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.
We cannot draw conclusions from just one story. Here is a story I haven't seen widely reported: a 16 year old girl in a Seattle suburb shot her neighbor's ex-boyfriend, who (allegedly) had a history of domestic violence. She used a .22 pistol to shoot at him after he attacked her with a knife, causing him to flee. He was later caught and arrested.
A woman told deputies her ex-boyfriend had threatened her with a knife and vandalized her vehicle before leaving, sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said.
The teen and her mother, who live across the street, checked on the woman about 7 a.m.
When they returned home, the girl discovered the power had been shut off. She armed herself with a .22-caliber pistol.
“The teen said that she heard a noise coming from the back door and saw the suspect standing in the doorway,” Troyer said.
The man allegedly was armed with a knife.
“The teenage victim said that the suspect told her ‘she was going to die’ and reportedly began trying to stab her with a knife,” Troyer said. “The victim said he stabbed at her six or seven times, cutting her shirt and superficially cutting her arm.”
The teen said she kicked the man and fired a shot at him before he ran away.
Does this mean that we should arm teen girls? Absolutely not, and actually what she did was illegal under state law. It does go to show that you don't need an assault-style weapon, unless you are police or military.
Right, and how exactly are you going to eliminate up to 400 million privately owned firearms that are in the hands of roughly 100 million gun owners?
The easiest and most effective way, would be to go about conditioning/ brainwashing the owners of those guns into believing guns should only be in the hands of police or military.
This really does work, Ive seen gun buy backs or turn in stations pop up after mass shootings and many people interviewed y media, claim after this latest mass shooting, its enough for them, they do not want guns in their house anymore....See how easy it is to manipulate public opinion so it lines up with what a tyrannical govt wants? Very sneaky but very clever.
No, I didn't say that. I'm not talking about a norm. I'm talking about what pro-gun people imagine.
As it happens, speaking of "one" story, there was a great instance, a while back, of a armed man walking into a bar, with the intention of a major shooting, who was tackled by a woman bartender.
The articke in OP doesn't even counter the thread tutle or your premise. The premise was that we think more guns will make things better and link to a story where a guy managed to tackle the gun out of the shooter's hands. That be like me trying to counter the premise that cars make things bettee by linking to a story where a guy still rides a horse and buggy. Him riding a horse and buggy doesn't disprove that driving a car is better. A real counterargument to cars making things better is to point to all the accidents and pollution cars cause. Same with your premise. If ypu want to disprove that more guns will make things better, you need to link to an article where law abiding citizens bringing guns into a situation made things worse.
The easiest and most effective way, would be to go about conditioning/ brainwashing the owners of those guns into believing guns should only be in the hands of police or military.
This really does work, Ive seen gun buy backs or turn in stations pop up after mass shootings and many people interviewed y media, claim after this latest mass shooting, its enough for them, they do not want guns in their house anymore....See how easy it is to manipulate public opinion so it lines up with what a tyrannical govt wants? Very sneaky but very clever.
I doubt those types of gun owners make up the bulk of those who own firearms. They're the types that inherited their relative's gun or bought a gun when there was a crime wave in the area, shoot a box of ammo at the range and stick it in their sock drawer never to see the light of day again. The staunch 2nd amendment advocate or firearms enthusiast/collector for the most part aren't persuaded by such tactics.
Yours is an argument that one can not win. Laws do not apply to those intent on breaking them. Your argument IMO only harms the bigger argument here. One does not have to be armed to come out on top.
I am pro 2nd Amendment (I support the entire Constitution) but I have zero desire to walk around armed. This guy did alright for himself.
You basically proved my point.
It takes a well organized terrorist organization and a military commander bombing building specialist to carry out that attack.
What is the likelihood that some loser from Antioch, Tennessee has that kind of support and connection?
It's wrong for anyone to say "I need protection but you do not".
Agreed and repped, pknop.
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.
