Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school

So there's that issue of convenient murder to understand in context.

So is Ohio which allows an immediate issue of an emergency CCW permit to be granted to someone like that, without any training requirements, so they can defend themselves. Still doesn't justify infringing the rights of Americans.

Can BE no such thing as a "right" to the means of convenient murder.

A right to the means of terminating the all genuine rights of another person?

No way anyone can wrap themselves in that logical inconsistency unless they're just lying to themself about what the 2A is doing in the document and what its modern relevance is.

Which, granted, many like to do. Simply because of an aberrant fondness for guns. For them, everything follows from that instead.

Assumes that there are no legitimate reasons to use deadly force against a human being. That's not what the 2nd Amendment is about though, self-defense is an inherent human right. The 2nd Amendment is about keeping an armed populace to preserve a free society. The use of firearms for self-defense stems from our ability to own them.

Like floodwater, it goes everywhere. Time to rebuild the levee and drain the swamp.

You're choosing one group of victims over another and in the process violating the constitution? Very sound reasoning.

Even before the adoption of the Second Amendment, the founding fathers respected him as the Father of Classical Liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Through the proliferation of guns and ammuntion?

Through more convenient lethality in more and more hands?

Locke may have been a man ahead of his time, but given our time he would need to revise and extend.

Obviously when honest citizens own and sometimes carry firearms in a criminal's workplace, it present a significant hazard to their activities.

I'm positive that a criminal would agree that none of his victims have any right to use a weapon for self defense when he attacked them with the intention of putting them in a hospital for an extended star or six feet under. Also a rapist would appreciate never having to worry about a female victim using a firearm to effectively deter his attack. Of course many criminals and rapists often use lethal weapons or rely on superior physical force to accomplish their goal.

Does a honest person have a right to defend himself/herself from a violent attack? If you disagree why not?

You state:



I would point out that a person can legally KILL another person while using legitimate self defense and that is in no way MURDER. There is an enormous difference. Killing another person in self defense is legal. Murder is not. You don't murder in self defense!

The aggressive use of weapons is a price worth paying, according to you.

Every right gets abused, I don't support repealing them either. I'm willing to accept the consequence of living in a free society.

Just call it an aberrant indulgence and own up to it.

Guess we should just start shredding the constitution since it's an aberrant indulgence.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

and reaffirmed by the founder's words and the Supreme Court's rulings. You're the one trying to make it into something it's not. Also, the 2nd is what guarantees we will always have at least a fighting chance to preserve the others.

Unlike some.

It may well take away my ability to defend myself from a violent attack and I might consequently end up in the hospital with serious injuries that will be difficult to recover from or I might end up six feet under. It's hard to enjoy freedom when you are suffering from serious injuries and freedom has little meaning to the dead.

It is true that firearms sometimes are misused and cause tragedies. However they are often used for self defense. The lowest estimate that I can find for defensive gun uses (DGUs) is 108,000 times a year and the highest 2.5 million. The actual figure probably lies somewhere in between.

You are only looking at the negative effects of allowing civilian gun ownership and totally ignoring the fact that they often save lives.

It's simplistic to view most topics as totally good or bad. Firearm ownership fits into that category as while it has disadvantages that are indeed extremely bad, it also enables a person to effective defend himself/herself from attack.

It is my opinion that if your were to be able to place both the good and bad that the civilian ownership of firearms causes in our nation on a scale, you would find that the good outweighs the bad. While this is entirely anecdotal I personally know of at least five instances where a firearm owned by a family member, a friend or a co-worker was used to stop a violent attack. I also know of one instance in which a family member used a firearm to commit suicide.

Sometimes it is wise to consider the broad issue not merely the positive or negative aspects.

Do you totally disagree that firearms are sometimes used for self defense?

I even award a point for stories in which a gun stops crime not initiated with another gun.

But promoting finality on a whim as public policy is pretty clearly injurious and unsound.

All promoters can say is that it somehow feels worthwhile to them.

They claim that they would feel that way even as bullets entered their bodies.

I don't doubt their sincerity, just their sense.

to legally carry a firearm makes far more sense than only allowing the rich, the famous and the well connected to be the only people that are allowed to do so. I hate discrimination.

That is no way means that I want everyone to get a carry license. Guns are NOT for everybody and you have to realize that if you have anger management problems, suffer from severe mental health issues, abuse substances such as alcohol or live in a volatile relationship with a significant other -- then it would be wise to not own a firearm. Also you have to realize that owning or carrying a firearm requires a great deal of responsibility.

When someone who has never been around firearms asks me if they should buy one for self defense, I try to discourage them by using the points I made in the paragraph above. I often ask them if they could actually kill someone if it was absolutely necessary. Many people could never do such a thing and I don't consider that be a a character fault.

... no murder is convenient.

Disposing of a body and the inevitable clean-up after is a real chore.

Post 'em if you got 'em!

But I have many many many links and stories. Unlike some anti-gun posters here I try not to post more than one or two so I don't spam the forum.

. . .maybe you should. Discrete instances like this, as opposed to boilerplate rhetoric or skewed research, may help bolster your cause.

Like I said, I could spam stories day and night if I wanted to. People think guns are only used in mass shootings because these incidents don't get reported on a national level. Every day guns save countless lives, but since that doesn't draw as much ratings or satisify their agenda they go largely unreported.

That is why they get awarded the point.

Because they are uncommon compared to the guns-as-solution-guns stories.

Which of course get awarded No Points.

that make the media, even using the lowest number being espoused publicly.

A big stick would have worked. Invisible Obama's chair would also have got the job done.

I'm sure the woman being stabbed would feel differently.