Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 172) WHlSKY: There are many other examples of this and hence the point that it is not only a case of reinforcing laws but on proper legislation. Wordy and Fun: Are you stating that citizens should take it upon themselves to take their weapons to shoot at protesters over those within that group who may cause damage to a building? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im saying people have a right to defend themselves and their property - Are you stating that it is acceptable for a protest to burn down a business without an owner trying to defend their business? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last I checked the penalty for causing any damage to a building is not death. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who said it was? But common sense might lead a "protestor" to not burn a business if that business is being defended with people with legal weapons ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Noone has the right to take the law into their own hands, leaving the comfort of their homes to go out to play He-Man. -------------------------------------------------------- Going out and defending yourself after being attacked is not "taking the law in their own hands" ------------------------------------------------------------- A gun is a weapon, not a toy. A person with a weapon has to be responsible with it. It’s not an extension of the ego either. ---------------------------------------------------------- If a person with a gun shoots someone for no reason then they deserve to be arrested- BUT if that person used the gun in self defense it is not the same Has nothing to do with ego - Ego plays in when idiots try to attack a man with a gun and then are suprised the person defended themselves Wordy and Fun: Almost every law ever written has loopholes that lawyers find - Change the legislation sure once the loophole is found and used WHlSKY: Your statement: “Im saying people have a right to defend themselves and their property - Are you stating that it is acceptable for a protest to burn down a business without an owner trying to defend their business? ” Do you know why business owners do not go out with guns in front of their businesses? Because Property damage caused by riots, civil commotion and vandalism are covered by insurance policies. You can look into a standard Business Owners Policy. Your argument was not on business owners either, you pivoted from “ Should people..” and “ Should citizens hide in their homes while businesses…”. My point stands there is no reason for someone to go out of the comfort of their home or in an area of safety to take a gun to an area that will clearly call for it. Then claim self defense. WHlSKY: The entire point is that a person first takes himself out, or do not put himself into, a position that is avoidable = common sense. You present no logical argument against said point. Wordy and Fun: "Do you know why business owners do not go out with guns in front of their businesses?" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you know that some do ? Business owner defends store with rifles, handguns during Scottsdale looting Video Shows Armed Residents Protecting Local Businesses From Rioters in Kenosha, WI Black-owned businesses defend against looters Business Owners Defend Themselves and Their Property During Riots, Some With Guns ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whether it be a business owner or a non business owner - people should not be afraid to go out into their neighborhood because a "peaceful protest" is happening - ---------------------------------------------------------- My point stands there is no reason for someone to go out of the comfort of their home or in an area of safety to take a gun to an area that will clearly call for it. Then claim self defense. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Well the law states you are incorrect- That is your opinion only They can only claim self defense if they are attacked - Dont attack someone with a gun and then say they cant claim self defense- How about that ? Instead of telling people to stay in their home how about you complain about the "peaceful protestors" being anything but peaceful ? Wordy and Fun: Your logic is that people should "stay in their comfort of their home" is anything but logical People should not have to hide in their homes because individuals decide to cause violence and destroy things If the police and Govt were out defending businesses and property then citizens would not need to come out and defend things themselves would they ? WHlSKY: And now you know why the majority do not. As there is no need to put themselves in that situation. Your statement: “ Whether it be a business owner or a non business owner - people should not be afraid to go out into their neighborhood because a "peaceful protest" is happening ” It is not a matter of being afraid, but a matter of being responsible. Going out of a safe zone to one that you carry a gun into, knowing that it will be used on someone else is not common sense. Buildings and businesses are covered by insurance. Escalating a situation with a gun will serve no logical purpose. Wordy and Fun: "That was a poor argument against changing legislations to avoid loophoops. And on improving legislation." Ok - But thats how things work isnt it- Laws are passed - Lawyers find loopholes - Government should then close those loopholes- WHlSKY: Your statement: “ People should not have to hide in their homes because individuals decide to cause violence and destroy things ” You try to use emotionally leading words as “hide”. A person with strength does not need to flex that strength or go out to escalate a situation to show they are ‘not afraid’. You are calling for the opposite. That citizens arm themselves up and go out to meet with any protests where buildings are damaged. That to me is very stupid. As such damage will be covered by insurance and those committing such crimes will be handled by the law. Citizens with guns are also not trained in deescalation or in handling a rioting situation. Not sure what Hollywood movie scenario you are playing out in your mind. Wordy and Fun: So what if most don't - That does not mean the people who do do not have that right - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is not a matter of being afraid, but a matter of being responsible. Going out of a safe zone to one that you carry a gun into, knowing that it will be used on someone else is not common sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A "safe =zone" - Thats what you want this world to come to ? People hiding in their "safe zones" while criminals are destroying property ? Ruining peoples businesses - Peoples jobs - Just give it all up and hide in your safe zone I listed numerous instances where people defended their businesses during protests with guns - Did they all use it on someone else? As you imply they will if they bring a gun ? Obviously the Rittenhouse incident is what you are going on about but the fact is he NEVER used his gun until he was attacked by others and the jry listened to all the facts and agreed You keep mentioning common sense yet you dont seem to think it would be common sense for a protestor to stay away from a person with a gun Wordy and Fun: "You try to use emotionally leading words as “hide”. A person with strength does not need to flex that strength or go out to escalate a situation to show they are ‘not afraid’." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The escalating is being done by the people who attack first - You seem to think that if a person has a gun they are automaticly the "instigator" WHlSKY: Your statement: “A "safe =zone" - Thats what you want this world to come to ? People hiding in their "safe zones" while criminals are destroying property ? Ruining peoples businesses - Peoples jobs - Just give it all up and hide in your safe zone. ” -And don’t you already do that? When we sit at home and switch on the news. Do we leave our homes and run off to fight crime, He-Man? Or do we remain in that safe situation and let the matter be handled by those who are trained? Perhaps I am wrong and you are in fact Batman. (Edited by WHlSKY) WHlSKY: Your statement: “ The escalating is being done by the people who attack first - You seem to think that if a person has a gun they are automaticly the "instigator"” My words are clear to comprehend. A person with a gun has more responsibilities to think about than someone without a gun. Hence why I stated owning a gun comes with responsibility. And that responsibility is to avoid situations or scenarios where killing someone who is unarmed is the only option. This entire point has been on avoidance. Wordy and Fun: "And don’t you already do that? When we sit at home and switch on the news. Do we leave our homes and run off to fight crime, He-Man? Or do we remain in that safe situation and let the matter be handled by those who are trained? Perhaps I am wrong and you are in fact Batman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Talk about spin - You are complaining about people going out and then you turn around and say people are hiding News reports on crimes already happened so running out to stop a crime that already took place is pretty stupid - I dont pretend to be Batman or Heman - I clearly stated that people have a right to defend themselves and their property- WHlSKY: Your argument to call on citizens to arm themselves up and go out to confront a riot/protest was to protect business property. That is unnecessary as businesses already have insurance policies that covers the damage done. So what else do you have besides the ‘not to hide’ rhetoric? I have not used the word ‘hide’ as I do not hold the view that people who are at home are hiding, that was your point. Also, the news reports live events also. Wordy and Fun: "My words are clear to comprehend. A person with a gun has more responsibilities to think about than someone without a gun." ------------------------------------------------------------- BS - If a person with a gun is attacked they have the right to defend themselves - Both people have responsibility to not harm others WHETHER WITH A GUN OR WITHOUT --------------------------------------------------- And that responsibility is to avoid situations or scenarios where killing someone who is unarmed is the only option. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about this for an option and it will keep people safe - DONT ATTACK SOMEONE WITH A GUN ! That is by far the safest and smartest solution WHlSKY: My point goes prior to a person being confronted. Seems you objected my statement without actually understanding it. It explains why your preconceived points makes no sense. Wordy and Fun: That is unnecessary as businesses already have insurance policies that covers the damage done." --------------------------------------------------------------------- How long does it take to get a business rebuilt and back to where it was before damaged? What do the employees who are out of work do ? How does businesses being burnt help property values for the area? How do businesses being burnt attract other businesses to the area? Wordy and Fun: My point goes prior to a person being confronted. Seems you objected my statement without actually understanding it. It explains why your preconceived points makes no sense. --------------------------------------------------------------- No not at all - My clear point was that if no one confronts a person with a gun then there will be no issue - That is your statement below- Where did i say people should shoot protestors as you implied? Where did i say the penalty for damage to a building should be the death penalty ? You must confuse yourself alot -------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you stating that citizens should take it upon themselves to take their weapons to shoot at protesters over those within that group who may cause damage to a building? Last I checked the penalty for causing any damage to a building is not death. WHlSKY: Very quickly. Now let us look into your little He-Man episode. A rioter throws a Molotov cocktail at a business. Will your armed couch potato citizen group shoot to kill? Or wave the guns around? What actually will be done that will prevent damage to the building? Who is to also say that members in the crowd of protesters will not also be armed. What will they do flaunt their guns to counter you flaunting your gun? I can’t believe that you do not realise how stupid this proposal is. WHlSKY: I’ll remind you that you are responding to my initial point and not the other way around. “A person with a gun should not place themselves in a situation that warrants the use of a gun when they can avoid such a situation. That is common sense.” You objected to that statement. And it has been one hour and you’ve not actually presented a realistic rebuttal. Wordy and Fun: He Man episode- LOL How about a person does not throw a Molotov cocktail in the first place ? You speak of "common sense" alot - If you had any common sense at all would you go up to a building that is being protected by people with guns and throw a Molotov cocktail at it? ------------------------------------------------------------------ "What actually will be done that will prevent damage to the building?" ------------------------------------------------------------- If you were out with a Molotov Cocktail and you had any building to pick from would you go for A- The building with armed people outside it defending it or B- The building with no defense Its called a deterrent - Im guessing most sane people (wouldnt be out with a Molotov Cocktail anyways but) would pick the building with no one there protectiing it - Woudl you ? Wordy and Fun: Who is to also say that members in the crowd of protesters will not also be armed. What will they do flaunt their guns to counter you flaunting your gun? ------------------------------- Ah maybe you missed it but the Rittenhouse incident had a protestor with a gun (illegally) who attacked Rittenhouse and then was shot in self defense Read a newspaper there are plenty of protests where people are armed | Politics Chat Room 43 People Chatting Similar Conversations |