Reply to I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We should all get CCW's. [/quote]

Agree, if there is a [b]substantial increase in the number of law abiding citizens that are armed, crime will go down.  [/b]So everyone will benefit irrespective of their feelings on carrying a gun.  It is a win-win.  [/quote]

And gun deaths will go up. [/quote]

I recall that once upon a time, the Washington Post, in its zeal to crusade against “gun deaths,” included in a list of “victims of gun violence” an individual who was killed by police while attempting to avoid arrest for not one, but two, police officers.

“Gun deaths” like “gun violence” is a catchy slogan that really has no specific meaning or value. Not every “gun death” is unjustifiable, or even preventable, and it is not inanimate objects but criminal sociopaths who commit violence. [/quote]

That sure sound like unnecessary gun violence to me. Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence. [/quote]

He was an armed double cop-killer who was trying to shoot his way out a second time. “Resisting arrest should not result in a death sentence.”  Depends on the resistance. He was a victim of “unnecessary gun violence” like people who drive drunk are victims of bridge abutments. [/quote]

That’s a little different than just “trying to avoid arrest”.   :roll:

More guns = more gun violence

It’s just math [/quote]

So, more fire extinguishers, more fires?
More auto brakes, more collisions?
More lifeguards, more drownings?

It’s not math at all. It’s the superstitious attribution to inanimate objects of the ability to form volitional intention and self-locomote to do violence. There’s no such thing as “gun violence.”  A gun put on a shelf today will be there a century from now if nobody moves it and the building is still standing. Violence is committed by evil fiends who will misuse anything they can get their hands on (cars, fire, drugs, tow trucks, chain saws, knives, hammers, sometimes firearms, and even toilet tank covers) to get what they want. Lawfully owned/lawfully carried firearms contribute only slightly to crime, and are used far more often to protect life than the people who want to ban them can ever admit. [/quote]

More people swimming without common sense safety measures (life guards, swim tests, limit access to pools, etc) = more drownings

[/quote]

So people shouldn’t be allowed to allowed to [i]swim[/i], unless there’s a lifeguard, and they have passed some kind of test - to show some person of authority that they can …… swim? Presumably punishable by a fine or jail time or both, I’m guessing? Is that what you favor? Because laws are pointless without a corresponding punishment for violating them.

Yeah, that’s not the kind of creepy dystopian big brother state I want to live in.

The fact that you even used something so ordinary as swimming as an example of “common sense” regulation is a perfect illustration that there’s nothing common sensical about these arguments. They are authoritarianism in the extreme. You don’t even want people allowed near water unless they’ve got their govt issued swimming license, FFS.

No thanks. [/quote]

By your IDIOTIC logic, why do we have drivers licenses and driving tests, and insurance, and vehicle inspections, and vehicle registrations?  Why should we care if people drive 100mph while blind ass drunk?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics