Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles

What does the fact a particular person has not used a gun in self-defense prove?
Other than nothing?

 

Only a fool -chooses- to defense himself with something other than the best means available.

 

People claim they need guns for protection. So you ask them to list all the encounters where you've had to protect yourself or family with a gun.

Then they go quiet because the answer is zero.

So why does it matter? Because the need for protection is BS.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

I'll ask again:
What does the fact a particular person has not used a gun in self-defense prove?
Other than nothing?

 

Really.
Explain to us how you are not a fool for choosing to defend yourself with the worst means available.

 

List all the times you've protected yourself by using your gun. Were these incidents at home or in the street and did you report them to the police?

 

I'm sorry -- I don't see your explanation as to how you are not a fool for choosing to defend yourself with the worst means available.
Please try again.

 

Erm, because you haven't needed to defend yourself from this 'theoretical' threat !!

Did I really have to explain the obvious?

 

@TOG 6 because we hear of plane crashes in the news, do you equip yourself with a parachute when you jet off on holiday?

Just like guns, you hear the odd story but you go crazy over guns. You feel the need is there, I also suggest you buy a parachute based on your gun premise.

But you haven't needed to defend yourself with a gun and you've equally not needed to defend yourself against a plane crash by sporting a parachute.

 

Twice, you have failed to provide a meaningful response. You are clearly not interested in an honest discussion. I shall waste no more time on you.

 

What on earth are you on about?

I don't walk about with a baseball bat, knife or brick. Why would I want to arm myself with a gun? Defenceless against what?

You're under the mistaken belief you need to arm yourself, maybe that's why you're struggling.

I choose the best deterrent, a nuclear bomb.

 

Your avatar shows a dog.
Considering that on average 4.7 million people in the US are attacked by a dog and last year 31 people were killed by dogs, why do you have a dog?

 

My dog is small, I have two small dogs. Reason being, I didn't want to dispose of big dog turds. She likes hugs and falls asleep upside down on you.

I have 2 Dagus. She jumps up into the cage and licks them.

How many people have died by being savaged by a miniature Jack Russell? I'm interested in knowing.

If an American was frightened of my dog, you would have the biggest ***** population on the planet.

 

Missing the point.
Do you need a dog or do you want a dog?
And to show how safe the tiny little Jack Russell terrier is; a 6 week old American and an 8 day old British baby were killed by one.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/01/fatality-victim-justin-mozer-killed-by.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-old-boy-escaped-stair-gate-attack-child.html

 

I'm a bloke, no babies here. I've had all they're pulled out, they live on soup.

 

I might get attacked by zombie hoards. Or godless Commie hoards There fore I should be able to set up claymores and land mines to stop them.

Its no less absurd than arguing you need weapons that are never used in self defense because you might need to use them. Even when that never happens in fact. The only thing high capacity magazines are used for in the US is to kill innocent people.

 

Sorry, that was meant to say -

I'm a bloke, no babies here. I've had all their teeth pulled out, they live on soup.

 

My firearms have never left the holster except for target practice, and I hope they never will.
The cops are minutes away, when seconds count, as the saying goes. And the other saying, best to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
How do you plan on defending yourself in that situation?

 

So, which area would you be more inclined to pull a stunt: a place where you don't know who is armed, or a place where you know nobody is armed?

Just because someone hasn't needed to use a firearm for protection doesn't mean jack. I know people who have been robbed and assorted other personal assaults in their own homes. Should they not be able to defend themselves if they so choose?

Perhaps you have no problem with violating someone else's rights, but I'd have to venture a guess you would be a bit bent if someone violated yours.

 

Just like you, I have never needed to defend myself and unlike me, you feel the need to arm yourself for something that's unlikely to happen. If you feel threatened in your neighbourhood, that's upto you but I'm in a safer place of the planet. Sure, there's crime places in the UK but not where I live.

 

I think everyone has the right to life, especially children in schools. People wandering about with guns is ludicrous.

I think the 2nd amendment has turned out to be a catastrophe. I would say it's intention was for citizens to arm up and become a state militia if the government went Tyrannical. But everyone feels they have the god given right to strut around clasping the gun of their choice.

 

Of course everyone has a right to life. But apparently, people like to paint an entire group by the actions of the few.

Florida was the culmination of a comedy of errors - fatal ones, unfortunately. The 2A serves to allow the citizens of this country the ability to prevent not only personal harm, but to prevent those who have disarmed the citizens in the past and committed atrocities from happening again.

It's a personal choice to own or carry. No one is forced to, but once that choice is taken away (elimination of 2A) then there is no longer a choice, and personal freedom is violated.

 

So the need for some to carry guns is more important than the lives of kids?

 

People who are not from the US simply do not understand the culture of guns/freedom in the US and how they go together to a lot of the people that live here. Below are some charts that are interesting food for thought.

Gun Homicides have dropped at an extreme pace, yet the public thinks the opposite
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun homicide rates are lower than they have been since the 1900's
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+...AUICigB&biw=1330&bih=772#imgrc=3n_FPpERfYb21M:

Gun accident rates are at an all time low
https://www.google.com/search?q=US+...AUICigB&biw=1330&bih=772#imgrc=sezDoe3OvesjaM:

This one is highly politicized, but the map is still accurate and is an interesting piece of data to bring to the table. The areas where gun homicides happen most often are also where people who want gun laws (Democrats) live. Most of these areas already have incredibly strict gun laws.
https://www.google.com/search?q=US+...AUICigB&biw=1330&bih=772#imgrc=dga0LtL9FZcEQM:

Mass Shootings in the US
https://www.google.com/search?q=mas...AUICigB&biw=1330&bih=772#imgrc=qPzQ9M2QxepxcM:

That last graph especially is interesting to me because there really hasn't been any change in that time period except in the radically different way media is collected by the public.

Homicide rates, accident rates, mass shooting rates .... all were down, until the last half decade or so which is when the media became hyper sensationalized and began to make super stars out of said shooters.

With that in mind, should we ban the media?