Would stricter gun laws save lives? - Page 2

Would stricter gun laws save lives?

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 ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: Would stricter gun laws save lives?

  1. #16
    Member Array timothius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    59
    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 09:09 PM. Reason: spelling


  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array RSSZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,843
    Don't know,ask the folks that live in D.C. or San Francisco. --------

  3. #18
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,498

    Only One Answer...

    It's not about 'Gun Control', it's about 'Crinimal Control'...

    No more...No less...Very simple!

    OMO

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,392
    Quote Originally Posted by timothius View Post
    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!!!
    Same level of guns in hands of criminals + Softer targets = Increased crime.

    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 (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #20
    Ex Member Array dwolsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by timothius View Post
    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.
    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.


  6. #21
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206

    Where do they come up with these so called "facts"?

    [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

  7. #22
    Member Array AZ Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    But others believe just having a gun could lead to trouble.
    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

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    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.
    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.

    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?


    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.
    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?

    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Guns save Lives
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 20th, 2009, 01:24 PM
  2. Good: Dairy-owner 'had to shoot' to save lives [Using an air pistol]
    By Janq in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 10:13 PM
  3. Dealer selling guns at cost to save lives.
    By morintp in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 02:40 AM
  4. Gun seller offering discounts to 'save lives'
    By JonInNY in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 02:30 AM
  5. Proof that Helmets Save Lives!
    By raysheen in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 10:53 PM

Search tags for this page

debbie kimmick

,

gun checks save lives

,

how will stricter gun laws not save lives

,

kabul gun laws

,
legislation for stricter gun laws
,
should gun laws be stricter in order to protect innocent lives
,

strict gun laws don't save lives

,

stricter gun laws are saving lives

,

stricter gun laws save lives

,
will stricter gun laws make reduce crime
,

will stricter gun laws save lives

,

would stricter gun laws save lives

Click on a term to search for related topics.