Welcome to 'Murica

[gandalfe]

Not everyone in government would be for banning guns. It wouldn't be an all the People vs. all the Government thing. I could see people within the gov't turning against any attempt to ban guns in America. Don't be so simplistic.

That doesn't answer my question. Would YOU be willing to shoot a cop or soldier enforcing a legal order?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Would you take up arms against the government? If, say, the 2nd amendment was repealed, or, more likely, reinterpreted? Would you personally shoot police and/or military who were enforcing the law?

I'm not shooting anybody if my life isn't being threatened, and even then, still probably not. I probably wouldn't give up all my guns either though, I'd hide a few. But naw, I'm not killing somebody over some dumb law. Are there people that would? You better believe it. And the military/police would more than likely be on the side of the citizens, imo.

 

[Jamezz]

That doesn't answer my question. Would YOU be willing to shoot a cop or soldier enforcing a legal order?

If I think I haven't done anything wrong and my life was at threat I would do whatever it took to try to stay alive. Again if my life was at threat. Even a rabbit will try to bite back if it's cornered by wolves.

Why are you taking this to the extreme? What's your point?

 

[Jamezz]

What percentage of gun owners use their guns to defend themselves though.

I never have. Sometimes you might even be better off not having a gun in situations where you think it's best to have one.
Say someone breaks into your home intending to rob you and he has a gun. You don't have one and you tell the robber to take what he wants and simply not hurt you or your family and then he does just that.
Now let's say you have a gun and you try to shoot the guy and he tries to shoot you. Maybe you get him, maybe you don't. Maybe your child or wife or yourself gets hit instead.

Maybe you would be better off just letting him steal some **** and then call the cops.


Same goes with alterations on the street. Sometimes it's best to not even have a gun to defend yourself. Some people might even get tempted to use their gun in a situation that they don't need to. Like a road rage incident that could end in a simple fistfight might get taken to a new extreme because someone felt the need to defend themselves with their gun

I prefer being under control of the situation rather than trusting a criminal with a gun not to harm me or any members in my family. Chances are the guy is nervous and trigger happy in a tense moment like that one.

 

[gandalfe]

If I think I haven't done anything wrong and my life was at threat I would do whatever it took to try to stay alive. Again if my life was at threat. Even a rabbit will try to bite back if it's cornered by wolves.

Why are you taking this to the extreme? What's your point?

Your life isn't being threatened, only your guns, in this hypothetical.

My point is simply that everyone talks about "Oh, there's a large section of the population who wouldn't give up their guns" and they're not considering what that means, nor will they admit to being willing to fire on police.

 

[fishonjazz]

I prefer being under control of the situation rather than trusting a criminal with a gun not to harm me or any members in my family. Chances are the guy is nervous and trigger happy in a tense moment like that one.

Just having a gun in your hand does not make you in control of anything.
In fact, allot of the time when you have a gun in your hand the level of danger only increases

 

[RandyForRubio]

But let's figure this out: what are we banning and why?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Can someone explain why gun education would do anything to prevent mass shootings as they've been done by people with extensive knowledge and training of firearms (military men) as well as by people with seemingly no knowledge whatsoever of firearm use (20 year old urban hipster people)?


Can someone explain why the "mental illness" argument isn't a red herring?


Where are the solutions to preventing people from thinking mass shootings are a viable option? Until this idea is even discussed, we're just spraying air freshener on a turd.

 

[Jamezz]

Your life isn't being threatened, only your guns, in this hypothetical.

My point is simply that everyone talks about "Oh, there's a large section of the population who wouldn't give up their guns" and they're not considering what that means, nor will they admit to being willing to fire on police.

If cops came asking for my guns no I wouldn't shoot them you dumb dumb...
But that's just me. As Howard said maybe somebody would causing an escalation nationwide. I still don't understand why you're taking the conversation there. Everything should be solved by peaceful means if possible. Violence should always be the last resort on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[JimLes]

Just having a gun in your hand does not make you in control of anything.
In fact, allot of the time when you have a gun in your hand the level of danger only increases

Or as the great Steve Earle said somewhat more eloquently, "it can get you into trouble but it can't get you out."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5E8noEbn4

 

[Jamezz]

Or as the great Steve Earle said somewhat more eloquently, "it can get you into trouble but it can't get you out."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW5E8noEbn4

I like Steve Earle, I saw him live back in Spain. But so fish and Jimles, a burglar walks into your home, has a gun and you rather not have a gun and invite him to take anything he wants WITH the chance of him being a nut job and shooting you down anyway, than at least having the chance to shoot him down first if things came to worse? Makes sense.

Again, gun ownership should just be considered as a defensive tool against life threatening situations for yourself, that is responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately there are nut jobs everywhere who give responsible gun owners a bad name. And that I believe is the government's agenda to yet have more control over the population. And they're doing a damn good job apparently by turning around the opinion about the purpose for having a 2nd Amendment.

 

[JimLes]

I like Steve Earle, I saw him live back in Spain. But so fish and Jimles, a burglar walks into your home, has a gun and you rather not have a gun and invite him to take anything he wants WITH the chance of him being a nut job and shooting you down anyway, than at least having the chance to shoot him down first if things came to worse? Makes sense.

Wait, so a burglar walks into my home holding a gun, and he's going to give me the chance to go get my gun, which as a responsible owner I keep under key, load it, remove the safety lock, and then shoot him? Who's robbing me here, Larry, Curly, or Moe?