This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore BigLib. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Congratulations, you have successfully used a conservative debate tactic. Ignore the topic and try to find ANYTHING that might divert attention.
I didn't ignore any topic nor the premise of the topic. My comment was that conservatives over-glorify the rare example of a gun actually being used for self defense, and that they dismiss the much more common instances of where teens kill a guy because they're bored, or toddlers killing other toddlers (or themselves) because they were able to get the gun of a "responsible" owner, or an Amish girl that gets killed because a "responsible" gun owner was supposedly "cleaning" a loaded weapon, etc.
Your assumption is that a gun would have helped.
I never made any such assumption.
Why did the teens not have guns?
They did have a gun. That's how the jogging Aussie ended up dead on the side of the road.
According to the NRA, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
The NRA acts like there's some broad effort to outlaw guns, but cannot cite the existence of any such legislation that would result in "outlawing guns." The NRA uses slogans like that as fundraising tools.
These kids are outlaws, where are their guns?
Hopefully the gun is in police custody, just like the teens, as one of them has already confessed.
Why wasn't the bb player carrying a ball bat? Same reason he was not carryiing a gun.
Most of my jogging buddies, if we ever feel the need to carry anything other than water, carry mace in case we encounter an angry dog, much like postal carriers do. The consequences of unknowingly losing a can of mace while jogging (might not feel it slip out and might not hear it hit the ground with the mp3 player going) are way different than the consequences of losing a gun.