That's the typical Democrat stance, when in fact that will just take the guns out of the honest people's hands and put them in the criminals hands.

As long as I have been doing this no one has thought it was the good/fair thing to do to de-claw a cat and toss it outside.

However many people think its perfectly fine to de-claw humans and toss them into a dangerous environment, or worse they delude themselves into thinking the environment is not dangerous.

I have heard, "ohh but you live in such a nice neighborhood, why do you need a gun?"

people are not born with guns attached

they can choose to have them and use them,they can choose to take self defense,they can choose to have a knife, a taser, mase,,,whatever protection they wish

but I have yet to hear of a drive by knifing, karate chopping, or even clawing,,,killing multiple people in a matter of seconds,,,

guns are a different matter than mere (one on one)'defense' , they should be regulated as the mass killing machines they are

take GOD out of the schools

and bring in the guns


they never mentioned that the other kids that
went on school shooting sprees were satanists

i could care less about this and dont watch tv much anymore

but if i had kids they would never go to school

the teachers are idiot repeaters who test you on if you can memorize stuff from books of lies

im sure kids 20 years from now in school will learn how great paris hilton and al gore were

These facts do not change the environment so how do they effect the conclusions we should reach?

Cats are not naturally de-clawed either, but the fact we can do it offers up the question of it we should do it then toss them into a dangerous environment.

Side stepping the real issue is not productive.

I laugh when someone says they carry a knife for protection. 9 times out of 10 your just going to get it taken from you and get it used against you.

I dont compare our environment to the wilderness, and declawing a cat is taking action against their NATURAL state

unlike regulating guns,,,

You can go running into a crowd of people wielding a knife and do quite a bit of damage or you can just make a pipe bomb and do even more. Stand 30 yards away with a recurve bow and 50 arrows, how'd ya like that huh, an arrow sticking through your head. There are all kinds of ways to wreak havoc but regardless the weapon this is what people signal in on instead of putting unstable people in hospitals where they should be.

its only true if you dont know how to USE it, similar to a gun

the difference is, its hard for 'innocent' bystanders to pay the price for such ineptitude,,,

Your completely ignoring the facts.

The fact that these kinds of incidents occur illustrate the dangers of our modern environment. The environment includes the gang bangers, it includes the wack jobs, it includes the petty thieves and it includes your children.

Guns are a part of the environment no less than claws are. This fact does not change becuase someone writes down a rule saying you shouldn't have a gun.

You cannot ignore these facts and remain rational.

The very fact that guns are technologically superior killers to claws is not a fact against having guns for defense, but a fact in favor of having guns for defense, why? Because the environment cannot be controlled by laws.

You have two parts of an equation.

The environment sits on one side, you can never completely control the environment.

On the other side sits how we engage with the environment, this we can control, but only for ourselves as individuals.

Think about that for a minute.

I would also like to point out the rule of 9's. 99.999% of the time police show up after the fact, you cannot depend on the government for anything and need to be able to defend yourself at all times.

The wilderness has nothing to do with this.

My examples can be seen as conceptual. Claws are a cats weapon. Weapons are the concept, that is all that matters. The gun is just the best weapon a human can have and the weapon of choice by the criminal who can afford one.

Environment means more than the woods. LOL
A fish in an aquarium; the environment is the aquarium
A Bear in the woods, the range the Bear takes through the woods is its environment.
A person's environment is every place that person would find themselves in the totality of the persons existence.

I am surprised I have to explain this.

you dont have to,, cats were given claws

we were given brains to develop and physiques with muscles that can also cause quite a bit of damage

we were given NATURAL attributes for our protection,just like a cat

a weapon is not a NATURAL attribute so the comparison was lacking IMHO


as to protection, Im not against it, Im just against giving it to anyone and everyone regardless of whether they are capable of handling it emotionally or physically,,,,

Humans got the short end of the stick for self-defense, if you zero out intelligence. If you count human intelligence as part of our self defense, then the use of tools for self defense (weapons) is perfectly natural.

That means, there is nothing more natural that a large caliber pistol in your hand.

nature gave cats claws

we gave ourselves weapons

Nature give us massive brains to compensate for our lack of claws, lack of fangs, relative weakness due to our fine motor skills, soft skin, lack of fur and generally powerful but wide spectrum senses.

Nature (or God) intended for us to make and use weapons and armor.

ok

anything thats possible is therefore 'natural' by this definition,,,,

but I disagree with that definition

So its unnatural for humans to innovate?

Weather or not you see humanity's innovation as a natural extension of our intellect is irrelevant to the equation.


The equation has the dangerous environment on one side.
and
The other side has our behaviors.


If you want to walk around in a dangerous environment where humans have guns without being appropriately armed yourself then you are making dangerous decisions for you and your family.

It is my opinion that the reason anyone does this is either they have convinced themselves the environment is not dangerous, or they somehow think it cant be them, or their family.

Magical thinking, or wishful thinking. Your choice. I think they are the same.

A fire extinguisher is really no different than a gun.

On one side of the equation you have the fact that houses catch fire, why they catch fire is not relevant, the fact that you cannot with %100 certainty prevent your house from catching fire means this fact includes you.

On the other side you have your behaviors which can include keeping a fire extinguisher everywhere you may need it.

Same with a gun. The concept is not different. The application is not different. We humans use tools to affect outcomes.

it is a much rarer incident (and Im giving the benefit of the doubt that it happens at all) that a fire extinguisher ACCIDENTALLY causes death because of the nature of the process required to activate and use it in the first place

it is also much rarer that an extinquisher was built for any purpose of TAKING life

,,,very unlike GUNS,,,,

This fact does not illustrate your point unfortunately.

Are you saying becuase guns are more dangerous than fire-extinguishers that one tool should be allowed while the other is not?

Because automobiles are far more dangerous statistically than either.

Do you see how this is not a logical approach?

Also we run into the fact that we do not have complete control over the environment. So the dangers of the environment do not change becuase we make a law saying you cant own a particular tool or not. Those that do not abide the law will own them, and the environment remains dangerous. So not only is your argument not logical it does not affect the desired outcome either.

Here is the real objection. Guns purpose. Well the purpose of a gun is at the owners discretion, the same with all tools.

Until my best friend was murdered my only use for a gun was target practice, I never carried it, I like many didn't think it could happen to me or my group of friends and family. So at that time my purpose in having a gun was not to kill.

Now my purpose is to defend my friends, family, and myself. Not kill. STOP violent aggression.