Let's end this part of the gun debate

[Rinata]

If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun Martin would be alive.

If Martin would have went home instead of coming back. Sad.


Florida State Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.

Experts: Zimmerman's attorney made smart move

Wrong!!! If Zimmerman would have left him alone and not followed him, like he was told, it would have had a different ending. But I see you totally ignore that little fact.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wrong!!! If Zimmerman would have left him alone and not followed him, like he was told, it would have had a different ending. But I see you totally ignore that little fact.

I don't ignore it all.

I think it was tactically unsound to unass the vehicle for the very reason the evidence showed what happened.

But his choice to do so was not illegal.

 

[Rinata]

Wrong!!! If Zimmerman would have left him alone and not followed him, like he was told, it would have had a different ending. But I see you totally ignore that little fact.

I don't ignore it all.

I think it was tactically unsound to unass the vehicle for the very reason the evidence showed what happened.

But his choice to do so was not illegal.

Yes, I'm sure that's what you think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The anti gun people argues that if the public is armed people will get killed
I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

You come across as one of those right wing nutcases with an arsenal of weapons, walking around with an itchy trigger finger waiting for the moment you can smoke someone, so can you be called a "hero"

Itchy finger? Dude you watch way to much CSI. do cops also walk around with itchy fingers?

bUT THIS STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS THE OP Try again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Florida approaches 1 million concealed weapons permits | firstcoastnews.com

And yet no shoot outs in the streets by legal law abiding permit holders. No shoot outs at the local bar and grill. No shoot outs at the game or amusement parks. Were we not assured if Florida approved concealed care that it would become like the old west with daily shoot outs in the streets?

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

CARE to address the OP before you attempt to derail it?>

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The anti gun people argues that if the public is armed people will get killed
I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

You come across as one of those right wing nutcases with an arsenal of weapons, walking around with an itchy trigger finger waiting for the moment you can smoke someone, so can you be called a "hero"

That was George Zimmerman's problem. There are too many idiots that want attention.

Let's address the op before you derail this thread.

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The anti gun people argues that if the public is armed people will get killed
I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

Try again when you're sober. And keep your guns locked up until you are.

Why dont you add something of substance to a thread once in a while?

Because when you can't you deflect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.

You haven't heard enough then.

Proof?
What I want too see is someone who can legally carry a firearm who has used their firearm to prevent a criminal from robbing harming or killing another person or a number of people and the legally carrying citizen killed an innocent by standard?

 

[Artevelde]

Florida approaches 1 million concealed weapons permits | firstcoastnews.com

And yet no shoot outs in the streets by legal law abiding permit holders. No shoot outs at the local bar and grill. No shoot outs at the game or amusement parks. Were we not assured if Florida approved concealed care that it would become like the old west with daily shoot outs in the streets?

True.

 

[JoeB131]

The anti gun people argues that if the public is armed people will get killed
I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

Guns are 43 times more likely to kill the gunowner or a member of his household than a bad guy.

Sorry, that doesnt' fly. The last thing this situation needs is "more guns".

 

[nitroz]

The results of more people having guns ended with a much lower total murder percentage. The bad side of it? Even the total amount of murders has come down alot, gun related murders became the majority of the reduced statistic.

You can't end violence.

 

[Ravi]

If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun Martin would be alive.

If Martin would have went home instead of coming back. Sad.


Florida State Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.

Experts: Zimmerman's attorney made smart move

I didn't mean to make this into an argument over Zimmerman's right or not to do what he did.

Just pointing out that when people walk around with guns trouble ensues.

I think people that feel the need to constantly carry a gun are cowards.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The anti gun people argues that if the public is armed people will get killed
I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

Guns are 43 times more likely to kill the gunowner or a member of his household than a bad guy.

Sorry, that doesnt' fly. The last thing this situation needs is "more guns".

Sorry your opinion is not acceptable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Back on topic

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Zimmerman hadn't had a gun Martin would be alive.

If Martin would have went home instead of coming back. Sad.


Florida State Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.

Experts: Zimmerman's attorney made smart move

I didn't mean to make this into an argument over Zimmerman's right or not to do what he did.

Just pointing out that when people walk around with guns trouble ensues.

I think people that feel the need to constantly carry a gun are cowards.

I think people that feel the need to constantly carry a gun are cowards.

Why are you calling the police cowards?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tell that to Trayvon Martin.

He was involved in a shoot out? Funny I hadn't read that. Zimmerman claims self defense by the way and his injuries and eye witness testimony seem to support his version of events.

Martin was killed by a vigilante. Pretty simple, really.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Rinata]

Back on topic

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it hasn't happened. Try to stay away from words like never and always, unless you can back it up with actual facts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Back on topic

I have never heard of someone going to a place to rob it and someone else is there with a gun and their ends up a shoot out and a innocent bystander getting shot by the person who was their trying to shoot the bad guy who was trying to rob the place.
Why is it that when someone who is legally armed ends up and kills the bad guy no one else is killed?
But only when the bad guy has a gun others get killed?

Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it hasn't happened. Try to stay away from words like never and always, unless you can back it up with actual facts.

Just because you have never heard of it does not mean it hasn't happened.

Has it? That's the basis of the anti gun crowd argument. With all those millions of guns out their you would hear about some by standard being killed by a legally arm citizen who was using his firearm to stop a crime

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"For the sake of argument, let's accept the supposition that outlawing firearms would save lives. Does it logically follow from this that guns should be restricted or banned?

Well, it would certainly save lives and countless injuries if people didn't engage in mountain-climbing, hang-gliding, motorcycle-racing, trampolining, big-wave surfing, cave-diving, heli-skiing, and a host of other dangerous activities. And, like guns, knives and baseball bats are common murder weapons. Does it logically follow that these items and activities should be banned?

The point is that we never treat saving lives as the only imperative when devising policy. If we did, we'd perhaps consider reducing speed limits on highways to 5 mph, since this might save most of the 43,000 lives lost on the road each year. Speaking of which, since 40 percent of those deaths are alcohol-related, we can consider resurrecting Prohibition, too.

Now, since gun-control advocates think they have morality on their side, they may want to ponder a question: is it moral to sacrifice 43,000 lives just so we can be free to zip around at 55 or 65 mph? The answer here is that the safety imperative is balanced against an economic one, in that too much productivity would be lost with a five-mph speed limit.

But sometimes far more trivial things trump the safety imperative. No one needs to drink alcohol, go rock-climbing, or play baseball when doing so necessitates the availability of a dangerous weapon. So, imagine that, we're actually placing fun and enjoyment ahead of saving lives. In fact, some among us will even tolerate death on a massive scale if we think the reason is good enough. An example is when the anti-gun left is willing to accept 1.2 million killings a year through abortion........"



Read more: Articles: What Everyone Forgets When Debating Gun Control

 

[Rinata]

Go **** yourself, loser.

And there it is!!! You cannot defend your point of view so you lash out with a childish insult. I think you are the loser here.

Thank you!!!!