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.
A gun is a woman’s best line of defense against rape. Yet the left wants to deny women the means to defend themselves against rapists.
I just don't understand their logic. Women, and the elderly are often preyed upon more by criminals as typically they are weaker physically. Why would you want to deny someone more at risk at least a chance to successfully defend themselves against attackers?
I live in a nice area that is pretty affluent with very low crime. Yet, not long ago there was a home invasion of an elderly couple by multiple attackers. They broke down the door, beat both people to near death, took what they could, and left them for dead. They were found a few days later, near death, by a concerned relative. They did not have a firearm to protect themselves, so were totally at the criminal's mercy.
Several such studies have been done, including studies made during the Clinton and Obama administrations. For some reason, they are getting very little media attention.
A gun is a woman’s best line of defense against rape. Yet the left wants to deny women the means to defend themselves against rapists.
Do they really want to ban all guns? All I've seen when it comes to bans is that some on the left want to ban certain types of guns but few, if any, want to ban all guns.
If you eliminate the military from that equation, based on what's in the news, the lives saved will be fairly few.
And I suspect that when lives are saved - it's mostly because the criminals had guns in the first place.
What you suspect and what is real don't match. Here's your problem "based on what's in the news". The liberal media does all it can to avoid any positive reference to uses of firearms. Reality doesn't match "based on what's in the news".
Even the rabidly anti gun Violence Policy Center's study shows 95,000 defensive uses of firearms every year. The CDC study showed as many as 3,000,000 per year. You think few of those resulted in lives saved?
So what if it's because criminals had guns in the first place, they will ALWAYS have guns, it's already ILLEGAL for them to have them, no law you can pass will change that.
But the 'balance' between lives saved and lives lost is SO lopsided that there is no point!! The US gun laws = the highest (by quite some distance) amount of gun deaths in the whole of the first world. You simply cannot argue against the stats, you have more chance of arguing that fighting fire with petrol is a good idea!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and have no idea what so ever how many lives are saved per year. People like you include suicides in "gun deaths", that counts for 66% of ALL firearm deaths in the US. 27% are felons killing other felons, you're probably sad about that too, 3% are justifiable homicides - more felons dead for you to cry over. Leaving 4% or roughly 1,320 out of 325,000,000.
Bare minimum 95,000 defensive uses of firearms every year in the US. If only 1.5% of those resulted in a single life saved more innocent lives would be saved than lost, and in many cases it's more than one.
Are you to closed minded to even entertain the idea you might be wrong and take an HONEST look at the stats? Or are you going to continue to parrot anti gun nonsense?
Do you need an AK15 to protect yourself - or will a hand gun do?
Well it is AR-15. An AK-47, or AK-74 are actually capable of fully automatic fire. No big deal, I get what you meant. There are semi automatic rifles available legally that resemble them cosmetically, but no full auto.
Do we need a fast cars, big houses, nice jewelry, nice clothes, expensive vacations, big trucks? In an L.A. riot, or any riot situation, yes it would be wise to have an AR-15. Would a hand gun dp? Maybe, maybe not. It may leave the victim out of ammo, and out of options.
Personally, while I do have an AR-15 at standby in my gun safe, my primary is semi auto pistol, and a 74 year old relic from WWII as back up. It is also a rifle, semi automatic, and accepts fifteen, and thirty round magazines. Should we move to ban those too?
Why in the world would you want to disarm private citizens while allowing the State, and its goons, to stay strapped? And why do you say "most" of the government and military? Why not all? Are they somehow better and/or more important than us? Are their lives worth more than ours?
From your username, I assume you are a black man. Why in the world would you not want to disarm cops until after we are? They're the ones who are shooting y'all down by the hundreds.
If we disarm cops first, criminals will go rampant with their weapons. If we disarm private citizens first, criminals can still go rampant with weapons but as guns get decommissioned their is less guns available for criminals to steal or buy illegally. Then when criminals switch to things like knives which are less dangerous than guns we disarm the police, then once we get the police disarmed the military is next but we still need a small defense force that will protect us from invasion and protect our borders. We also need a small armed police forces for the few remaining armed criminals.
About police violence. If citizens arent armed, why should police be armed? Their is no justification if the majority of criminals can’t pick up a gun. If police aren’t armed that is infinitely safer for Black people than it is currently. In fact police brutality for all races would go down as police won’t have the fear that everyone is trying to shoot them, and thus police shootings would plummet not only because citizens are unarmed but because they will be next to be unarmed.
A guy on quora was recently boasting how 3 times being armed caused him to be safer. In all 3 cases he escalated the confrontation because he was armed but anyone unarmed could have walked away earlier if unarmed.
The common denominator was all 3 bad guys were unarmed.
I pointed out that in his perfect world of guns guns guns and everyone is armed all three scenarios now leave him squaring off with armed opponents.
This is equally applicable to this thread. Imagine everyone is armed. How many lives will be saved when people start drawing guns on each other?
The current situation sees gun proponents thinking they are the only ones armed and they are the white knight that will save the day. This suggests emotional instability.
We should not infringe on the right to store a couple of rifles or a handgun at home. Concealed or open carry, hell no. We pay police to ensure safety in populated areas, not would be Rambos or Joe Fridays.
I just don't understand their logic. Women, and the elderly are often preyed upon more by criminals as typically they are weaker physically. Why would you want to deny someone more at risk at least a chance to successfully defend themselves against attackers?
I live in a nice area that is pretty affluent with very low crime. Yet, not long ago there was a home invasion of an elderly couple by multiple attackers. They broke down the door, beat both people to near death, took what they could, and left them for dead. They were found a few days later, near death, by a concerned relative. They did not have a firearm to protect themselves, so were totally at the criminal's mercy.
Nice anecdotal story with a fallacious assumption added for good measure. A good alarm system would have provided the same or better level of guarantee from possible harm.
Most situations such as that one result in those folks still being victims with yet one more gun now in the hands of their assailants.
All of this nonsense usually ignores the reality you've created the perfect paradox of having to arm yourselves to protect yourselves from cretins who are armed.
No other first world country's citizens would desire your present conundrum and have by vote/plebiscite/referendum taken prudent steps to avoid it.
They've seen where it's gotten you and want no part of that.
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.
