There's absolutely no reason for anyone to own a gun for self-defense...

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

Yes

[Free Palestine]

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

Yes

Though, I think that there may be a reasonable justification for requiring licensing, which would require a training and safety course or something.

Then again, licensing can be used to confiscate weaponry.  Unlike cars, guns are necessary for the preservation of a free state.

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

Beer never blew my hand off. Look, there's certainly a great deal of exxageration of the danger of guns from the left. Millions own guns without any problems. Swimming pools are more likely to cause an accidental death that a gun but it's 100% statistically undeniable that putting a gun in your home makes you and everybody else in the home more likely to end up on the wrong end of a bullet. Also, the distinction the right makes between "responsible gun owners" and criminals is complete bs. There is a ton of overlap and there are millions of people who are neither.

Well then, isn't it statistically undeniable that putting a pool in your home increases your chances of accidentally drowning?

We can't just nanny people.  We should make sure people understand the risks of having a gun in the home, but it is up to them to decide if they want one, as well as what kind they would have.  As I said, some people live alone and are aware of the risks.  Using such generalizations in favor of gun control would simply be absurd.

And isn't the risk of shooting oneself just as much of a personal responsibility, as the risk of drowning in your pool or dying of alcohol poisoning?  It's not something that's definitely going to happen in all situations.  It's simply a risk.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

Nice way of playing the game of deflection.  What about a rocket launcher then?  And if you are going to use the expensive argument, lets say the person can afford it.

I don't think the government should have an absolute monopoly on such things.

[Free Palestine]

Honestly, being able to buy a nuke may be pushing it a bit, and there may actually be reasoning behind preventing people from owning one.  Because, the lowest damage a nuke could have, would probably be wiping out a city block.

Tanks really aren't a gun rights issue.  More of a road-safety issue. 

But, I don't think the government should have nukes either.