Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I'm sorry, exchange "outlaw" with "removed from your possession for your own protection".

Are you guys really that scared of a gun? Seriously?

I am arguing that you shouldn't be able to possess a gun unless you've displayed competence and understanding of said gun. What else is a "well regulated" militia if everyone is not trained? It's an unregulated militia which is not constitutional.

You argue the value of life being important to be an important country virtue. Kids dies, it's darwinism.

Any point bringing up regulation or comparison to any of subject is moot point or straw man argument.

Bring some substance to the table.

[JET]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I am arguing that you shouldn't be able to possess a gun unless you've displayed competence and understanding of said gun. What else is a "well regulated" militia if everyone is not trained? It's an unregulated militia which is not constitutional.

You argue the value of life being important to be an important country virtue. Kids dies, it's darwinism.

Any point bringing up regulation or comparison to any of subject is moot point or straw man argument.

Bring some substance to the table.

2 kids per DAY drown in pools. I don't see anyone shouting for pools to be regulated and the parents prosecuted if a child drowns. I have also seen instances where kids were saved because there was a firearm available to them so they could stop the perpetrator.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by JET

2 kids per DAY drown in pools. I don't see anyone shouting for pools to be regulated and the parents prosecuted if a child drowns. I have also seen instances where kids were saved because there was a firearm available to them so they could stop the perpetrator.

+1

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by JET

2 kids per DAY drown in pools. I don't see anyone shouting for pools to be regulated and the parents prosecuted if a child drowns. I have also seen instances where kids were saved because there was a firearm available to them so they could stop the perpetrator.

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/12222...or%20Pools.pdf

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I am arguing that you shouldn't be able to possess a gun unless you've displayed competence and understanding of said gun. What else is a "well regulated" militia if everyone is not trained? It's an unregulated militia which is not constitutional.

You argue the value of life being important to be an important country virtue. Kids dies, it's darwinism.

Any point bringing up regulation or comparison to any of subject is moot point or straw man argument.

Bring some substance to the table.

So tell us, if it were King Jeremy day, what would you do? What would you put in place that removes all chance of an accident without infringing on our rights to gun ownership and use? How would you regulate gun ownership so that when it comes time for somebody to protect their families they don't get shot in the back while trying to enter a code in their lock box?

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

So tell us, if it were King Jeremy day, what would you do? What would you put in place that removes all chance of an accident without infringing on our rights to gun ownership and use? How would you regulate gun ownership so that when it comes time for somebody to protect their families they don't get shot in the back while trying to enter a code in their lock box?

There is no such thing that removes all chance of anything. But, there are steps that can be taken with just about anything to decrease the occurrence of harm. For example safety standards are required for cars. Safety is constantly evolving in the automotive industry. Air bags and shoulder seat belts are mandatory now. Your odds of surviving a crash are much greater now than 25 years ago. Smart guns are one solution to your question and are the next evolution in gun safety, but have significant push back from the NRA because there is some implied argument that nothing can be touched with guns.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

There is no such thing that removes all chance of anything. But, there are steps that can be taken with just about anything to decrease the occurrence of harm. For example safety standards are required for cars. Safety is constantly evolving in the automotive industry. Air bags and shoulder seat belts are mandatory now. Your odds of surviving a crash are much greater now than 25 years ago. Smart guns are one solution to your question and are the next evolution in gun safety, but have significant push back from the NRA because there is some implied argument that nothing can be touched with guns.

Well since we can both agree there are laws in place and procedures that should be followed, what else can you do protect everybody from themselves while still having the ability to defend themselves on a moments notice?

You keep comparing building and manufacturing with the ability to own and use.
Sure cars are safer because of regulations, just like guns are. But those regulations don't stop somebody from accidentally backing over a child in the driveway. It doesn't stop them from getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't. It doesn't make them perform maintenance on their brakes when needed. It doesn't make them pay attention 100% of the time while driving. So accidents do happen. You can't build this "eutopia" where nothing can go wrong. Crap happens and that's life.

Would you rather live in a society where you have the chance to protect yourself, your choice? Or would you rather live in a society where somebody else decides you can't because another person made a bad decision and you have to pay the price for it with your life?

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Well since we can both agree there are laws in place and procedures that should be followed, what else can you do protect everybody from themselves while still having the ability to defend themselves on a moments notice?

Require minimum training and competency for any gun use. Whether it be home protection or carry. A responsible gun owner will do that anyway, so what is the punishment? What would be the problem with a several day course requirement for gun use? How is that a bad thing when public safety is considered?
What about requiring background checks and recording transactions of all guns sales?
How will either of those prevent someone from defending themselves?

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You keep comparing building and manufacturing with the ability to own and use.
Sure cars are safer because of regulations, just like guns are. But those regulations don't stop somebody from accidentally backing over a child in the driveway. It doesn't stop them from getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't. It doesn't make them perform maintenance on their brakes when needed. It doesn't make them pay attention 100% of the time while driving. So accidents do happen. You can't build this "eutopia" where nothing can go wrong. Crap happens and that's life.

They were required to learn the rules of driving before any of that occurred though. No one is required to learn anything at all about gun safety before using a gun to protect their home. Is it reasonable to expect to assess the danger and hit a target with no practice or training? Or understand the vigilance required to make sure a child doesn't get access to the gun?

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Would you rather live in a society where you have the chance to protect yourself, your choice? Or would you rather live in a society where somebody else decides you can't because another person made a bad decision and you have to pay the price for it with your life?

My replies above are not in contradiction with the first statement.