The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...

Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.

I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.

Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.

You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?

Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.

The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...

Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.

I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.

No, that's exactly what you're saying, because you're insinuating that she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself if it's going to lead to the death of the rapist, because apparently the death of a rapist is worse than the rape of an innocent woman.

Do you even listen to your own logic?

I'm not insinuating she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself, I'm outright saying it. You're insinuating I mean she shouldn't defend herself. The death of a rapist is still the death of a human being, how fucking hard is dat to understand? It's not like I'm asking the rapist to rape her, it's not like I'm telling her to just take it like a pro. I'm saying that rape does no justify murder, neither should it.

You really have a hard time grasping the concept of the value of a human life over there in America, even if it is a rapist.

Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.

You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?

Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.

The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...

Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.

I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.

Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.

How did Tiananmen Square start out again?

"She should just deal with being raped" is basically what you're saying.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying..

Do you even read the things you reply to? I'm saying rape does not justify murder, I'm not saying she should let herself get raped.

No, that's exactly what you're saying, because you're insinuating that she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself if it's going to lead to the death of the rapist, because apparently the death of a rapist is worse than the rape of an innocent woman.

Do you even listen to your own logic?

I'm not insinuating she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself, I'm outright saying it. You're insinuating I mean she shouldn't defend herself. The death of a rapist is still the death of a human being, how fucking hard is dat to understand? It's not like I'm asking the rapist to rape her, it's not like I'm telling her to just take it like a pro. I'm saying that rape does no justify murder, neither should it.

You really have a hard time grasping the concept of the value of a human life over there in America, even if it is a rapist.

Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.

You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?

Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.

The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...

Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.

I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.

yes, who are you indeed.
you need to go to a shooting range and have some fun.

Do you have an inherent problem with me because I dislike the use of guns?

I have been to a shooting range, not my cup of tea.

Actually it does, if the person getting raped has reason to believe her life is in danger or she is at risk of serious injury, she can legally kill her attacker (assuming the attack is still going on and she doesn't shoot him in the back while he's leaving).

So what's the exchange rate on rape for murder these days?

I jest.

I did not mean to imply that the woman getting raped deserves to be raped, I'm just saying I don't agree with rape constituting murder. Murder is not a thing to take lightly.

Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.

rape is murder as far as i'm concerned.
psychologically devastating.

i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.

it's calling her a murderer if she kills her attacker.

And she would be. Again, weighing those things against each other is stupid in and of itself. Rape does not justify murder.

Actually it does, if the person getting raped has reason to believe her life is in danger or she is at risk of serious injury, she can legally kill her attacker (assuming the attack is still going on and she doesn't shoot him in the back while he's leaving).

So what's the exchange rate on rape for murder these days?

I jest.

I did not mean to imply that the woman getting raped deserves to be raped, I'm just saying I don't agree with rape constituting murder. Murder is not a thing to take lightly.

Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.

rape is murder as far as i'm concerned.
psychologically devastating.

There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.

no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.

You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.

i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.

If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.

I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.

There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.

tell that to the people in egypt and syria.

Peaceful whom band together vocally, speaking out to the world, trying to protect their basic human rights without violating those of others? It might take a while, but look at India and that peaceful protest, and how that ended. A lot better than another bloody revolt.

i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?

Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.

no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.

You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.

i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.

I think this explains it well enough

This black and white way of looking at the problem at hand is what's keeping this debate going. There is not just two ways to shield yourself from an attack, there are also many variables that come with an attack. These variables include whether the culprit is likely to carry a gun. If the culprit takes you by surprise, which is highly likely because otherwise you could just run away, you aren't very likely to shoot him either.

If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.

I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.

There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.

oh, because i'll be using it for the purpose the 2A was written.

In a time where the second amendment is outdated, yes.

i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?

Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.

no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.

You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.

i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.

A lot of people would. The battle of Lexington and Concord, the battle that started the revolutionary war, was started when the British were given orders to seize all military arms in order to quell what was then a simple rebellion.

I hadn't realized a rebellion was at hand

Have you seen Texas and the Utah sheriff's department?

Different times. We're talking about this day and age. A day and age where the people can speak up to their leaders, but taking up arms is futile.

tell that to the people in egypt and syria.

Peaceful whom band together vocally, speaking out to the world, trying to protect their basic human rights without violating those of others? It might take a while, but look at India and that peaceful protest, and how that ended. A lot better than another bloody revolt.

yep.
"OMG RIGHT WING PSYCHOPATH!!!"
i don't care. i'll die in a shoot out with ATF agents.

You're precisely the type that legeslation should be put in to place for, to keep you away from guns.

oh, because i'll be using it for the purpose the 2A was written.

In a time where the second amendment is outdated, yes.

i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?

Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.

no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.

You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.

i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.

i won't look at it that way, because that is fucking retarded.
most of that 300, in a NATION OF MILLIONS were killed by hunting-type guns

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ8L7nqL1rs
Watch this video. This guy wrote a book about it. He is a well-respected economist with a PhD so he knows his stuff.

I see loads of smart people on both sides of the fence, loads of documents, loads of studies, loads of everything pointing both ways, but that really doesn't matter to me at this point. I watched the video, mostly, and he seems like a reasonable man, but I'm not trying to say you're not reasonable. I just fail to see how guns, weapons, freely accesible to the public can make anyone feel safe.

I think this explains it well enough

This black and white way of looking at the problem at hand is what's keeping this debate going. There is not just two ways to shield yourself from an attack, there are also many variables that come with an attack. These variables include whether the culprit is likely to carry a gun. If the culprit takes you by surprise, which is highly likely because otherwise you could just run away, you aren't very likely to shoot him either.

If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.

I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.

There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.

because you're an idiot and you don't understand our 2A rights.
every year, about 300 people are killed with long guns.
a fraction of that are scary assault weapons.
so, by banning them, what are you achieving besides infringing on my rights?

Look at it this way: You can spare those 300 people the trouble of dying by giving up your right to own a weapon you don't need.

i won't look at it that way, because that is fucking retarded.
most of that 300, in a NATION OF MILLIONS were killed by hunting-type guns