Up to 8 pages now.
 
This must be a record.

The chronic mis-reading that happens on this forum is legion and very discouraging. Peace.

OK So maybe the point has not yet been made. Let us define "bad faith." Bad faith can basically be understood as bargaining dishonestly or making a promise or statement that you do not intend to keep or that you know to be untrue. So if I promise to be true to my wife forsaking all others, knowing that I am going to have sex with her bridesmaid, that is bad faith. If I say that I am selling you a gold mine knowing that there is no gold that is bad faith. If I make an argument that I myself do not believe is valid, that is bad faith. 
 
So how does that relate to a persistent argument that has been made frequently in this thread? Do you believe that if your wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother/favorite nun is for some inexplicable reason unable to defend herself against a rapist then the rape should be permitted? More to the point, do you believe that if the law against rape does not guarantee that evil people will not commit rape, then that law should never have been passed? If not then I call shenanigans, and call anyone who claims that because legislation cannot prevent evil, or prevent evil actions, then there should be no legislation, a liar and a hypocrite. Laws restricting certain kinds of firearms and ammunition will not prevent some evil people from obtaining and using them. No one doubts that, dummy. 
 
You could have argued as many serious people do, that laws are not passed to prevent actions, but rather to give the victim, their families or their ghosts a sense of justice or revenge. You could even have recognized, as most of us do, that the police can only rarely prevent a crime, but that the fear of subsequently being arrested and punished for those crimes might deter some people and prevent some crimes. You did not do that. You focused on the absurd proposition that to be enacted into law or regulation, any abridgement of total freedom by restricting a specific action must prevent all such actions. Under that criterion the only legitimate use of regulation would be something like: it is hereby forbidden to all citizens to defecate on the surface of the Sun. Stop being so stupid.
 
All you need to do to make your case is to say that you believe that you or someone like you could in certain circumstances prevent an injury to yourself or some other innocent person if you are permitted to possess and in appropriate circumstances use a firearm. From that point we could disagree about the circumstances, or the risk to benefit ratio of your actions, but we would at least be able to know that we are dealing with someone who is not stooping to dishonesty to avoid the discussion. 
 
LSD is illegal. Only criminals will possess LSD. If I could walk into Walmart and buy LSD I would be tripping this weekend. As it is, I have no idea where I can get LSD, and even if I could, it would be waaay more expensive than if it were available legally as a generic. Somewhere out there I hope there is someone looking for a cheap machine gun who is also not going to be using this weekend.
 
Would anyone who believes that simply passing a law banning all firearms would result in the end to all criminal acts using firearms please let us know. If so then you laws-do-not-stop-crimes idiots will have someone to convince, if not then shut the **** up with this nonsense.

eph221
The chronic mis-reading that happens on this forum is legion and very discouraging. Peace.

I get the heebie jeebies when I'm in large crowds nowadays. It's all too painfully obvious that crowds are basically terrorist targets. I don't even know how people linger when walking through Times Square - if I absolutely have to walk through there, I flit from one end to the other, barely touching the ground. Some years ago I walked between Times Square and 8th Avenue on an errand in Hell's Kitchen, and 10 minutes later tried to walk up the same street to get back to Times Square. It was all blocked off by cops, and looking over people's heads I noticed the bomb squad with one of those robot bomb defusing robots approaching an old van. Turns out it was a bona fide Islamic bombing attempt, and the guy had packed enough explosives to take out the whole block. I'd just walked down there 10 minutes ago and it really brought close to home just how vulnerable everyone is in high traffic areas of a city like New York. The subway at rush hour gives me the creeps as well, that's gotta be hit sooner or later. 
 
I have a friend on Nantucket who once made a comment on social media about how pathetic it was to be frightened of terrorists. I reminded him where he lived and how terrorists would not bother their arses to attack sleepy little places on the Cape. When you have to take the subway at rush hour every morning, you get a vivid insight into what it feels like to be a sitting duck. 

sharke
When you have to take the subway at rush hour every morning, you get a vivid insight into what it feels like to be a sitting duck. 

An unarmed sitting duck.  I grew up in NYC.  It is hard to own guns in NYC.  The only people I knew who had guns were criminals.  The criminals in NYC have guns.  The honest people have no way to defend themselves.
 
Even martial arts, "a sport."  I do some of the most serious, hardest martial arts around.  I currently train (2 - 4 times a week) Brazilian jiu jitsu, and I've trained Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Krav Maga.  Real self defense is carrying a firearm - which as a law abiding citizen you can not get so easily in NYC, but the criminals have them.  Believe me the criminals have them, and the law abiding citizens are sitting ducks.

Double post or becan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I was in and out of those towers my whole life.   Both my parents worked downtown.  I walked through those towers every day.  Especially since I had a buddy who went to a high school around the corner - I will not name the school
 
 

Linear Phase

sharke
When you have to take the subway at rush hour every morning, you get a vivid insight into what it feels like to be a sitting duck. 

An unarmed sitting duck.

Did someone say duck

I've read through this whole thread, weighed up the arguments on both sides, and there's still one thing that I just cannot get my head around.
 
It utterly baffles me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Why is Byron still using Vista?