Gun Control Thread- Should we?

I don't need to explain myself to you however I am ex-military, have a long history of firearms experience and have my shit locked down. Just because you feel that my processes can't possible be error free doesn't make it so.



No, there is not. No chance they could gain access to it if it were found either.

[quote=Lotus;978294]And if there is a percentage chance that a child killer could steal your gun, then logically, to that percentage you are aiding and abetting the child killer by owning that gun.[QUOTE=Lotus;978294]

This person is committing a crime to get my firearm, how am I aiding and abetting?

Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed.

Yet again you attempt to bluster through facts with hysterical rhetoric. Why is this child killer free? Isn't that a fault of the penal system?



Sure, why not. Put it to a vote.

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

I have cited study after study and offered rational argument. I have not once offered "hysterical rhetoric."

'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?

1) You have glossed over the possibility that someone can steal your arms. If they are in a safe, they can be stolen. If they are in a silo 50 feet underground, they can be stolen. If you really think that your weapons are un-stealable, you need an education in both crime and physics.

You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.

This leads us to:
2) You are correct that when I used the phrase "aiding and abetting," I was not using it in the legal sense of knowing the criminal objective. I used it in the street sense. So let me rephrase: if you have a gun which is stolen by a killer, you have helped the killer get a gun. If you had no gun to steal, the killer cannot be armed by you. This is a simple point.

There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.


As for your question, "Why is the killer free?", there is a simple answer: first-time killer.

To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.


So, since you have not refuted my argument, let me re-state: if there is a percentage chance that your gun may be stolen, there is a percentage chance that you will supply a weapon to a killer of children. Do you really want to live with the knowledge that, by simply possessing a gun, you made it possible for someone else to kill children?

You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?

How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.

'Child killer' isn't hysterical rhetoric?



You are giving this wannabe 'child killer' a lot of credit for being determined and resourceful. You need an education in reality and possibly a deprogramming on woowoo mindset. Not a child-killer, yet.



There is no 'street sense', it's either the legal term or you're wrong, and yet again, you're using deliberately incendiary rhetoric.




To clarify, you're suggesting that this future child killer has selected me to be a partner in crime? Complete scaremongering fantasy. Maybe it works with your classroom, not with adults.



You're giving yourself WAAAAAAAAAY too much credit for your argument that clearly isn't there when you read my counter.

If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so.

Maybe you should stick to arguing the adoption of Unicorn Leash Laws in that fantasy land you live in?

1) If you think that "child killer" is "hysterical rhetoric," please consult a news source and find out what happened in Newtown, CT. "Child killer" references real, current events, not anything hysterical. Unless of course that you think it is hysterical to consider the murders of many young kids to be wrong.

2) I am not giving any killer too much credit. Once again, scan the newspaper. There you will read about weapons, stolen in Newtown and other places, which are then used to kill people.

3) As for your statement, "If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so," the laws of physics say that you cannot guarantee that. The brute fact is that your weapon may be stolen and then used to kill people, no matter how safely you think you have squirreled your weapon away.

How do you get into any car and drive with a clean conscience, with that logic?

Oh, and you shouldn't even own a vehicle, you might help someone steal it and cause an accident with it.

The Liberal, woowoo mindset....it's hilarious!

Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.


32k+ deaths from autos this year.
Now where is the problem again?

Ah, the old "anything can be a weapon" argument.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.More people killed by cars. And in case you genuinely missed it, the main point I've refuted is the "zero percent" argument.

1) If you think that "child killer" is "hysterical rhetoric," please consult a news source and find out what happened in Newtown, CT. "Child killer" references real, current events, not anything hysterical. Unless of course that you think it is hysterical to consider the murders of many young kids to be wrong.

You are the one using the phrase to frame a strawman argument. So, just to be crystal clear, YOUR use of the phrase CHILD KILLER is hysterical rhetoric.

2) I am not giving any killer too much credit. Once again, scan the newspaper. There you will read about weapons, stolen in Newtown and other places, which are then used to kill people.

I would prefer you prove your premise that a POTENTIAL child killer is going to get my weapon. They are not. There aren't bands of roving child killers wandering the U.S. finding and stealing firearms. That's just scaremongering boogie man talk.

3) As for your statement, "If my handgun is used to kill someone it will be me using it and I will have exhausted every other option before doing so," the laws of physics say that you cannot guarantee that. The brute fact is that your weapon may be stolen and then used to kill people, no matter how safely you think you have squirreled your weapon away.

Which particular Law of Physics are you citing? I think you are possibly thinking of the Law of Averages. Even then you're way off. In the same way that the world could end tomorrow or that you could get a whale caught up your ass next time you swim in the sea. Is it likely? Absolutely not. Your scenario is flawed and you can't see it or can't admit it.

The fact is, it wasn't a car which was used in Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown. It was guns. Therefore we have a gun problem, not a car problem.

Correct. Firearms were used, we can all agree on that. Who USED them?

Same kind of ****ing idiots that misuse a vehicle and kill.