Anti-Gun, Anti-CCW Political Insider Stabbed to Death on DC Subway

[PliotronX]

He wanted to be murdered, just not by a gun? Wtf is wrong with you?!

The post was crass in nature, but the fact is that a lot of anti-self defense folks like to use the argument that they would rather be robbed by weapons other than firearms.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I beg to differ. Individuals can be statistics like anything else, and the data shows that owning a handgun is more likely to be detrimental to the owner or his family than someone wishing to do them harm. Unfortunately, reliable data is hard to come by since the NRA has pressured lawmakers to bar any kind of federally funded research into firearm violence. I wonder why that would be???

Do you make decisions about all individual choices based on whether or not they have a net negative impact?

 

[HTFOff]

Cars and guns are not comparable. Cars exist for transportation, with deaths as a side effect. By far the largest reason given for gun ownership is self protection, meaning they actually harm the thing they are supposed to be helping.

Also, people who use guns to defend their homes hurt other innocent people all the time.

The automobile analogy works. Not that you need an analogy to justify a constitutional right, though.

Guns and cars are both standard means to an end. Both have inherent corresponding risks. The big one being death. Clearly cars, are the main choice for americans who want to go from point A to B. Statistics back that up. There are a hell of a lot of guns in this country, I don't think we need stats for that. If you want to take a leap of faith and claim that most people don't consider firearms the standard for stopping a two legged threat in a life or death situation, then rock on, but you'll just come off as an argumentative wise and beautiful woman. ( Not you specifically, I don't like to put words in peoples mouth.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Is lethal arsenic a reliable method of killing bad bus drivers?

Bad or good, it will kill them.

 

[Moonbeam]

The automobile analogy works. Not that you need an analogy to justify a constitutional right, though.

Guns and cars are both standard means to an end. Both have inherent corresponding risks. The big one being death. Clearly cars, are the main choice for americans who want to go from point A to B. Statistics back that up. There are a hell of a lot of guns in this country, I don't think we need stats for that. If you want to take a leap of faith and claim that most people don't consider firearms the standard for stopping a two legged threat in a life or death situation, then rock on, but you'll just come off as an argumentative wise and beautiful woman. ( Not you specifically, I don't like to put words in peoples mouth.)

Here's a guy that hates his Mother.

 

[werepossum]

That's true for cars also, but you don't see a big movement trying to ban personal automobiles for being wildly unsafe. I feel like statistics like this are utterly pointless when discussing policy, because people should have the right to engage in activities that might put them at a higher risk of injury or death than if they chose to abstain from said activity. That's what freedom is. I don't want beancounters in Washington telling me that I can't drink or eat candy or masturbate because I might hurt myself. If it's a statistic that says you're much more likely to bring harm to someone else by engaging in an activity, well, yeah, that's important. But just myself? Let me make up my own mind. I don't need guns to be illegal to decide "I will not buy a gun."

Well said, sir.

The automobile analogy works. Not that you need an analogy to justify a constitutional right, though.

Guns and cars are both standard means to an end. Both have inherent corresponding risks. The big one being death. Clearly cars, are the main choice for americans who want to go from point A to B. Statistics back that up. There are a hell of a lot of guns in this country, I don't think we need stats for that. If you want to take a leap of faith and claim that most people don't consider firearms the standard for stopping a two legged threat in a life or death situation, then rock on, but you'll just come off as an argumentative wise and beautiful woman. ( Not you specifically, I don't like to put words in peoples mouth.)

If it helps, proggies hate cars too. Government should decide where you can go and when you can go there, and if you are in danger you should just wait for government to show up.

 

[ivwshane]

The post was crass in nature, but the fact is that a lot of anti-self defense folks like to use the argument that they would rather be robbed by weapons other than firearms.

Lol! Anti self defense? You guys can't even have an honest discussion about a non gun related death if there is even the slightest hint that the topic of guns comes up.

I hope you gun nuts get even more guns, more guns to clean means a better chance at killing yourselves or you'll just keep accidentally killing your children and in the grand scheme of things, that's ok too

 

[HTFOff]

Here's a guy that hates his Mother.

 

[CitizenKain]

Just think, if Nebor was there he could have shit his pants while watching it happen.

 

[Nebor]

Just think, if Nebor was there he could have shit his pants while watching it happen.

Would have shot him and hoped that I didn't hit anyone behind him. Better to act and regret than not act and regret IMO.

 

[Blackjack200]

Do you make decisions about all individual choices based on whether or not they have a net negative impact?

Do you consider net impact at all when you make decisions about individual choices? Should we honor people's individual choices to own machine guns, RPGs, large caliber cannon, etc.?

The automobile analogy works. Not that you need an analogy to justify a constitutional right, though.

Constitutional right means nothing as far as an individual deciding what policies they believe in.

Guns and cars are both standard means to an end. Both have inherent corresponding risks. The big one being death. Clearly cars, are the main choice for americans who want to go from point A to B. Statistics back that up. There are a hell of a lot of guns in this country, I don't think we need stats for that. If you want to take a leap of faith and claim that most people don't consider firearms the standard for stopping a two legged threat in a life or death situation, then rock on, but you'll just come off as an argumentative wise and beautiful woman. ( Not you specifically, I don't like to put words in peoples mouth.)

Fine, then I expect everyone making that analogy in good faith to advocate for licensing all gun owners, registration and annual inspection of all firearms, and mandatory liability policies. Also requiring anyone carrying a gun to also carry their license, registration, inspection, and proof of insurance, and subject to Terry Stops, just as drivers are.

Just think, if Nebor was there he could have shit his pants while watching it happen.

Yeah, but not if he had a gun. Then he could have shot himself in the foot before giving the man his wallet and shitting his pants.

 

[highland145]

Would have shot him and hoped that I didn't hit anyone behind him. Better to act and regret than not act and regret IMO.

Speer gold dots, ftw.

 

[Nebor]

Speed gold dots, ftw.

Speer?

 

[highland145]

Speer?

They're fast, right?

:ninja:

 

[Nebor]

They're fast, right?

:ninja:

Faster than I can throw.

 

[glenn1]

Fine, then I expect everyone making that analogy in good faith to advocate for licensing all gun owners, registration and annual inspection of all firearms, and mandatory liability policies. Also requiring anyone carrying a gun to also carry their license, registration, inspection, and proof of insurance, and subject to Terry Stops, just as drivers are.

Sure, when do we start doing that for other rights like voting? After all, we want to be consistent, right? Hell, the "annual inspections" for abortions ought to be real fun.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do you consider net impact at all when you make decisions about individual choices? Should we honor people's individual choices to own machine guns, RPGs, large caliber cannon, etc.?

I'd argue that if something can be reasonably and ethically used without necessarily infringing on other individuals, it's alright. I honestly wouldn't care about people owning large caliber cannons, although I would if they tried using one for self-defense in a busy street.

 

[Blackjack200]

Sure, when do we start doing that for other rights like voting? After all, we want to be consistent, right? Hell, the "annual inspections" for abortions ought to be real fun.

Well, I never made an analogy between voting and driving, or voting and gun ownership, so I guess I don't have anything to be consistent about?

 

[DrDoug]

Sucks to be him, but he got what he wanted and wasn't the victim of a gun crime. Sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for.

Why don't you take the first four words of your sig and do just that.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Well, I never made an analogy between voting and driving, or voting and gun ownership, so I guess I don't have anything to be consistent about?

Does owning a gun require the use of and wear down public roads? Can a person violating the law with a gun immediately leave the scene at 100+ mph without a car?

 

[highland145]

Faster than I can throw.

Wimp. It's only about 2 quarters.


Muzzle Velocity: 1150 fps
Velocity at 50 yards: 956 fps
Muzzle Energy: 420 ft/lbs
Energy at 50 yards: 365 ft/lbs

 

[senseamp]

Clearly everyone on the train would have been better off if the guy high on drugs grabbed the victim's loaded gun instead of his phone.

 

[highland145]

Clearly the victim would have been better of if he had a loaded gun and knew how to use it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Clearly the victim would have been better off if illegal drugs were illegal.

 

[highland145]

Clearly the victim would have been better off if illegal drugs were illegal.