Good samaritan gets gunned down trying to help a

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. This mostly demonstrates the fultility of trying to reason with "true believers"

Since their reason for advocating control is belief rather than logic, there is little chance any argument will change any of their related opinions. I note that within the Father and son thread, one exchange came down to this:

" And until those who are fine with gun ownership can start to propose realistic solutions, then the one I propose is confiscation."

No amount of realism introduced will have any effect:
- that won't happen >> doesn't matter/don't care;
- I infer: Gun owners can fix the gun violence problem themselves or I'll simply continue stamping my feet and demanding that mommy take away their toys. How could anyone argue with such a mature attitude?

- converting a suicide by gun to other means isn't helping anything >> the TBs apparently like the whack-a-mole game
- I infer: They don't know if they should believe that; they don't care about suicide attempts; guns are the focus; reasoning non-congruent with "guns are the problem" is non sequitur.

- guns don't "wear out" like a pair of bedroom slippers >> I'll still get a gun out of the public's hands
- I infer: Every year one gun out of every 6,000 is stolen and now in criminal hands, screw the other 5,999 of you.


So what should be the response to the TBs ("true believers&quot ?

Many in the UK have been disarmed. Robberies are rather routine and folks don't resist for fear of being hurt. Was St Augustine wrong? "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."