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.
I fully support gun rights, but this tired excuse doesn't make sense.
Yes, criminals break laws. That's what makes them criminals. Using this as an argument against a law is nonsensical. We may as well usher in anarchy, because after all, "Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any...law?"
Gun restrictions are designed for honest people, criminals ignore them. It took me 12 month to get a gun permit in NYC: I have no criminal history, I pay taxes, I am educated, employed, family man. Criminals get guns on the corner in 5 minutes.
If you recall the 1997 LA Bank of America robbery, where the two heavily armed men didn't go down very easy with the 9mm and other weapons that were used. One robber killed himself, I believe the other was shot in the head, but only after hundreds of shots were taken.
22lr is for rodents, even with a head shot, depending how think sculled the criminal is, it might not penetrate.
That's one scenario. Here's another: In the hands of the average Joe, the guy who takes a .45 to the abdomen is going down. The guy who takes a .22, maybe not.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Never mind the abdomen, try a chest, especially iv this is winter and one is wearing a sweater and a jacket. 22lr will not even penetrate the chest while 45 will kill the attacker.
If you recall the 1997 LA Bank of America robbery, where the two heavily armed men didn't go down very easy with the 9mm and other weapons that were used. One robber killed himself, I believe the other was shot in the head, but only after hundreds of shots were taken.
It seems that just about every police shooting of a suspect anymore involves quite a bit of ammo expenditure. Not just big battles like the LA shootout, but small scale stuff as well. A suspect presents a weapon may or may not fire a shot, but out come the crunchentickers, the brass rains on the ground, and the suspect is hit once in the leg. I've brought this up before and been BBQ'd for it, but it's all to true in far to many cases. I have actually witnessed such a thing happen. Three officers, one suspect, suspect exited vehicle after a car chase with a revolver in his hand, officers opened fire, each reloading once, finally one officer retrieves shotgun from cruiser and puts the guy down. Total rounds fired, well over 40.The local paper reported 48 all in all. I would prefer to trust my life or that of my families to my own marksmanship thanks. This happened in 1994 in the small town near me. The perp was a bank robbery suspect that was fleeing north from the Vegas area. This type of incident does not leave me to confident in relying on the police for protection. In contrast, most private citizens that have had to use a firearm for defense fire only once or twice if at all. Therefore, I don't understand the rationale that says private citizens should not be allowed firearms for self defense or that the average citizen does not have the wherewithal, training and such, to use firearms for defensive purposes. With all the trainin that police officers recieve it would seem that officer involved shootings would be far less dramatic. Lol, if a private citizen were to go that trigger crazy in a defensive shooting he/she would no doubt be prosecuted for excessive force.
Gun restrictions are designed for honest people, criminals ignore them. It took me 12 month to get a gun permit in NYC: I have no criminal history, I pay taxes, I am educated, employed, family man. Criminals get guns on the corner in 5 minutes.
ALL CRIMINALS IGNORE RESTRICTIONS
That's my point.
Try this: A thief will ignore robbery laws, so we shouldn't enact any laws against robbery.
I'm on your side regarding gun rights, but using criminality as an argument against a law - any law - is nonsensical. That's what I was addressing.
I do not understand, why his daughters are more important than mine? Can you explain this one to be dear Sherlock? P.S. I have no doubt that Obama will be destroying our country for 8 not 4 years.
As a someone with three daughters, two stepdaughters and four granddaughters I find his no more and no less precious and worthy or protection than mine.
With an average criminal and average person trying to defend his family, a toothpick, a pen or a 22lr will not do any good. Normal calibers like 9mm and up need to be used to stop an attack, everything else is a demagogy. IMHO.
Perhaps. And perhaps that's why I have rather larger calibers available. I'm confident in my mareksmanship skills but why take any chances, right?
If you own a gun for protection, the stats tell us (for anyone who is wants a little facts with their NRA paranoia, that reference is located in my other post on this thread) that said gun is twenty-two times more likely to kill/wound a family member than it is to be used against an intruder.
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.
