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]Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)65. Then let me clarify
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.
Wrong! "Suggests" to you perhaps. My response is purely logical. The stats show that where guns are not allowed in public the shootings are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Nothing emotional about it. Pure reasoning.
I am baffled by your insistence that the right to defend oneself ends the moment one steps out of one's home.
You are "baffled" because you assume that I think such nonsense. One always has the right to defend oneself. How one chooses to do that is a whole other question. Do you think that the citizens of the rest of the world don't have a right to defend themselves because of strict laws regarding carry?
I'm sure the criminals would be happy to comply with your wish that they disarm.
Which criminals are you talking about? Remember, I support home defense.
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?
This is true, though England is not the only country. In general, LE is trusted to take care of problems that require the use of firearms. This is not an issue in Europe. The US is a whole other case. The judicial system plays a major part. Very few criminals resort to using firearms in Europe, because the price they pay in terms of sentencing is too high.
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?
I never suggested there was a surge in killings by concealed carriers. I am not "scapegoating" anyone. I am not even blaming anyone. I'm making an observation from my POV, which is as valid as you decide.
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