Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

[Adron]

It's a different argument, since cars are good and guns are bad.

Any good thing used for the wrong reasons is bad. Thats the stupidest comment you've made so far.

It's only as stupid as the reader. That comment condenses a central part of the comparison between guns and cars into a single sentence.

Actually, putting foam on sharp corners makes sense. I see people do that now and then. Stabbing weapons, yes, absolutely. Blunt objects is a problem though, since virtually everything is a blunt object. Combustible materials, yes, and particularly explosives.

You've basically argued for a sterilized world. What would chefs do without knives and cutting instruments? Use superhuman powers to split the meat? You are so far away from reality that you should be shot.

Something designed as a stabbing weapon, used as a stabbing weapon, or carried with the intent of being used as a stabbing weapon can be forbidden. That doesn't mean you need to live without cutting instruments. They're regulated here in just that way: You're prohibited from carrying a knife when you're walking down the street, unless you can show that you have a good reason for doing so. Such a reason could be that you just bought the knife and are taking it home, etc.

Beacuse any site that has lots of information supporting my argument has to be wrong right?

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

And no, I don't know nothing of the American system.

Thank you for admitting your total ignorance. I commend you for it. Now, for the future stay out of any argument that deals with American politics or justice since you admittedly know nothing about it.

I just said that I don't know nothing of the American system. That's a double negation, meaning that I do know something. Thanks for your gratitude though. However, how about you admit that you don't know everything about the American system? Then we might be getting somewhere...

[Hazard]

It's only as stupid as the reader. That comment condenses a central part of the comparison between guns and cars into a single sentence.

No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

Something designed as a stabbing weapon, used as a stabbing weapon, or carried with the intent of being used as a stabbing weapon can be forbidden. That doesn't mean you need to live without cutting instruments. They're regulated here in just that way: You're prohibited from carrying a knife when you're walking down the street, unless you can show that you have a good reason for doing so. Such a reason could be that you just bought the knife and are taking it home, etc.

You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

I just said that I don't know nothing of the American system. That's a double negation, meaning that I do know something. Thanks for your gratitude though. However, how about you admit that you don't know everything about the American system? Then we might be getting somewhere...

I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

[Adron]

No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

There is no positive side to the firearms debate. If there were no firearms, violent crimes committed with guns would be no more, and you would need no firearms to defend your home from armed criminals. The best long term solution would therefore be to make there be no firearms.

You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

No, I see your argument, and I've responded to it before. Some responses: Here, you cannot legally carry a knife to defend yourself. A knife doesn't have as much destructive power as a gun. A gun doesn't have as big a non-violent use as a knife.

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

That's not ignorance. Any site funded by people who want guns at all costs (including the cost of lying or showing biased facts) is unreliable. You can't trust people who want guns at all costs to produce unbiased raw facts. And if the "facts" are in fact real facts, you'll be able to find them elsewhere - so no problem.

I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

But you do admit that you don't know everything about the American system?

[Hazard]

No, its as stupid as yourself. You refuse to see the positive side to the firearms debate, because you have been brainwashed by whomever it may have been into being completely blind to belief systems juxtaposed to yours.

There is no positive side to the firearms debate. If there were no firearms, violent crimes committed with guns would be no more, and you would need no firearms to defend your home from armed criminals. The best long term solution would therefore be to make there be no firearms.

So what you're telling me is, your socialism solution is the perfect one? All violent crimes would stop? People wouldn't still create firearms? If nobody else had them, wouldn't the production of them become very lucrative? Thats so stupid that you say there is NO upside to firearms, it just shows how biased and prejudice you are to other ways of thinking. I can think of a dozen reasons why firearms are excellent tools right now, but the most convincing thing is I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who have owned firearms and never committed crims with them, and two in particular who have used them to save their own lives and the lives of others, and that is the most convincing reason.

You do realize that the exact same thing is done with guns, right? If people do it with guns, why wouldn't they do it with knives? You're too blind to see the argument aren't you?

No, I see your argument, and I've responded to it before. Some responses: Here, you cannot legally carry a knife to defend yourself. A knife doesn't have as much destructive power as a gun. A gun doesn't have as big a non-violent use as a knife.

And everyone in your little slice of socialist paradise is an easy target for those who want to hurt you. I could rob you with a knife, I wouldn't even have to bother with a gun!

Because any site funded by people who want guns at all costs is unreliable.

Thats ignorance. You know nothing about the NRA, you shouldn't speak about things you obviously don't understand.

That's not ignorance. Any site funded by people who want guns at all costs (including the cost of lying or showing biased facts) is unreliable. You can't trust people who want guns at all costs to produce unbiased raw facts. And if the "facts" are in fact real facts, you'll be able to find them elsewhere - so no problem.

And you know that they are lying and showing biased facts? The facts censored by your socialist government aren't biased though? Prove to be that their facts are fabricated or just not correct why don't you? You can't can you? Of course not, because you know nothing of the subject. They do not want guns at all costs, thats just more ignorance. You know nothing about the subject and you are not qualified to speak on them. Even your opinion is worthless because its based on things that your mommy and daddy, or even worse your government, have undoubtly brainwashed you into thinking and believing.

I am by far more qualified than yourself, and thats enough for me.

But you do admit that you don't know everything about the American system?

Absoulutely, but my knowledge is exponentially larger than yours.

[Adron]

So what you're telling me is, your socialism solution is the perfect one? All violent crimes would stop? People wouldn't still create firearms? If nobody else had them, wouldn't the production of them become very lucrative?

No, not all violent crimes would stop, only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms. If nobody else had them, well, production of them might be extremely lucrative, as you might be able to sell a few for an extremely high price. Still, even then, firearms are less of a problem the fewer people have them.

Thats so stupid that you say there is NO upside to firearms, it just shows how biased and prejudice you are to other ways of thinking. I can think of a dozen reasons why firearms are excellent tools right now, but the most convincing thing is I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who have owned firearms and never committed crims with them, and two in particular who have used them to save their own lives and the lives of others, and that is the most convincing reason.

That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

And everyone in your little slice of socialist paradise is an easy target for those who want to hurt you. I could rob you with a knife, I wouldn't even have to bother with a gun!

And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

And you know that they are lying and showing biased facts? The facts censored by your socialist government aren't biased though? Prove to be that their facts are fabricated or just not correct why don't you? You can't can you? Of course not, because you know nothing of the subject. They do not want guns at all costs, thats just more ignorance. You know nothing about the subject and you are not qualified to speak on them. Even your opinion is worthless because its based on things that your mommy and daddy, or even worse your government, have undoubtly brainwashed you into thinking
and believing.

My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts. "Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA. Numbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before. Bring some new ones up and we'll talk about those. You are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA". And perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

Absoulutely, but my knowledge is exponentially larger than yours.

Exponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

[Hazard]

only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms.

So there is no such thing as gun violence in countries with total gun control... hrm... no?

That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

I can think of a dozen of those as well. Those who have saved lives with their guns are the ones I was pointing to.

And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

With just a knife, no you couldn't. One, I've spent way too many years in martial arts to get robbed by a punk like you. Second, I'm packing. I'd shoot you without thinking twice.

My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who told you that? Your government?

"Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA.

The first amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want in my country. The second amendment protects the first. Never question my patriotism. There are plenty of people that are just as ardent patriots as myself and have opinions completely opposed to mine. What rights do you have in your country? I've seen how socialism in Europe works, and it isn't pretty.

Numbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

So without looking, you know mine are wrong? Numbers coming out of a country full of socialist weasels have been misleading before, and yes I'm talking about Sweden.

You are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA".

The church doesn't preach gun ownership?

I'd rather be a member of a group that fights for my rights than one that tries to strip them away from me for bogus reasons.

And perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

You've never lived in a country where you have the privilige of defending yourself to the best of your abilites. What is your experience level with firearms? Have you ever fired one? Do you have instruction in the care and mantainance of them? Have you taken non-biased courses on the pros and cons of firearm ownership? Face it, you're completely ignorant.

Exponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

By that definition, I'm better to critique your socialist hell hole than you are.

[EpicOfTimeWasted]

My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I hope you don't really think that the US doesn't censor anything.  Whatever news source you prefer to get your news from, at the end of the day it's still a business that needs money to survive.  Newspapers need subscribers, TV news needs viewers, internet news needs page hits, etc... or else the advertisers move their money somewhere else.  The result of this is that instead of reporting the news, they report the news that the general public wants to hear.

[Hazard]

Wrong. Big news makes headlines. I make it a point to get my news from many various sources. I read Yahoo! News usually first and foremost, and if you honestly believe that the AP and Reuters are blatantly biased, then you're very uneducated. As far as television news, FOX News and CNN News are my two personal favorites, with NBC Nightly News closely following, with the Communist Broatcasting System in a distant last place. I read two different news papers and the occasional New York Times. What does the US government censor? Classified information and that is all that they are allowed to keep newspapers from printing. The only thing there has been a tussel over is war correspondence, as news agencies are not allowed to publish troop movements and classified actions for reasons of national security and to protect those troops. If you honestly view that as horrifying censorship, you have never been nor know anybody who has been in the combat zone. Thats my piece.

[Hazard]

Adron, I'm going to encourage you to read and seriously consider this piece and thoughtfully and carefully reply to it. I want you to use some sort of evidence without biased evidence from blatant anti-gun lobbies as you claim that biased lobbies are "unreliable" or something to that effect. Give it a try, and be serious and rational for a change.

[dxoigmn]

Wrong. Big news makes headlines. I make it a point to get my news from many various sources. I read Yahoo! News usually first and foremost, and if you honestly believe that the AP and Reuters are blatantly biased, then you're very uneducated. As far as television news, FOX News and CNN News are my two personal favorites, with NBC Nightly News closely following, with the Communist Broatcasting System in a distant last place. I read two different news papers and the occasional New York Times. What does the US government censor? Classified information and that is all that they are allowed to keep newspapers from printing. The only thing there has been a tussel over is war correspondence, as news agencies are not allowed to publish troop movements and classified actions for reasons of national security and to protect those troops. If you honestly view that as horrifying censorship, you have never been nor know anybody who has been in the combat zone. Thats my piece.

How could you know they don't censor information if that information never gets out?

[Adron]

only the ones involving firearms would stop if there were no firearms.

So there is no such thing as gun violence in countries with total gun control... hrm... no?

That is correct.

That's nice. I can think of a dozen people whom I know personally who haven't owned firearms, and who haven't needed firearms to save their own lives or the lives of others.

I can think of a dozen of those as well. Those who have saved lives with their guns are the ones I was pointing to.

Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

And I could rob you with a knife. You're still an easy target for those who want to hurt you. A gun isn't the solution to every problem in the world. So?

With just a knife, no you couldn't. One, I've spent way too many years in martial arts to get robbed by a punk like you. Second, I'm packing. I'd shoot you without thinking twice.

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone, and for the two, an element of surprise with get anyone. As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun. If you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time, and you're a prime example of why guns need to be regulated.

My socialist government doesn't censor facts. Your capitalist society censors facts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who told you that? Your government?

No, talking with you did.

"Unpatriotic" is a concept used in dictatorships and in the USA.

The first amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want in my country. The second amendment protects the first. Never question my patriotism. There are plenty of people that are just as ardent patriots as myself and have opinions completely opposed to mine. What rights do you have in your country? I've seen how socialism in Europe works, and it isn't pretty.

I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Numbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

So without looking, you know mine are wrong? Numbers coming out of a country full of socialist weasels have been misleading before, and yes I'm talking about Sweden.

No, I asked for the numbers so that I'd be able to look. I still suggest you pick numbers from a non-pro-rifle site though, as that'll make the road a whole lot easier to travel. If the numbers are accurate, they should exist in other places.

You are bordering on "brainwashed by the church and the NRA".

The church doesn't preach gun ownership?

I'd rather be a member of a group that fights for my rights than one that tries to strip them away from me for bogus reasons.

The church brainwashes you in other ways. You're in a group fighting for your rights to get people killed.

And perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

You've never lived in a country where you have the privilige of defending yourself to the best of your abilites. What is your experience level with firearms? Have you ever fired one? Do you have instruction in the care and mantainance of them? Have you taken non-biased courses on the pros and cons of firearm ownership? Face it, you're completely ignorant.

My experience level with firearms is low, although I have fired one, and had instructions in care and maintenance of them. I don't need a course on the pros and cons of firearm ownership, courses on matters such as those are just another way of presenting biased facts. I've given you plenty of opportunity to present pros and cons of firearm ownership. You still haven't convinced me. Maybe that's a sign that you're just all emotional and no fact?

Exponentially larger is a vague term. I'll admit that you have more knowledge of American society than I do. You're also home blind. It's better to observe a system from a viewpoint outside the system.

By that definition, I'm better to critique your socialist hell hole than you are.

Absolutely. You could start a new thread for doing just that, and I'll bring up any information I've gleaned on the inside while you present your observations.

[Hazard]

Observation: Socialism is a mere bump from being neo-fascism in a really shitty society whose spending policies i.e. universal health care are bankrupting what you believe to be a "perfect society."

[Adron]

Observation: Socialism is a mere bump from being neo-fascism in a really shitty society whose spending policies i.e. universal health care are bankrupting what you believe to be a "perfect society."

Could you rewrite that in a way that makes more sense and uses less of terms like "shitty"?

[Hazard]

That is correct.

Cuba, Colombia, the former Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, Australia...

Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

What, exactly, are you basing your accusation of the United States being a gun crazy society on? How much time have you spent in this country to make such an observation? Or is it what your government tells you happens here?

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone

Not true. I could be suprised and still take you down. It just requires the proper reflexes.

As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun.

I don't deserve to have me no gun? In that case, it would actually be called justifiable homicide, because you attacked/threatened me with a knife. Thats the empitomy of why I should have a gun.

If you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time

I wouldn't think twice about shooting somebody who was attempting to kill me. As Sun Tzu says, "The God of War hates those who hesitate."

and you're a prime example of why guns need to be regulated.

You're a prime example of somebody who is clearly uneducated on the subject.

No, talking with you did.

Prove it.

I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Michael Moore... Dan Rather... Jane Fonda... the Screen Actors Guild... the New York Times... the Democratic party? Yea, shut up.

Numbers from gun lobbyist sites have been shown to be misleading before.

The church brainwashes you in other ways. You're in a group fighting for your rights to get people killed.

I'm fighting for my right to protect myself from those who want to harm me. The Swedish "military" does the same thing for you. Unfortunately, you are too naive to realize that these people can't be there for you all the time and are too stupid to understand the concept of defending yourself. Your solution to crime is more vaseline.

And perhaps we should just say that you don't have sufficient experience living in a country where guns aren't free to speak on the disadvantages of that?

My experience level with firearms is low

So you really lack hands on experience?

I don't need a course on the pros and cons of firearm ownership, courses on matters such as those are just another way of presenting biased facts.

You're so sure? Golly gee whiz how DO you know so much mister?

I've given you plenty of opportunity to present pros and cons of firearm ownership. You still haven't convinced me. Maybe that's a sign that you're just all emotional and no fact?

I've challanged you, I've called you out dozens of times on the same premise. At least I offer facts and references at all. You say things to the effect of "it is a fact" but don't offer numbers or references or sources. You've never offered up reading material, even biased ones. You tell me how all my facts can't be right, but have nothing to back up that statment. Why don't you stop hiding behind your assertions that I have bogus facts and give me some that you are SO SURE are accurate Adron? Its because you can't. I'm calling you out AGAIN to prove me wrong, I know full well you can't.

[Adron]

Cuba, Colombia, the former Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, Australia...

Yes?

Ah, but now it comes down to whether you need to have guns to save lives or not. I say not, unless you live in a gun-crazy society where law and order depends on yourself upholding it.

What, exactly, are you basing your accusation of the United States being a gun crazy society on? How much time have you spent in this country to make such an observation? Or is it what your government tells you happens here?

Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

For the one, an element of surprise will get anyone

Not true. I could be suprised and still take you down. It just requires the proper reflexes.

As well as, given that comment, you're a murderer who don't deserve to have a gun.

I don't deserve to have me no gun? In that case, it would actually be called justifiable homicide, because you attacked/threatened me with a knife. Thats the empitomy of why I should have a gun.

If you consider shooting someone without thinking twice a good course of action, you'll end up shooting the wrong person some time

I wouldn't think twice about shooting somebody who was attempting to kill me. As Sun Tzu says, "The God of War hates those who hesitate."

Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Prove it.

I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

I've seen how capitalism works in the USA and it isn't pretty. If you publish the truth, or your opinions that don't match the president's, you'll be fired or ruined depending on who you are.

Michael Moore... Dan Rather... Jane Fonda... the Screen Actors Guild... the New York Times... the Democratic party? Yea, shut up.

Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

I'm fighting for my right to protect myself from those who want to harm me. The Swedish "military" does the same thing for you. Unfortunately, you are too naive to realize that these people can't be there for you all the time and are too stupid to understand the concept of defending yourself. Your solution to crime is more vaseline.

Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

So you really lack hands on experience?

No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

You're so sure? Golly gee whiz how DO you know so much mister?

Because I'm older than you.

I've challanged you, I've called you out dozens of times on the same premise. At least I offer facts and references at all. You say things to the effect of "it is a fact" but don't offer numbers or references or sources. You've never offered up reading material, even biased ones. You tell me how all my facts can't be right, but have nothing to back up that statment. Why don't you stop hiding behind your assertions that I have bogus facts and give me some that you are SO SURE are accurate Adron? Its because you can't. I'm calling you out AGAIN to prove me wrong, I know full well you can't.

I prefer not producing biased reading material. I don't like biased reading material much at all. I have given numbers at times. I'm not sure what numbers you'd like though. There obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet. Besides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes. Basic logic. Or like the claim made in this post: Reflexes are a low level mechanism, suffer from lack of conscious control, and are therefore risky and prone to being triggered for the wrong reasons.