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.
Yes, it does because rape is NOT responsible for abortion just like guns are NOT responsible for killing people. Grow a brain and some common sense while you are at it!
Add to that: GUN OWNERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIMES OF STEPHEN PADDOCK, DEVIN KELLY AND EVERY OTHER WACK A NUT WHO'S GONE ON A SHOOTING SPREE.
There has been a solution available for years. Centuries, in fact. Not a perfect one that would stop all shootings, there is no such thing. But one that would stop quite a few - far more than the present ineffective "reasonable restrictions" the liberals keep demonstrating as failures. Naturally, the gun-control advocates are careful to ignore and undermine it.
Let everybody who wants to, own and carry a gun wherever they want.
Even if the laws conform to the 2nd amendment (anyone can own and carry a gun if he wants), most people still wouldn't bother carrying. But a few would. And a criminal contemplating robbing or assaulting someone with a gun, would know there's likely one or two people in the crowd who has a gun and knows how to use it. He has no idea which direction a bullet might come from, but it's likely that one (or more) would.
And so he might decide not to commit his crime after all.
If just one or two people in that church in Sutherland Springs, TX had had a gun and knew how to use it (quite a few people in Texas know how), would the madman who shot nearly 50 people, have lasted long enough to get that many? Would he have gone on shooting if even one shot at him, came close?
Most importantly, if he had known that one or two people in that church were probably carrying, would he have gone there at all to try to do his mass murders?
How many crimes would never be committed in the first place, if everyone were allowed to carry, even if most didn't bother?
It wouldn't eliminate all of them, of course. But it would eliminate quite a few. And mostly without a shot being fired.
What would help curb gun violence? More or less guns?
Those are the only choices???
Once again, small-brained liberal crafts a poll where the correct answer is not allowed.
Where's the entry for "Same number of guns but no restrictions on who can carry, so the criminal knows that someone in the crowd near his intended victim is probably armed"?
If all restrictions were lifted, most people still wouldn't bother to carry, of course. But a few would, and the criminals would know it. And they would have no idea which direction a bullet might come from as they mugged the old lady or assaulted the guy at the ATM. So a lot of them would decide not to commit their crime in the first place. Presto, a major reduction in crime, without a shot being fired.
And for the diminishing number of criminals who would go ahead and do it anyway... well, let's just say that the recidivism rate would be noticeably lower than it is now.
A win-win solution all around. And the solution that the liberals absolutely do not want.
Those aren't liberal utopias. I live near Baltimore and hate it.
The U.S. has a gun death rate of 3.85 per 100,000. By comparison the United Kingdom and Germany are 0.07. Norway is 0.10. New Zealand is .11. Australia is .16.
And places like Norway and Switzerland have fairly high gun ownership (although still about 25-30% of US rates).
They just place much heavier restrictions on them. They require background checks, registry with police, they require a legitimate reason to own them (hunting/sport). And guess what, it works.
It is a 100% fact that the US has the worst gun violence problem in the entire 1st world. In America right to guns outweighs right to life. And this is one of countless reasons the US is not the greatest country on Earth.
The other countries you mention don't have hundreds of thousands of street gang members. Nor do they have a huge drug cartel war on their border that spills into their own country.
Yes, it does because rape is NOT responsible for abortion just like guns are NOT responsible for killing people. Grow a brain and some common sense while you are at it!
Your analogy would have made far more sense if you said "Guns are not responsible for killing people like a coat hanger is not responsible for abortions" Thus comparing tools in relation to their action not comparing a tool to a related action and then an action to an unrelated action. Sorry bud but common sense or not, your analogy was idiotic and nonsensical.
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-06-2017 at 05:08 PM..
Reason: rude
The other countries you mention don't have hundreds of thousands of street gang members. Nor do they have a huge drug cartel war on their border that spills into their own country.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Actually there are loads of street gangs in the UK and France, along with hooligans and otherwise. They don't shoot each other very often because its hard to get a hold of a gun.
Then why aren't there all these gun battles at shooting ranges when one person upsets another?
Why aren't there giant fights at golf courses when people upset each other? Probably because a majority of people don't want to hurt each other. Is the only thing stopping you from shooting another person the fact that they might shoot you back? I hope the answer is no.
Your analogy would have made far more sense if you said "Guns are not responsible for killing people like a coat hanger is not responsible for abortions" Thus comparing tools in relation to their action not comparing a tool to a related action and then an action to an unrelated action. Sorry bud but common sense or not, your analogy was idiotic and nonsensical.
Maybe my analogy goes a little further than your mind is capable of fathoming. I never claimed it to be one initially. Black and white self-righteous thinkers such as yourself are a plague to the country.
Rape is an irresponsible and unauthorized act as as is murder. Guns are not capable of being irresponsible. The analogy holds weight. They are inanimate objects. Get a clue. Your state and city stinks and has a very high crime rate. You should find something better to do than nitpick perceived erroneous analogies. Someone using a coat hangar would be doing something that the subject most likely willingly asked for so it would NOT be a good analogy and I am not your "bud".
Rape and murder are not authorized by the subject, get it ?
Last edited by CaseyB; 11-06-2017 at 05:07 PM..
Reason: rude
We have a right to protect ourselves from those who are armed and of the criminal element.
I have a gun to protect myself for anyone who wants to invade my house. I also have a nice sticker placed at eye level on entry doors that reads. NEVER MIND DOG, BEWARE OF OWNER with a pic of a gun pointing out.
Anyone who looks at that just may decide not to invade my home.
Or if they do, they will certainly be armed.
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.
