Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is that hard to say? In US, we have more guns than people. Had gun ownership inspired acts of violence, we would have seen violent crime rate in USA is off the chart, topping at least top 5 in the world but it is not at all.
In fact, if we remove inner city gang violence and suicide from so called "gun death," the violence in US is no worse than any western developed countries with strict gun controls. Hell, even we use the completely screwed up and unethical liberal statistics of so called "gun homicide", US is still not anywhere near the top. It has been proven over and over again but you refuse to accept that.
Guns are the weapon of choice for violent criminals because our gun control laws only target law abiding citizens. If you truly want to reduce gun violence, lets focus our gun control laws on the criminals.
Let me introduce your Project Exile, which Democrats violently object because it's targeting their voter base. It proves yet again that Democrats don't care about saving lives.
And to add, again. Gun violence is at its lowest rate in 40 years and continues to decline.
"Two-thirds of gun deaths in the US – roughly 20,000 each year – are gun suicides, and states where gun ownership is higher see dramatically higher gun suicide rates. Many of the victims are older white men."
Also BTW, lots of people include the number of suicides by gun as part of the problem of gun violence. Whether that is right or wrong, appropriate or not, is a matter of perspective, concern and/or focus that depends largely on the person, but you are correct that "apples and oranges" are best not confused in these regards. However, as long as it is noted whether the statistics do or do not include suicides, there should be no confusion.
Do you know how to think?
Japan, a country with strict gun control, has almost 4 times of suicide rate of US. Is that because lack of guns drove those Japanese to suicide?
My word, dealing with this sort of reading comprehension is a real challenge...
Check the record! I/we had moved on from the shooting at the legs, right???
Still, your reply above is to this I wrote, "FYI: POLICE PROTOCOL -- If the suspect points a gun at someone, or reaches for a gun in a way that indicates they're going to shoot, police are allowed to fire. Police are trained to shoot at "center mass," or a suspect's torso where many vital organs are located."
"Center mass" is not the legs or fingers! And if shooting at "center mass" isn't shoot to kill in your world, then just what planet do you live on, because for us humans here on planet Earth, getting shot in the "center mass" area is a likely certain death.
once again you show your ignorance, and are relying on hollywood for your information. often times a single shot to the torso is NOT fatal. not everyone hits the heart or the major arteries.
once again just because you shoot someone does not mean they are going to die. and there is no shoot to kill edict either, but rather shoot to stop. if someone is coming after you, with the intent of doing you bodily harm, and you fear for your life, you have the right to use deadly force to stop that person from doing bodily harm to you. most of the time that means shooting them once or twice and they stop. but remember it i the perpetrator of a crime that drive the action.
Not sure which would you live in but certainly not in our human world. Shooting at center mass is NOT an intent to kill but an intent to be on target and to stop. If the aggressor doesn't stop the aggression, shoot until he stops. That's how our human world works, how all the US deadly force laws are written and how our hundreds years of case laws were decided.
Death is an unfortunate consequence of deploying deadly force. It is called deadly force not for jokes.
Hence there are clearly defined conditions when we can deploy deadly force - it's the same for police and civilians. Please note the "person" below refers to a "reasonable person," a well-defined legal concept, not an "ignorant person."
Typically:
1. The person actually believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
2. The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to agree, and
3. The person using deadly force was not a instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
4. Force was not excessive.... greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.
So yes, the person, police and civilian, shooting the aggressor as the aggressor, armed or not, reaching a weapon or making a move similar to reaching a weapon, is completely justified.
LearnMe has already been told that in other threads. I've just told him again.
Clever, but I think you miss the point. People with evil intent just tend to favor the use of guns to perpetrate their evil. Sorry, but that's just the fact. Please don't shoot the messenger...
Whether or not this means that guns tend to inspire acts of violence, hard to say.
Or do guns simply make it easier? I think perhaps so.
Maybe best to start with the question, why do guns rank so highly when it comes to weapons used to commit acts of violence?
That's about all I've got time for again today...
Actually if you''ll read the FBI stats, you will see what everyone is talking about (you know the mean old black rifle), yea, well....blunt objects kill more yearly...
So the real answer is conservatives don't think that gun violence is a problem and in thinking such, shouldn't be addressed proactively...
Dude, congress was owned by the dems and had a dem president.....why did they don nothing then....the left is the the "we will wait till after the fact" you know, never let a crisis go to waste.....
If we ban all the guns, the gun violence would zero! Not sure why it's hard for gun nuts to understand.
Surely you don't really believe that silly statement.
Haven't we banned all crack cocaine? Did that eliminate crack cocaine? Banning guns would not eliminate guns either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
