Dry States where Booze is banned but you can buy guns...

I live in one of those deep south States. And I wouldn't say it's completely dry, but you didn't used to be able to buy alcohol on Sunday. But I think where I live they changed it a few years ago so that you can't buy it until after noon, or something like that. It must be a Bible belt sort of thing. Ironic, though, because Sunday when all the Bible-thumpers are out is when you NEED alcohol the most.

Shit, it's been a while since it affected me, I don't have many occasions where I need alcohol on a Sunday now that I'm a boring adult with family and kids.

But yeah, it's stupid to limit the sale of alcohol for a brief period of time during the week, but not require extensive training/background checks, etc for weapons designed for the very purpose of killing.

The Bible does states: "thou shalt not drink from the fruit of the vine during the sabbath, buy ye shall smite thy neighbor with a TEC-9."

I think this is in "Two Corinthians" or something.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
My American friends please explain your freedoms...

No drunken accidents with a gun, and no drunk driving accidents, sounds like smart laws to me. 😉

😂

Ah yes, I'm sure they'll be posting that verse in courtrooms all around the country soon. The long, lost 11th Commandment.

Originally posted by Robtard
Using this logic we shouldn't have any laws, as there's always a percentage of people who will not follow them.

My point is, all that type of law would do is remove innocent people's ability to defend themselves. why would anyone support such a law?

Originally posted by Silent Master
My point is, all that type of law would do is remove innocent people's ability to defend themselves. why would anyone support such a law?

Pretty much.

Murder laws prosecute murder. Overly restrictive gun laws like New York City's deny defensive firearms through legal channels, while crooks can buy a Saturday Night Special from the same guy who supplies their drugs or fences their goods.

Ah yes, the armed citizen hero narrative that never happens and in fact armed guards run from trouble with everyone else. 🙄

And even granting that they did, it still just sucks for those shot before he saved the day.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Ah yes, the armed citizen hero narrative that never happens and in fact armed guards run from trouble with everyone else. 🙄

And even granting that they did, it still just sucks for those shot before he saved the day.

Per the CDC

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/

Of note from that article:
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool. -snip

Also:
Defensive Gun Use and the Difficult Statistics of Rare Events

In the mid-1990s, Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated that in a typical year about 1.3% of US adults used a gun for self-defense against another person. Kleck and Gertz’s estimate, which came from a survey of nearly 5000 people, implied that there were millions of defensive gun uses every year. -snip

Also:
The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses: A Case Study of Survey Overestimates of Rare Events

edit: The El Paso shooting which left 22 dead is another recent example where a wall of bullets from civic minded armed citizens didn't come at the murderer/shooter, despite it happening in a state with some of the most relaxed open-carry laws. In fact, the one man/hero who attacked the shooter, did so with canned goods.

Lol, of course defensive violent crime shootouts... those heroes!!

Originally posted by Robtard
Of note from that article:
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool. -snip

Also:
Defensive Gun Use and the Difficult Statistics of Rare Events

In the mid-1990s, Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated that in a typical year about 1.3% of US adults used a gun for self-defense against another person. Kleck and Gertz’s estimate, which came from a survey of nearly 5000 people, implied that there were millions of defensive gun uses every year. -snip

edit: The El Paso shooting which left 22 dead is another recent example where a wall of bullets from civic minded armed citizens didn't come at the murderer/shooter, despite it happening in a state with some of the most relaxed open-carry laws. In fact, the one man/hero who attacked the shooter, did so with canned goods.

You cite a study on Defensive Gun Use and how prevalent it is.

And then pick out one example where defensive gun use did not save the day in an extremely rare scenario known as a "mass shooting."

Why not pick one of the dozens of recent defensive gun use stories to counter your point?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cite a study on Defensive Gun Use and how prevalent it is.

And then pick out one example where defensive gun use did not save the day in an extremely rare scenario known as a "mass shooting."

Why not pick one of the dozens of recent defensive gun use stories to counter your point?

It's seemingly not as prevalent as claimed "to more than 3million", the data is skewed.

It was a recent and well known event that happened in a state were open-carry is allowed, why it was picked.

Feel free to post what you like. Defensive gun use does happen, but it's not millions per year.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's seemingly not as prevalent as claimed "to more than 3million", the data is skewed.

It was a recent and well known event that happened in a state were open-carry is allowed, why it was picked.

Feel free to post what you like. Defensive gun use does happen, but it's not millions per year.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cite a study on Defensive Gun Use and how prevalent it is.

And then pick out one example where defensive gun use did not save the day in an extremely rare scenario known as a "mass shooting."

Why not pick one of the dozens of recent defensive gun use stories to counter your point?

You basically just answered your own question. He wouldn't do that BECAUSE they would, indeed, counter his point. He knows it'd destroy his argument so he conveniently ignores them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cite a study on Defensive Gun Use and how prevalent it is.

And then pick out one example where defensive gun use did not save the day in an extremely rare scenario known as a "mass shooting."

Why not pick one of the dozens of recent defensive gun use stories to counter your point?

That would require him to be honest and that would get in the way of his trolling.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's seemingly not as prevalent as claimed "to more than 3million", the data is skewed.

It was a recent and well known event that happened in a state were open-carry is allowed, why it was picked.

Feel free to post what you like. Defensive gun use does happen, but it's not millions per year.

It still happens more often than gun related murders, which are at around 10-12k per year. Nice try tho champ.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You cite a study on Defensive Gun Use and how prevalent it is.

And then pick out one example where defensive gun use did not save the day in an extremely rare scenario known as a "mass shooting."

Why not pick one of the dozens of recent defensive gun use stories to counter your point?

I'm sure he'll apply the same logic to crime by illegal immigrants.

Originally posted by Surtur
It still happens more often than gun related murders, which are at around 10-12k per year. Nice try tho champ.

*needs valid citation*

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You basically just answered your own question. He wouldn't do that BECAUSE they would, indeed, counter his point. He knows it'd destroy his argument so he conveniently ignores them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That would require him to be honest and that would get in the way of his trolling.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure he'll apply the same logic to crime by illegal immigrants.

^ Poisoning-the-Well trifecta

U will apply the same logic, right?