Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back, Kills 1 [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)125. will nobody be outraged??
Ah, but it did keep him from being attacked MORE
Will nobody demand to see Kellerfeller's ticket stub for the ride on the alternate timeline machine he has just taken??
They have no right to physically attack me or take my stuff.
Gosh, one would almost think someone had said they did ...
Try not to upset yourself. Nobody is saying anybody has any right to do anything to you or your stuff. You still live in a society where the laws protect people and secure their rights.
Well, I may be speaking hyperbolically, so we'll just say the odds of you being in a situation where your right to life isn't violated by laws that let somebody kill you are probably slim, but it's always worth being careful when you're in one o' them "castle doctrine" states, eh?
Think about how much less crime there would be if every criminal knew there was a 50/50 chance that the person they are thinking about attacking or robbing is armed?
Well, I've thought about how much more likely it would be that criminals would shoot first and look for the thing their victim was armed with later. Have you tried thinking about that at all?
But if I may be so bold, let me ask you what I've been asking for a while, and just now in this very thread:
Find us a significant number among all those many homicides in the US in a year where the victim having a firearm "may have" saved their life (or, since you seem to have access to that handy alternate timeline machine, would have saved their life) ...
It really is quite important that somebody do that, don't you see?? Not "I didn't get hurt/killed because I had a gun", but "They got hurt/killed because they did not have a gun."
That's what I want to see.
Otherwise, we're stuck being expected to believe what Kleck's people told him, all those hundreds of thousands of people who'd be dead if they hadn't had a gun.
Will nobody demand to see Kellerfeller's ticket stub for the ride on the alternate timeline machine he has just taken??
They have no right to physically attack me or take my stuff.
Gosh, one would almost think someone had said they did ...
Try not to upset yourself. Nobody is saying anybody has any right to do anything to you or your stuff. You still live in a society where the laws protect people and secure their rights.
Well, I may be speaking hyperbolically, so we'll just say the odds of you being in a situation where your right to life isn't violated by laws that let somebody kill you are probably slim, but it's always worth being careful when you're in one o' them "castle doctrine" states, eh?
Think about how much less crime there would be if every criminal knew there was a 50/50 chance that the person they are thinking about attacking or robbing is armed?
Well, I've thought about how much more likely it would be that criminals would shoot first and look for the thing their victim was armed with later. Have you tried thinking about that at all?
But if I may be so bold, let me ask you what I've been asking for a while, and just now in this very thread:
Find us a significant number among all those many homicides in the US in a year where the victim having a firearm "may have" saved their life (or, since you seem to have access to that handy alternate timeline machine, would have saved their life) ...
It really is quite important that somebody do that, don't you see?? Not "I didn't get hurt/killed because I had a gun", but "They got hurt/killed because they did not have a gun."
That's what I want to see.
Otherwise, we're stuck being expected to believe what Kleck's people told him, all those hundreds of thousands of people who'd be dead if they hadn't had a gun.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
149 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You aren't seriously suggesting that these twi situations are the cyclist fighting
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#6
Makes no sense and you know it. I'm not a gun fanatic but those two boys who atttacked
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#10
You know what I mean. the fact that a 65 YEAR OLD MAN WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF in
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#17
The former criminal was even wearing an electronic monitoring device as part of his probation.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#9
I carry mine a few different ways depending on if I'm riding alone or with the kids.
ileus
Jan 2012
#13
Dang, I'll have to check my bike store to see if they have handlebarholster -- If I carried.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#20
If that happened. Besides, a million more guns for relatively few instances. Seems like pollution.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#22
Yeah, the old guy should have let them abuse him. 'Cause that wouldn't have been too steep....
PavePusher
Jan 2012
#48
The "Velo-Dog" revolver was specifically marketed as a defense for cyclists against dogs.
Jean V. Dubois
Jan 2012
#35
so much for getting him in a position of weakness....getting killed...ain't that a bitch.
ileus
Jan 2012
#131
"I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently."
EX500rider
Jan 2012
#90
iverglas is a certified bad ass--ready, willing and able to hand out beat downs at a moment's notice
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#70
That's as close as I've ever come to alerting on a post. My skin is crawling as I type.
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#83
Decent people don't advocate for the disarmament of the most vulnerable among them.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#96
No, my urge is to defend people who had to defend themselves from those that would suggest Bludlust.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#102
To kill 16 year olds engaged in a life-threatening attack on a senior citizen.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#94
Despite your petty insults you have failed once again to answer the question.
oneshooter
Jan 2012
#121