

Views: 352

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion



no, the first person to rob is whoever comes down the street when no one else is looking.!! Unless you walk around all the time with your gun in your hand., the aggressor always has the advantage. the scenario is simple; I shoot you  without saying anything at all, no "stick um up" or give

me your money"  i then take your money AND the extra gun you wont be needing any more!!

More guns are not the answer

Willful ignorance is not a strong position for debate.  Explain Park's situation then?  He's still alive, his would be muggers/robbers are still alive.  Why the anomaly?
That example reflects in no way the reality of armed robberies, and is in fact illogical if the purpose is to take someone's possessions without being caught or stopped.  try again please.

folks, think about it, , the escalation that you have proposed, i.e.  everyone armed  will result in exactly this scenario. of course there will be anomlys, where the robber is overpowered , and probably some would be robbers will change their minds, but I am telling you the hard core /  or marginal mental cases will escalate too!.

more guns are not the answer

more guns are not the answer


I challenge you to find anyone in this thread who claims that it IS the answer.

Sir, no one has at any point on this thread advocated more guns.  No one has advocated everyone armed.  You really should read the previous discussion here, because the more adamant you are, the less sense you make.  Let's take your original post for example.


"mfg / import of them illegal" = lol x 1.0

"make mandatory life sentence any one using a hand gun in a crime" = lol x 2.0


"make modification of rifles illegal" = lol x 3.0


"melt every one yu get, by impounding or buying" = lol x 4.0


"the hunters they can still have rifles" = ULTIMATE LULZ


your ideas make no sense.  You want to completely disarm the public while allowing high powered rifles~ make modifying them illegal?  isn't shooting someone illegal anyways?  So we'd have to assume that someone who is going to shoot you would have to be willing to break the law before hand.... That doesn't seem likely, does it?


Yes, lets get rid of guns~ that way crossbows, compound bows, and swords will be all the new rage.



LET ME MAKE IT SIMPLE, very few people will engage hand to hand ,  the hand gun allows anyone who get the drop on you to have their way.

the had gun is unique because most other hand weapons require close interaction and some level of strength and skill. if you come at me with a stick, knife,etc. i can engage you and or run away,  if you are 2 feet from me pointing a glock with a big clip at me there is nothing i can do.

talk to any combat trainer if you dont believe me.

I know about the difference between melee and projectile~ I'm trained (at an intermediate level) to teach hand to hand combat in the military.


btw, melee weapons don't require skill to use; neither does a gun.  Its not that "oh that guy is a good shot with a gun, and its pointed at me!" its about fear of the weapon.  Removing guns for safety A. eliminates people (such as myself) who have used a firearm in self defense successfully and B. makes the guy with a knife the strong man.  Have you ever looked at the surveys about firearms being used in defense?  The statistics don't agree with you.  Again, this discussion has already happened pages earlier.


btw, for you


its me with my certificate to train MCAP level 1.  Level two is set for the summer.

I think we are being played by the arms industry. A mentality of fear and violence makes them richer by the day. The NRA is full of members who have been convinced those of us "non-members" are out to take their guns and freedom away from them. I live in an area of enormous poverty and some people hunt to eat. Even as a vegetarian I would defend their right to do so.

But I will not defend anyone's right to carry a gun to use on others for any reason other than the protection of life and castle. That is why we have trained police officers and enforcement agencies. That is why we are a nation of laws. 

We supposedly learned that lesson back in the 1800s. Lots of innocent people were killed and maimed  when everyone carried a gun and it was acceptable to use violence to settle disputes.

So, no, I don't think we have consensus here:O)


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service