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.
The irony here from the anti crowd is that should massive confiscation ever happen they will be expecting those who have.....wait for it... GUNS to do their dirty work!
I wish we were cooperative enough and intelligent enough as a whole to be without guns. But we are not.
I would not want a government to have all the guns and the people none. We are paying a high price for access to guns however.
I say if you are pro-gun then you should be pro-drugs as well. Don't be a hypocrite. How are you going to vote for guns to be accessible by almost all and not drugs?
Of course gun are more efficient than rocks and other primitive weapons.
So you understand the point, but still refuse to concede it? Forcing people to turn away from guns makes it less likely and more difficult for them to do grievous harm. That's a plus, by the way.
An alternative will always be found if need be, period.
Less effective alternatives are a win for society. Less death and mayhem is always better than more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangman66
If someone was going to rob you at gun point don't you think they would think twice if you also had a gun on you and knew how to use it?
No, they wouldn't think twice if you pulled out your gun. They'd simply shoot you. Just as a police officer would do. If you insist on making it a "him or you" situation, you are going to die.
If you hate guns that much , put a sign on your door "This is a gun free zone"
Actually, one of the things that home burglars most like to steal is guns. They are easier to carry off than flat-screen TV's and can be quickly and easily sold on the street for significant cash. As the result, burglars look for NRA bumper stickers on cars in a driveway as part of choosing which houses to hit next.
Last edited by Reynard32; 09-15-2015 at 04:27 PM..
Along with everywhere else, Florida's crime rates had been declining before the law went into effect (1999), and they continued to do so in the years after the law was passed. The law itself had little actual effect.
Firearms related offences dropped by 40% in the three months following the passing of the bill. Coincidence? I think not.
As for declining rates for violent crime on an annual basis... This is something that has been occurring all over the western world, and is directly related to the exposure of lead in the environment.
I have always wondered why anti-gun proponents always try to claim that a unilateral ban would be effective at stopping access to firearms. After all, there is a unilateral ban on cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines and there doesn't seem to be any kind of dent in the supply. Do you really think a ban on firearms would be any more effective?
I have always wondered why anti-gun proponents always try to claim that a unilateral ban would be effective at stopping access to firearms. After all, there is a unilateral ban on cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines and there doesn't seem to be any kind of dent in the supply. Do you really think a ban on firearms would be any more effective?
Are you kidding me? Can you just walk into any old store and buy cocaine?? Hell no. You have to know somebody who knows somebody.
The product is in such short supply that some junkies would drive across several state lines just to get their hands on the product. There are street dealers who make money solely by buying from the coastal cities and selling them in the mid-west where it would fly off shelves quicker than one can blink. Not only is it hard to find, it is F___ expensive. A kilo cost about $3,000 in its native land and over $60,000 by the time it arrives in the US!
If a crazed mentally disturbed kid from Connecticut had wanted to get high, he would have a much tougher time scoring. Lucky for him, he just wanted to shoot people and it couldn't have been easier for him to accomplish his goal.
.
So you understand the point, but still refuse to concede it? Forcing people to turn away from guns makes it less likely and more difficult for them to do grievous harm. That's a plus, by the way.
Looks like the UK is on your track....seems to be working so far huh?
Whatever reduces harm (i.e., death and mayhem) is a positive step. There is nothing of value in harm, whether it is coming from guns or knives or slingshots. You have no defense or excuse for all this harm. None. You simply don't care about it. You are not willing to take any step at all in order to help cut back on the senseless carnage.
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.
