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 reason the 2nd amendment works, of course, is that people who want to kill someone else (including whackos who want to rack up huge body counts before the cops arrive and kill them), realize that when all law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry, a few people in the crowd probably actually do have a gun. And so they know they are in mortal danger themselves, if they actually try it. And the whacko knows that after his first few shots, he'll probably get a bullet from some unknown direction, and his dreams of lurid headlines for months after his own death, will be abruptly stopped.
And so even the whackos know that opening fire in a shopping mall won't accomplish what he wants... and so they are a lot less likely to try.
A rare COMPLETELY insane one might still try. But even then, he might kill one or two people, instead of dozens.
But many such murders simply won't happen in the first place.
Deterrence is the best reason for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry. Most still won't bother, but a few will. And the whackos won't know which ones they are, or where. It's enough to make most of the whackos change jobs.
Actually, the vast majority of these killings are committed by people with prior criminal records.
Nice try.
No one is trying here; and if your reading comprehension skills cannot keep pace here's what I said: "a significant number" as in the last notable cases have been by licensed carry permit holders which makes those numbers significant. Significant definition is not exclusionary to "greater" but merely notable!
America where some people equate an item designed exclusively and expressly for the taking of human life.
O.K., expecting a reputable link to back this BS claim up....but continue with your leftist lies....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
to swimming pools, cars and the plethora of other things all designed for peoples pleasure rather than their death. .
Thanks for proving my point....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
It's not the guns fault but the nuts that can far too easily purchase them. You're not allowed to own Abrams tanks or nukes either, ever wonder why?
And here we go ladies and gentleman....when a leftist has lost a discussion they bring out the nukeks and tanks....BTW you forgot the battleship, aircraft carrier, fighter jet...blah blah blah argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Keep heading down your road of regression and one day you'll need one of those tanks just to observe your right to "self defense". You'll be much happier then I suspect, regardless if you can carry the thing or not.
LOL...keep your head in the sand thinking that more laws will keep criminals from getting guns....
America where some people equate an item designed exclusively and expressly for the taking of human life to swimming pools, cars and the plethora of other things all designed for peoples pleasure rather than their death.
It's not the guns fault but the nuts that can far too easily purchase them. You're not allowed to own Abrams tanks or nukes either, ever wonder why?
Keep heading down your road of regression and one day you'll need one of those tanks just to observe your right to "self defense". You'll be much happier then I suspect, regardless if you can carry the thing or not.
This argument that guns are designed solely for killing is always popular among anti-gun folk, but unfortunately it is fallacious at several levels.
First of all, it's not really true that guns are designed "for the taking of human life." For example a Hammerli target pistol is designed for the precise punching of holes in paper. Even a cop's Glock 22 loaded w/ Speer Gold Dots is designed not to kill, but to stop. Every aspect of its design is geared towards quickly halting the forward progress of that guy who is running at you with a machete in his hand. Whether he is killed or not is not a design consideration.
Secondly, when it comes to regulation of dangerous objects, the intent of the designer is really irrelevant. Take a bayonet vs. a butcher knife, for example. The former is "designed to kill" whereas the latter is designed for food preparation. Does it therefore make sense to regulate them differently? Obviously, not. The intent of the designer is irrelevant, and so to make it a focal point is a fallacious argument.
No one is trying here; and if your reading comprehension skills cannot keep pace here's what I said: "a significant number" as in the last notable cases have been by licensed carry permit holders which makes those numbers significant. Significant definition is not exclusionary to "greater" but merely notable!
Sure. Just not significant enough to justify making any laws restricting guns.
I find it strange that significant numbers of killings are occurring by the so-called, law abiding people.
Yep; it takes a real man to carry a weapon and all those who suggest otherwise are "whiners". I remember that tactic being used in public school to describe why some cozied up to the bully in the playground.
You people are confusing as all get-out. Just one wrongful death by a firearm should be one too many but here you are describing them as acceptable losses compared to cars and such.
I know and fully understand that you are incapable of understanding this but I'll try...
This is going to be a death netural comment:
A death is a death, does it matter how the death happens...to the left and you it does...(guns) however, again, a death is a death and why are you and the left so upset at guns when other things kills far more than guns...
This argument that guns are designed solely for killing is always popular among anti-gun folk, but unfortunately it is fallacious at several levels.
First of all, it's not really true that guns are designed "for the taking of human life." For example a Hammerli target pistol is designed for the precise punching of holes in paper. Even a cop's Glock 22 loaded w/ Speer Gold Dots is designed not to kill, but to stop. Every aspect of its design is geared towards quickly halting the forward progress of that guy who is running at you with a machete in his hand. Whether he is killed or not is not a design consideration.
Secondly, when it comes to regulation of dangerous objects, the intent of the designer is really irrelevant. Take a bayonet vs. a butcher knife, for example. The former is "designed to kill" whereas the latter is designed for food preparation. Does it therefore make sense to regulate them differently? Obviously, not. The intent of the designer is irrelevant, and so to make it a focal point is a fallacious argument.
What about bows and arrows? Swords? Specific lengths of rope?
It is a silly argument, because even if true or false, is completely irrelevant when discussing civil rights.
Furthermore, if someone was truly concerned about loss of life, there are things many times more deadly than guns that are perfectly legal. Why not focus on those first? Why plug a leak on the top side of the boat and ignore the iceberg tearing through the hull?
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.
