Why Gun Control is Bullshit

[JoeB131]

That stat is bullshit so stop repeating it.

And if the chance of a bad guy breaking in is very small then 43 times that likelihood is still very small.

BTW the likelihood of one of my guns being used to injure my wife is 0.

I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else's likelihood is.

Every gun nuts says that until there is a tragedy.

If the chances are very small, then you don't need guns.

No when there is absolutely no chance of being the victim of a violent crime then there is no need for guns.

Let me know when that day comes.

there is no need for guns when there IS a chance, because most of you wouldn't know what to do if mugged or assaulted, anyway.

That's why defensive gun uses are rarer than lightening strikes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Every gun nuts says that until there is a tragedy.

If the chances are very small, then you don't need guns.

No when there is absolutely no chance of being the victim of a violent crime then there is no need for guns.

Let me know when that day comes.

there is no need for guns when there IS a chance, because most of you wouldn't know what to do if mugged or assaulted, anyway.

That's your worthless opinion

That's why defensive gun uses are rarer than lightening strikes.

Where are your stats on defensive gun use?
If you're going to make a statement like that then back it up.

And since most gun owners will never shoot anyone there is no need to restrict their ownership of guns.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Where are your stats on defensive gun use?
If you're going to make a statement like that then back it up.

And since most gun owners will never shoot anyone there is no need to restrict their ownership of guns.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

Where are your stats on defensive gun use?
If you're going to make a statement like that then back it up.

And since most gun owners will never shoot anyone there is no need to restrict their ownership of guns.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Where are your stats on defensive gun use?
If you're going to make a statement like that then back it up.

And since most gun owners will never shoot anyone there is no need to restrict their ownership of guns.

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

 

[Wildman]

Every gun nuts says that until there is a tragedy.

If the chances are very small, then you don't need guns.

how many "tragedy" do you know of ??

there is no "NEED" for a gun, nor is there a "WANT".., have you ever heard about a "RIGHT" ???????

expand my avatar and read it, if you "NEED" any further explanation, just ask any Patriot......., OK ?

I've known of two people who took their own lives with guns that they or a member of their family bought for protection. One was my next door neighbor. (he most likely took his life because you drove him to it !!)

Also, don't want to break this to you, there are no "rights". There are only privilages (privileges) that the rest of society lets you have. It isn't a right if it can be taken away from you. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up Japanese-Americans, 1942, for clarification. (did you know that a liarberal democRAT done this dastardly deed ?)

Incidently, I don't think of patriotism to let a few greedy gun companies market their products to crazy people because they are greedy.

joebee, you are one of the most ignorant liarberals i know of on this great forum..,

there are no "rights". There are only privilages

so what i interpret from the above stupidity, you have no "RIGHT" to free speech ?? am i correct ?

you prove the statement, "GOD saves children, fools and drunks"
which one are you ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

Pointing a gun is not lethal force is it?

What you don't understand is that you don't have to fire a gun for it to be a deterrent.

And what about all the times the bad guy isn't killed?

As I said you conveniently ignore that possibility.

 

[TexM3]

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

If someone much bigger and stronger is raping your wife or daughter what do you do; kindly ask him to stop, or call the police make some coffee and wait in the other room for them to show up?

 

[Jarlaxle]

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

here you go- again.

According to the FBI, only 201 times were guns used in self-defense by civlians to kill a bad guy.

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?

And the whole "He was totally scared of my gun" shit doesn't fly with me. If his intent was to kill you, he'd have plugged you before you got your gun out in your shaking hand, trying to look threatening.

You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

No, that's another of your LIES!

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

Statistics don't lie, but liars use (and lie about) statistics...right, liar?

 

[JoeB131]

[

If someone much bigger and stronger is raping your wife or daughter what do you do; kindly ask him to stop, or call the police make some coffee and wait in the other room for them to show up?

ooooh, the scary rape question.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a rapist who is so dumb that he's got his pants around his ankles and letting the woman's husband run around loose.

but only in Gun-Fetishist land does this scenario happen.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

No, that's another of your LIES!

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

Statistics don't lie, but liars use (and lie about) statistics...right, liar?

Not at all.

Frankly, it's immoral to kill someone becuase he's stealing your car or your widescreen, don't you think. That's stuff's insured and can be replaced.

Unless you got an affadavitt from that crook saying, "Yup, I was going to totally going to kill him, but then I saw he had a gun", you really don't have an argument that the gun saved any lives.

 

[tjvh]

How do tyrannical people project their ideology and impose their will on an armed populace?

By first disarming them of course.

That is what the liberal gun grab is really about.

 

[tjvh]

[

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

No, that's another of your LIES!

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

Statistics don't lie, but liars use (and lie about) statistics...right, liar?

Not at all.

Frankly, it's immoral to kill someone becuase he's stealing your car or your widescreen, don't you think. That's stuff's insured and can be replaced.

Unless you got an affadavitt from that crook saying, "Yup, I was going to totally going to kill him, but then I saw he had a gun", you really don't have an argument that the gun saved any lives.

Why don't you try to take my property and see how well that works out for you.

 

[JoeB131]

I've known of two people who took their own lives with guns that they or a member of their family bought for protection. One was my next door neighbor. (he most likely took his life because you drove him to it !!)

Also, don't want to break this to you, there are no "rights". There are only privilages (privileges) that the rest of society lets you have. It isn't a right if it can be taken away from you. Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up Japanese-Americans, 1942, for clarification. (did you know that a liarberal democRAT done this dastardly deed ?)

Incidently, I don't think of patriotism to let a few greedy gun companies market their products to crazy people because they are greedy.

joebee, you are one of the most ignorant liarberals i know of on this great forum..,

there are no "rights". There are only privilages

so what i interpret from the above stupidity, you have no "RIGHT" to free speech ?? am i correct ?

you prove the statement, "GOD saves children, fools and drunks"
which one are you ?

Actually, my neighbor killed himself because he had half a dozen chronic health issues and couldn't take it anymore. But that's okay, you're such a classy guy.

To the point, there are no rights. If public opinion turned against the gun nuts and they passed a sweeping gun law that confiscated most private guns, (which is EXACTLY what happened the UK) that would be it.

And you guys are maybe one or two school shooting rampages away from that coming to pass.

If you had any sense, you'd go along with some sensible laws to keep Joker Holmes and Adam Lanza from getting guns.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Why don't you try to take my property and see how well that works out for you.

I'm sure you fantasize about that day and night.

The best argument for gun control is to let the Gun Nuts talk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So defense means killing in your tiny mind? How many times was a gun used and the assailant wasn't killed or shot?



You assume that the assailant has a gun, you assume that the assailant was committed to murder, both of which are certainly not always true.

A guy with a knife, a bat, a pipe, or even his sheer physical size etc can violently assail people

You conveniently forget these facts.

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

No, that's another of your LIES!

A lie, or abject stupidity.

An assailant need only have means, which in no way necessarily equates to a weapon.
Further, an assailant only need act in a manner where the victim has reasonable fear of death or great bodily harn.

And so, contrary to his statement, granny has every right to shoot the fomer NFL lineman if she has a reasonable fear of him raping her.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

If the assaliant doesn't intend to commit murder, or is doesn't have a gun, then lethal force isn't justified.

No, that's another of your LIES!

Point is, the cases you can point to where a good guy kills a bad guy are so rare that they are statistically insignifigant.

Statistics don't lie, but liars use (and lie about) statistics...right, liar?

Not at all.

Frankly, it's immoral to kill someone becuase(sic) he's stealing your car or your widescreen, don't you think. That's stuff's insured and can be replaced.

If an intruder is in my house uninvited, he is a potentially lethal threat unless and until proven otherwise.

Unless you got an affadavitt from that crook saying, "Yup, I was going to totally going to kill him, but then I saw he had a gun", you really don't have an argument that the gun saved any lives.

Stupid, even by your standards.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, I think you show the problem of the modern Gun Nut.

He feels helpless against society, but as long as he has they hypothetical ability to kill an imaginary tormentor, he feels empowered.

Clinging to guns and bibles, indeed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yer projecting AGAIN, junior.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.