This is a discussion on Would stricter gun laws save lives? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Bottom line is this. If all of the honest law abiding citizens gave up their guns, the crooks would still have them because they wouldn't ...
Array
Bottom line is this. If all of the honest law abiding citizens gave up their guns, the crooks would still have them because they wouldn't give them up, and we would still have the same level of violent crime!!!! We then wouldn't have the ability to defend ourselves!!!
What a crappy situation that would be.
Tim
Last edited by timothius; December 3rd, 2006 at 08:09 PM. Reason: spelling
Array
Don't know,ask the folks that live in D.C. or San Francisco. --------
It's not about 'Gun Control', it's about 'Crinimal Control'...
No more...No less...Very simple!
OMO
ret
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
***********************************
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Array
Same level of guns in hands of criminals + Softer targets = Increased crime.Originally Posted by timothius
Simple math that, one would think, every politician could get his/her arms around. Trouble is, it's their heads that can't get around it. Evil fools, with a disarmament agenda on their minds.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
Array
But don't you see? If the law abiding citizens would simply give up their guns, and stop defending themselves from the criminals, then the criminals wouldn't have to shoot them and no one would be killed!
After all, your life is no more worthy or valuable than a criminal's.
Array
[QUOTE=paramedic70002;244615]http://www.news14charlotte.com/conte...130831&SecID=1
"The people who had the gun killed my son," she said.
This mother seems to understand what really killed her son.
McCartney wants guns off the streets. She says there are too many criminals getting their hands on guns.
Yes, there are too many criminals getting guns, not too many guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
"The right to protect yourself -- no matter who in your home carries the gun to protect you -- is a huge right we have to protect as Americans," she said.
This is a true statement.
But a gun in your home doesn't always mean protection. If you have a gun in your home, you're three times more likely to be a victim of gun violence. Guns at home should be locked up at all times.
Bull! Who makes up these statistics?
And one thing both can agree on -- no innocent life should be lost because of a gun.
No innocent life is lost "because of a gun", it is lost because of the misuse of a gun.
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.
Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor
Array
Yeah, just like having a condom in your wallet or nightstand drawer magically leads to sex.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Array
This pseudo-fact is a descendent of the Arthur Kellerman CDC "study" in which he cherry-picked data and manipulated definitions to arrive at a claim that having guns in the home meant that you were "43 times" more likely to injure a loved one than to kill an intruder.But a gun in your home doesn't always mean protection. If you have a gun in your home, you're three times more likely to be a victim of gun violence. Guns at home should be locked up at all times.
The claim is just so much crap for a lot of reasons. First among them is the notion that he did not count anything other than killing an intruder as a good and righteous use of the gun. He also considered the drug dealer on one corner who is known to the drug dealer on the other corner to be "loved ones" (because I think the term used was "acquaintance" or something). Over the years, the figure given has decreased gradually and now it stands at a factor of 3, not the original 43. Hmmm.
Guns should be locked up at all times? What good are they in a defensive situation then, idiot?
This one is cause for a double-take. WHAT?! A person is not a criminal until some magical split-second when they become enraged and have a gun that just happens to be nearby and then they use it to murder someone?Gun enthusiast Debbie Kimmick believes if you're going to have a gun in the house, get the training to use it. But others believe just having a gun could lead to trouble.
"A person is not a criminal until that split second when their rage takes control and the gun is handy and they use that gun," McCartney said.
So all the murders that happen, they take place not because someone set out to rob and kill another person, but because they were just out la de da, and whoop!, hey, there's a GUN lying here! I think now that I wanna KILL somebody!! Yeahhh, boyeeee!
What kind of LUNATIC IDIOCY caused this woman to make such a moronic statement? She doesn't believe that some people have criminality in mind BEFORE they just HAPPEN to find a GUN nearby?!
How many MILLIONS of guns are resting peacefully in homes all across this country tonight, that never have harmed and never will harm a member of the family that owns them?
I gotta say, if this woman were shot through the head with a .50 BMG round, there's a good chance her brain would be spared major injury. Maybe just a nick... Maybe.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
