1 - 10 Next
OH OH OH I Know this one! The principal could have used the gun to shoot the attacker. How did I do?
Perhaps I would understand your point better if you rephrased the second argument. You said "The second is a counter to arguments in support of increased restrictions." Well, so is the first. If anything they compliment each other. Then you end with a blatantly obvious statement about murderers still murdering in a fully armed society. This is also true. So 3 true statements. You have effectively stated our argument. Perhaps you believe, that we believe that gun ownership will make evil just go away. Nobody yet has made that argument.
Both of the "Conservative arguments" just go to prove that any gun restrictions are ineffective.
Um...no. They are both simply true statements. How does the second argument negate the first? They have nothing to do with each other. A man walked into an unarmed school and killed people with a weapon, one that was specifically banned from the premises. Gun murder in a gun free zone. Effectively guns were banned on the premises, yet it still happened. So yes, when guns are banned, a determined murderer will still find a way to kill people. Your argument is based on the premise that if guns are banned, they will just magically disappear. The guy could have just as easily made a bomb vest and murdered everyone that way, or pulled an Oklahoma city. So your argument, such as it is, is ridiculous.
Not sure I understand your argument. Both statements are true. Had there been someone armed in the school, they might have stopped him, but if it was known that there was someone armed in the school, perhaps he wouldn't have gone there at all. Banning guns doesn't prevent murder. Look at Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. So yes, if everyone was packing, someone could still murder lots of people with a bomb vest or some other explosive device. In a crowd they may even get a few shots off before being brought down. What you have done is stated our arguments, made an obvious statement, then provided no counterargument. That was a very productive post.
In response to:

What Do We Do About Violent Evil?

Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 3:23 AM
Umm, I own a few of those 300 million guns. None of them are "in circulation".
Clearly Obama has done something to remove dangerous guns from our streets. He allowed Mexican criminals to buy thousands of them so they could be used on thier streets. To Obama's credit, only one has been brought back to be used to murder a border patrol agent. Give the poor guy a break!
In response to:

Mass Murder Prevented by Off-Duty Cop

Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 2:48 AM
Please tell me you live in my neighborhood so that I may let any criminals know that your house is easier to rob than mine. Oh, and while you're at it, is there any way I can get you to where a t-shirt that states that you're cool because you are defenseless against a determined criminal? It could just say "Easy Mark" in case you had a hard time reading that last part.
In response to:

Mass Murder Prevented by Off-Duty Cop

Huntjunky Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 2:43 AM
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." For those of you who would be for an outright ban, do you believe all guns would just be handed over to authorities? If not, then what? House to house searches? That would be a blood bath. It would be abandoned the first day, because there would be no one left alive who would volunteer to do it.
except what specifically in that statement is incorrect?
1 - 10 Next