalence of self-defensive uses compromises your argument that disarming civilians would have criminals licking their chops. Oh well.

I gave you an example of an entire city that has banned guns, and they have some of the highest rates of gun murders in the country.

Yes... you did... did you read my response to that? I think at this point there's no point continuing. We're to the point of you simply stating what you want and what you feel rather than actually debating so let's stop pretending we're doing that, especially given that I'm not even the person you disagree with most.

[$mannyFresh]

Plenty of people I like and admire take the same stance most of the posters here take, but when you corner them with logic, the main reason they have them is that guns are "cool."

[Sweet Pea 50]

Plenty of people I like and admire take the same stance most of the posters here take, but when you corner them with logic, the main reason they have them is that guns are "cool."

Guns are "cool."

Imagine watching some of your favorite movies without them.

You have to understand, that some of the people on here don't corner people with logic on the issue.

It's "gun culture" and "morons" and "red necks".

While the other side can call them "limp wristed *******", "cowards", and the like.

When it really isn't as black and white as those arguing the sides most vehemently want to make it.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, not only did sells of AR-15's variants go up, but politicians trying to implement bills for some types of gun control actually lost their seats in elections.

So trying to pass sane gun control is hard enough as it is.

In fairy tale town, you can snap your fingers and say "Poof, be gone!", and there goes the whole firearm issue in this hugely populated, huge nation that has powerful gun lobbyists, 300 million firearms in circulation, and the almighty 2nd Amendment, with a history of violence.

The whole thing really boils down to, what do believe in your household?

I own firearms. And would use them in defense of my loved ones in my household, if the need arouse. And if I did, it isn't for a fucking movie

I don't think less of a man that doesn't relate or, has issues against it.

What works for them and their mindset, location, and general safety is probably what shapes their view.