Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Xpost: Austrailian gun control... [View all]Straw Man
(6,777 posts)63. Rationality and emotion.
I have no emotional response to guns, rational or irrational.
The tone of your response suggests otherwise. Apparently you do have an emotional response to guns being anywhere other than where you think they belong.
I have zero objection to people defending their homes with firearms. My only issue is with the irrational behavior of those who feel a need to carry those guns around in public.
I am baffled by your insistence that the right to defend oneself ends the moment one steps out of one's home.
That includes civilians, be they criminals or not, and LE not involved in special operations or on special duty that calls for them to be armed.
I'm sure the criminals would be happy to comply with your wish that they disarm.
That's how the rest of the industrialized world operates and the results can be seen in the statistics.
The "rest of the industrialized world" routinely arms its LE. England is an exception. Each country has its own unique set of cultural and economic conditions. Do your statistics account for that?
The folk who want to carry everywhere are pushing the envelope, which will eventually burst, and when it does the changes will probably so draconian that normal law abiding gun owners who sensibly secure their firearms at home and transport them safely to ranges and meets, or to hunt, will suffer for the actions of those who are only happy if they can carry their guns to the marketplace.
I'm sorry -- perhaps I was unaware of a massive surge in killings by legal concealed carriers. Absent such a wave, it would seem that you are describing the scapegoating of the law-abiding for the actions of the criminal and the insane. Can we agree that that wouldn't be fair?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum.
SwissTony
Sep 2015
#26
FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you....
Logical
Sep 2015
#31
Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#56
"It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#58
No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#59
It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#62
What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#66
"If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#79
It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#96
It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#72
Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#106
Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country?
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#12
The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#25
This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#38
So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#47
"bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#45
If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#51
"Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#53