12 Nov '18 14:36>
@vivify said"Bingo. That's one of the many reasons comparing guns to cars is stupid. "
Bingo. That's one of the many reasons comparing guns to cars is stupid.
[quote]if someone attacked my girlfriend , i am already intent on using every means necessary to stop the attacker and i wouldn't care in the slightest if he ends up unconscious or dead. not having a gun makes the attacker more likely to succeed because i am very far from "kung-fu master" status and i ...[text shortened]... ourself against an armed attacker. More disadvantages exist with guns in the world than advantages.
doesn't follow. in the slightest.
i am going to ignore this point from now on, i got bored arguing over and over what i meant while you don't bother making any argument besides "comparing guns with cars is stupid" without supporting whatsoever.
"If your attacker also has a gun, you're most likely dead anyway. "
or i might get lucky and fire first. it's an option i should have if i want it. your statement is based on nothing is just like saying "if you have a front collision with a tree, you're dead anyway, seatbelt or no seatbelt".
"Since you admit to being physically weak, chances are you're no gunslinger
either"
yes, that's why there are no women soldiers, since they are physically weaker chances are they are no gunslinger either. or would you come to realize that one skill has nothing to do with other ?
yes, it takes skill to use a gun which is why i support implementing a gun license that is at least as thorough with a driving license: hours of classes, theoretical and practical, psych evaluation, a test at the end and in the case of guns, periodical reexaminations.
you assume guns can only exist in a country like the US which gives them out like candy on Halloween to anyone or be outright banned. most(all) civilized countries however have decent gun laws (not universal bans). i have not checked them all but please find me a country that has a universal ban on all guns and tell me how much of a dictatorship it isn't.
"It's easier to kill an unsuspecting target than it is to defend yourself against an armed attacker"
Most attacks don't happen with the intent to kill from the start, if they do then yes, you are dead anyway. For those attacks that happen with sufficient warning, like rape, a drunk abusive ex forcing himself in your apartment, you might have a chance to get a gun, if you want to. Some want to, some don't and just want to curl into a ball and wait for it to be over. That is a choice everyone must make and you want to take away that choice for the good of... someone, instead of making the harder but right choice of making good enough laws to regulate and control , not ban.
You don't get to tell a rape victim that wanted to get a gun to protect herself that "it's gonna be a while until we have no rapes in our country, until then you only get to protect yourself how I want to, not how you feel is right"
"More disadvantages exist with guns in the world than advantages."
if the only advantage is that I get to protect myself against an attacker and i get to live, i don't give a rat's ass about what you perceive as disadvantages. If kids shoot themselves with their parents guns, solve that problem, i don't have kids, i don't have that problem. If depressed people shoot themselves with guns, psych eval me and see that i am not depressed, it's not my problem.
You solve each problem with various measures, you don't ban something outright because you're too lazy to come up with solutions rather than "let's just bury the whole thing and forget about it"
Uranium has a ton of disadvantages but we somehow managed to address many of them without banning it completely and giving up its advantages, and no, i don't care that you are going to use your tired argument "uranium has other uses than to kill" again.