Ok we are in agreement. So I should not be able to defend myself because some asshole decided to give their kid a gun, and you should not be able to own a car because some asshole decided to leave their kid unattended with the car.
your dodging wearies me.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. I never suggested a world with no rules. Just not a nanny state. Somalia has no laws and I am not in any recommending anarchy.
You absolutely are. You said: "I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity". But that pretty much covers every law, doesn't it? What are laws but codified rules to protect society?
What I said was that I believe laws should not be based on a few assholes who do idiotic things that are already covered by other laws.
No, that is not what you said. That might be what you meant
, but it was not what you said. If that was what you meant, you should say what you mean. It would help prevent the perception that you are back pedaling.
No one is suggesting a 5 year old or a 2 year old should be given a gun for their birtday.
I do not think you understand what "no one" means, because obviously someone
thought it was a great idea.
Idiotic people with cars are hurting innocent people I am not for banning cars or restricting their use further. We have sufficeint motorvehicle laws, and we have sufficient gun laws in my opionion.
Back on the cars analogy? I don't know why you do that. It is a losing analogy for you. We regulate cars at a far higher level than guns. Guns and cars are not equal comparisons. The primary purpose of a car is transportation. The primary purpose of guns is destruction. A better comparison would be guns and TNT.
Plus, I've not mentioned banning anything in this thread
. So again, losing point for you. They call that a Strawman Argument.
In this thread I've tried to point out the extremely common mistakes with guns and tried to find reasonable laws to keep guns away from people who should not have them. You and Odin have just reacted in knee-jerk fashion, essentially saying, there is nothing we can do, and all these dead people are the price of our freedom.
Accidental death by gun by a child is almost always preventable,
I take it you didn't do the research? Great. I'll just ignore you until you do.
The United States Of America has a (non fire arm related ) murder rate that exceeds The UK's total murder rate.
Do you think that is a problem we should do something about? What happens to the rate when you add guns to the mix?
was that so hard?
Apparently people will kill themselve in other ways if you remove the gun.
You cannot just look at gross numbers and draw that conclusion. Sure, they have fewer guns that we do. But they also drink a lot more alcohol,
and eat more bangers and mash. So, their diet is as likely a factor as anything.
And, those figures aren't even the same year. 2009 US, 2011 UK.
I have empathy for people...
Please. You are embarrassing yourself. It is unlikely you are going to convince me, or anyone else on this forum, that you are not a replicant. And not even a Nexus-6.
So it is your claim that guns are never used defensively?
No. Your numbers are in question. Numbers like that have already been called into question in this thread. I've read Kleck's study and he's fucking bonkers. Even the low end you give - 800,000 - means that amost 10% of gun owners "defend" themselves every year
. That also means a regular, non-gun toting individual would have the same probability of being in a defense situation every year
. And that is clearly not the case. Or criminals are just picking on gun owners.
I think these numbers are evidence of gun owners' paranoia. In their minds, threats are everywhere.
First off ...
Nope. Justify it all you want, but you made a monumentally bad decision. High risk, low reward. You are the karate guy who walked into central park at night. You just lack the ability to recognize it.