Man uses his concealed gun to save life of woman entering abortion clinic...likely there to kill her baby. Leftists cry.

[JoeB131]

And as I pointed out, 95 and change per year is a very small number.

Not really. Not if it was someone you cared about getting shot by a nut someone let get a gun.

Okay, so you are perfectly willing to put a price tag on human life, just like everyone else. In your case, you want to be able to drive your compensator fast and loud more than you want tens of thousands of lives saved. Just admit that's the price of a human life to you.

Actually, I rarely exceed the speed limit. I think in something like 35 years of driving, I've gotten all of one speeding ticket. I doubt I've racked up 10 moving violations in my whole driving career.

What I have done- driven to work safely and quietly, because I need to drive to get to work, and maybe the occasional vacation.

Point is, we could get rid of all the cars, if we put in extensive public transportation, and it would still be a pain to get anywhere. (I didn't get a driver's license until I was 25, and relied on public trans to get to work and school)

Your ideal world doesn't exist, and would be impossible to attain in America.

Why is America special? I mean, yeah, we are kind of "Special" in the short bus need a helmet kind of way. But other countries ban private gun ownership, or limit it to just responsible people. They don't have anywhere near our levels of crime.

Other countries have to publish brochures on "How Not to get shot when visiting America". You know, like that Japanese kid who got shot because he got the wrong address while going to a Halloween party with his AMerican friends.

Killing of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you guys whine when most cases are cleared that way. Look, man, I know that Zimmerman is in your pantheons of guys who did what you don't have the balls to do... but he's a seriously messed up dude, who never should have been playing Batman while hopped up on meds... which he was.

He was attacked by an animal. If he didn't shoot Martin and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been charged with felonious assault and tried as an adult. He probably would have served several years in prison which is where he should have been in the first place.

Uh, no buddy, I promise you, if you committed a hate crime tomorrow, everything you posted here would be posted in big fonts to make you look crazy... and it wouldn't be much of an effort.

"He once compared black people to Racoons".

Nobody ever compared black people to raccoons. What did I tell you about trying to debate using lies? You never learn.

Are you proporting that picture of a kid smoking is Rice? Because it isn't.

The reality is, if there was a scary picture of a 12 year old, it would ALL OVER FOX NEWS. But funny thing. It isn't.

What do you mean it isn't a picture of him? Why is that, because your MSM who was hoping for riots over the matter didn't post it? Facebook pictures of Martin are all over the internet. They didn't scrub it fast enough.

If anybody thinks that the picture of Rice was a 5'7" and 195 pound kid needs to have their head or eyes examined, or both.

 

[hadit]

And as I pointed out, 95 and change per year is a very small number.

Not really. Not if it was someone you cared about getting shot by a nut someone let get a gun.

Kind of like this woman is glad someone was there with a gun to chase off the guy who was trying to kill her. If he didn't have a gun, he could have come at her with a knife, same outcome, except if a passerby was armed with a knife, someone would have gotten cut.

Okay, so you are perfectly willing to put a price tag on human life, just like everyone else. In your case, you want to be able to drive your compensator fast and loud more than you want tens of thousands of lives saved. Just admit that's the price of a human life to you.

Actually, I rarely exceed the speed limit. I think in something like 35 years of driving, I've gotten all of one speeding ticket. I doubt I've racked up 10 moving violations in my whole driving career.

What I have done- driven to work safely and quietly, because I need to drive to get to work, and maybe the occasional vacation.

Point is, we could get rid of all the cars, if we put in extensive public transportation, and it would still be a pain to get anywhere. (I didn't get a driver's license until I was 25, and relied on public trans to get to work and school)

But you would not accept lowering the speed limit to a level that would prevent close to 100% of the highway deaths, because you're willing to trade human life for the privilege of driving fast. Speed is the value you place on life.

Your ideal world doesn't exist, and would be impossible to attain in America.

Why is America special? I mean, yeah, we are kind of "Special" in the short bus need a helmet kind of way. But other countries ban private gun ownership, or limit it to just responsible people. They don't have anywhere near our levels of crime.

Other countries have to publish brochures on "How Not to get shot when visiting America". You know, like that Japanese kid who got shot because he got the wrong address while going to a Halloween party with his AMerican friends.

Killing of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

America is special for one very practical reason. There are simply far too many guns in circulation right now that the government has no knowledge of who has what and where they are to gather them all up in a short enough period of time that we wouldn't see a massive spike in gun crime as criminals know that the law abiding won't be armed anywhere. Then you're going to turn millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for simply refusing to let the 2nd Amendment end because liberals think it's icky. Then you would spark a whole new shooting war as people will violently remove from office the treasonous twits that violated the Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

He was attacked by an animal. If he didn't shoot Martin and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been charged with felonious assault and tried as an adult. He probably would have served several years in prison which is where he should have been in the first place.

Actually, if the cops pulled up, Martin could have said, "This weird guy was stalking me on the way back to my apartment." And he would have been fine.

Nobody ever compared black people to raccoons. What did I tell you about trying to debate using lies? You never learn.

You've used that metaphor several times. Not to mention comparing them to spoiled milk and several other unpleasant analogies you've used to dehumanize them.

What do you mean it isn't a picture of him? Why is that, because your MSM who was hoping for riots over the matter didn't post it? Facebook pictures of Martin are all over the internet. They didn't scrub it fast enough.

Um, yeah, if the worst you could come up with was "Here's a picture of him smoking", this isn't the fucking 1950's, guy. Smoking is no longer considered a sign of juvenile deliquency.

Where are the pictures of 12 year old Tamir Rice looking menacing...

Oh, there aren't any. because he was a 12 year old kid.

 

[JoeB131]

Kind of like this woman is glad someone was there with a gun to chase off the guy who was trying to kill her. If he didn't have a gun, he could have come at her with a knife, same outcome, except if a passerby was armed with a knife, someone would have gotten cut.

Except he wasn't trying to kill her, he was trying to stop her from aborting his kid.

But you would not accept lowering the speed limit to a level that would prevent close to 100% of the highway deaths, because you're willing to trade human life for the privilege of driving fast. Speed is the value you place on life.

Except there isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower speed limits save that many lives.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US imposed a national 55 MPH limit in 1974, not because they wanted to save lives, but because they wanted to save gas. In fact the death rate didn't go down, it went up slightly for the next 4 years. They finally revoked this silly law in 1995, and this amazing thing happened when teh Speed limit went back up to 65 and 70. The fatality rate didn't go up. It in fact went down the next five years.

In fact, it has been on an almost continuous decline since 1996.

Now, since you brought it up, the government HAS mandated a lot of safety features in cars. Air bags, seat belt laws, etc. And unlike the gun industry, the auto industry has not only gone along with this, they've actually gotten ahead of the game by introducing these things.

Of course, here's the key thing. Cars aren't designed to kill people. While the Auto Industry to it's credit has been in a race to make their products safer, killing a lot of crash test dummies in the process, the gun industry has been upping the ante to put more dangerous guns out there and putting them in the hands of increasingly dangerous people.

America is special for one very practical reason. There are simply far too many guns in circulation right now that the government has no knowledge of who has what and where they are to gather them all up in a short enough period of time that we wouldn't see a massive spike in gun crime as criminals know that the law abiding won't be armed anywhere. Then you're going to turn millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for simply refusing to let the 2nd Amendment end because liberals think it's icky. Then you would spark a whole new shooting war as people will violently remove from office the treasonous twits that violated the Constitution.

Um, yeah, if the right wing nuts started shooting politicians, you'd see the ATF beefed up so fast it would make the Gestapo look like the Girl Scouts. Get real. Far more Americans are killed by household members than "criminals"... no matter how much NRA Spooge 2TinyGuy puts on here.

 

[hadit]

Kind of like this woman is glad someone was there with a gun to chase off the guy who was trying to kill her. If he didn't have a gun, he could have come at her with a knife, same outcome, except if a passerby was armed with a knife, someone would have gotten cut.

Except he wasn't trying to kill her, he was trying to stop her from aborting his kid.

And you know this, how? He had a gun. That alone, according to you, makes him a penis obsessed nutcase out to kill as many as possible. Now you're making excuses for criminals but throw the book at law abiding citizens. Okay then.

But you would not accept lowering the speed limit to a level that would prevent close to 100% of the highway deaths, because you're willing to trade human life for the privilege of driving fast. Speed is the value you place on life.

Except there isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower speed limits save that many lives.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US imposed a national 55 MPH limit in 1974, not because they wanted to save lives, but because they wanted to save gas. In fact the death rate didn't go down, it went up slightly for the next 4 years. They finally revoked this silly law in 1995, and this amazing thing happened when teh Speed limit went back up to 65 and 70. The fatality rate didn't go up. It in fact went down the next five years.

In fact, it has been on an almost continuous decline since 1996.

Now, since you brought it up, the government HAS mandated a lot of safety features in cars. Air bags, seat belt laws, etc. And unlike the gun industry, the auto industry has not only gone along with this, they've actually gotten ahead of the game by introducing these things.

Of course, here's the key thing. Cars aren't designed to kill people. While the Auto Industry to it's credit has been in a race to make their products safer, killing a lot of crash test dummies in the process, the gun industry has been upping the ante to put more dangerous guns out there and putting them in the hands of increasingly dangerous people.

You're not thinking broad enough. I'm talking about slowing cars down to slightly faster than horse speed. Slow every vehicle down to 25 mph with passing burst mode up to 35 mph and you'd virtually eliminate highway deaths. Like I said, you're willing to trade tens of thousands of lives every year so you can drive fast enough to kill. As for gun safety, all your "safety" measures would make it harder to use a gun in situations where they're really needed, ala when there's little to no time to get through the safety features. Car safety features don't interfere with the operation of the car. You can still get in and start driving a car as fast as you could in 1955.

America is special for one very practical reason. There are simply far too many guns in circulation right now that the government has no knowledge of who has what and where they are to gather them all up in a short enough period of time that we wouldn't see a massive spike in gun crime as criminals know that the law abiding won't be armed anywhere. Then you're going to turn millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for simply refusing to let the 2nd Amendment end because liberals think it's icky. Then you would spark a whole new shooting war as people will violently remove from office the treasonous twits that violated the Constitution.

Um, yeah, if the right wing nuts started shooting politicians, you'd see the ATF beefed up so fast it would make the Gestapo look like the Girl Scouts. Get real. Far more Americans are killed by household members than "criminals"... no matter how much NRA Spooge 2TinyGuy puts on here.

Oh, so the government cares about liberal politicians getting shot, just not Republicans. Heck, you can shoot at a bunch of them practicing for a ball game and nothing's going to change. But hey, when the mythical right wing nut shoots at democrats you bet we'll get right on it. I've noticed that, while he posts evidence to back up what he says, you post nothing beyond "Nuh-uh".

 

[woodwork201]

You continue to avoid the discussion and attack the messenger. That's just more proof that you know that gun control will not reduce crime and guns are not the cause of crime. When you can't win on logic or facts, attack the messenger.

 

[woodwork201]

Kind of like this woman is glad someone was there with a gun to chase off the guy who was trying to kill her. If he didn't have a gun, he could have come at her with a knife, same outcome, except if a passerby was armed with a knife, someone would have gotten cut.

Except he wasn't trying to kill her, he was trying to stop her from aborting his kid.

And you know this, how? He had a gun. That alone, according to you, makes him a penis obsessed nutcase out to kill as many as possible. Now you're making excuses for criminals but throw the book at law abiding citizens. Okay then.

But you would not accept lowering the speed limit to a level that would prevent close to 100% of the highway deaths, because you're willing to trade human life for the privilege of driving fast. Speed is the value you place on life.

Except there isn't a whole lot of evidence that lower speed limits save that many lives.

Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US imposed a national 55 MPH limit in 1974, not because they wanted to save lives, but because they wanted to save gas. In fact the death rate didn't go down, it went up slightly for the next 4 years. They finally revoked this silly law in 1995, and this amazing thing happened when teh Speed limit went back up to 65 and 70. The fatality rate didn't go up. It in fact went down the next five years.

In fact, it has been on an almost continuous decline since 1996.

Now, since you brought it up, the government HAS mandated a lot of safety features in cars. Air bags, seat belt laws, etc. And unlike the gun industry, the auto industry has not only gone along with this, they've actually gotten ahead of the game by introducing these things.

Of course, here's the key thing. Cars aren't designed to kill people. While the Auto Industry to it's credit has been in a race to make their products safer, killing a lot of crash test dummies in the process, the gun industry has been upping the ante to put more dangerous guns out there and putting them in the hands of increasingly dangerous people.

You're not thinking broad enough. I'm talking about slowing cars down to slightly faster than horse speed. Slow every vehicle down to 25 mph with passing burst mode up to 35 mph and you'd virtually eliminate highway deaths. Like I said, you're willing to trade tens of thousands of lives every year so you can drive fast enough to kill. As for gun safety, all your "safety" measures would make it harder to use a gun in situations where they're really needed, ala when there's little to no time to get through the safety features. Car safety features don't interfere with the operation of the car. You can still get in and start driving a car as fast as you could in 1955.

America is special for one very practical reason. There are simply far too many guns in circulation right now that the government has no knowledge of who has what and where they are to gather them all up in a short enough period of time that we wouldn't see a massive spike in gun crime as criminals know that the law abiding won't be armed anywhere. Then you're going to turn millions of otherwise law abiding Americans into criminals for simply refusing to let the 2nd Amendment end because liberals think it's icky. Then you would spark a whole new shooting war as people will violently remove from office the treasonous twits that violated the Constitution.

Um, yeah, if the right wing nuts started shooting politicians, you'd see the ATF beefed up so fast it would make the Gestapo look like the Girl Scouts. Get real. Far more Americans are killed by household members than "criminals"... no matter how much NRA Spooge 2TinyGuy puts on here.

Oh, so the government cares about liberal politicians getting shot, just not Republicans. Heck, you can shoot at a bunch of them practicing for a ball game and nothing's going to change. But hey, when the mythical right wing nut shoots at democrats you bet we'll get right on it. I've noticed that, while he posts evidence to back up what he says, you post nothing beyond "Nuh-uh".

Almost without exception, the only extremists shooting politicians in my life time, and I'm an old guy, have been left-wing nuts.

 

[woodwork201]

And you guys whine when most cases are cleared that way. Look, man, I know that Zimmerman is in your pantheons of guys who did what you don't have the balls to do... but he's a seriously messed up dude, who never should have been playing Batman while hopped up on meds... which he was.

He was attacked by an animal. If he didn't shoot Martin and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been charged with felonious assault and tried as an adult. He probably would have served several years in prison which is where he should have been in the first place.

Uh, no buddy, I promise you, if you committed a hate crime tomorrow, everything you posted here would be posted in big fonts to make you look crazy... and it wouldn't be much of an effort.

"He once compared black people to Racoons".

Nobody ever compared black people to raccoons. What did I tell you about trying to debate using lies? You never learn.

Are you proporting that picture of a kid smoking is Rice? Because it isn't.

The reality is, if there was a scary picture of a 12 year old, it would ALL OVER FOX NEWS. But funny thing. It isn't.

What do you mean it isn't a picture of him? Why is that, because your MSM who was hoping for riots over the matter didn't post it? Facebook pictures of Martin are all over the internet. They didn't scrub it fast enough.

If anybody thinks that the picture of Rice was a 5'7" and 195 pound kid needs to have their head or eyes examined, or both.

Actually, had Zimmerman not killed Martin, Martin would not have been charged with assault; he would likely have had a murder charge.

 

[JoeB131]

And you know this, how? He had a gun. That alone, according to you, makes him a penis obsessed nutcase out to kill as many as possible. Now you're making excuses for criminals but throw the book at law abiding citizens. Okay then.

If he wanted to kill her, he could have done that at home. Instead he hid in her trunk, and popped out when she stopped at the abortion clinic.

You're not thinking broad enough. I'm talking about slowing cars down to slightly faster than horse speed. Slow every vehicle down to 25 mph with passing burst mode up to 35 mph and you'd virtually eliminate highway deaths. Like I said, you're willing to trade tens of thousands of lives every year so you can drive fast enough to kill. As for gun safety, all your "safety" measures would make it harder to use a gun in situations where they're really needed, ala when there's little to no time to get through the safety features. Car safety features don't interfere with the operation of the car. You can still get in and start driving a car as fast as you could in 1955.

Except it would take you forever to get anywhere, that's the thing. Your hour commute turns into an hour and a half. Germany has Autobahns with no speed limits, they are just fine.

There are no real situations where a gun is "needed". Most industrialized countries don't let their citizens have guns, and they are just fine.

Oh, so the government cares about liberal politicians getting shot, just not Republicans. Heck, you can shoot at a bunch of them practicing for a ball game and nothing's going to change. But hey, when the mythical right wing nut shoots at democrats you bet we'll get right on it. I've noticed that, while he posts evidence to back up what he says, you post nothing beyond "Nuh-uh".

While there was a bit of irony about Grand Wizard SKKKalise being shot by a gun nut and being saved by a lesbian black security officer, even that wouldn't cause the GOP to stand up to the NRA>

Now, if a lot of them got killed and it happened all the time, the ones who survived would certainly love gun control.

On the day that SKKKalise was defining irony, a UPS worker went nuts and shot four of his coworkers. You probably never heard about that one.

UPS worker who threatened mass shooting had 20,000 rounds of ammunition, small arsenal, say police

A California UPS worker who threatened to carry out a mass shooting at his employer’s premises had multiple tactical rifles and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at his home.

abcnews.go.com

Again, how was THIS guy able to get a gun?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You continue to avoid the discussion and attack the messenger. That's just more proof that you know that gun control will not reduce crime and guns are not the cause of crime. When you can't win on logic or facts, attack the messenger.

Even they can't be stupid enough to not know that. The left are puppets. They only act the way their strings are pulled.

Democrat politicians want us to think they're stupid, but they're really not. They know if they could make guns illegal or virtually impossible to get, we would end up with a society where only the police and criminals have the guns because the criminals will always find a way to get them. This is the society they want to create in the US, because once we have no ability to protect ourselves from criminals with guns, crime will spiral out of control which is their goal. My evidence is what's happening in commie cities today where violent crimes and murders are in double digit increases compared to last year since they stood behind weakening our police force, de-funding their police, and making severe restrictions like they did in Chicago where officers can no longer engage in foot pursuits. They have to call into their supervisor, get permission to chase a suspect, and by then, the culprit has a six block head start. Criminals really celebrate commies like that Mayor Lighthead.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrat politicians want us to think they're stupid, but they're really not. They know if they could make guns illegal or virtually impossible to get, we would end up with a society where only the police and criminals have the guns because the criminals will always find a way to get them. This is the society they want to create in the US, because once we have no ability to protect ourselves from criminals with guns, crime will spiral out of control which is their goal. My evidence is what's happening in commie cities today where violent crimes and murders are in double digit increases compared to last year since they stood behind weakening our police force, de-funding their police, and making severe restrictions like they did in Chicago where officers can no longer engage in foot pursuits. They have to call into their supervisor, get permission to chase a suspect, and by then, the culprit has a six block head start. Criminals really celebrate commies like that Mayor Lighthead.

Here's the thing. If we limited the ownership of guns to just the criminals and cops, we'd drop the death rate from guns considerably.

Because 80% of our 15,000 gun homicides are people who are known to each other, we'd take 12000 homicides out of the mix along with 23,000 suicides and 500 accidents.

So that means we go from 39,000 gun deaths a year to a mere 3000.

Progress!!!

But it gets better. Once criminals know it's a lot harder to get guns, and cops can spend more time on criminal intradiction because they aren't cleaning up suicides and domestic homicides, we can probably get that number down, too. We'd also have less cases of cops shooting civilians, because then the cops can't use the excuse "Well, I thought that toy was a real gun!!!" or "He was reaching for his cell phone and I thought it was a gun" or "Oops, how did that gun get into his hand after I shot him."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, if the cops pulled up, Martin could have said, "This weird guy was stalking me on the way back to my apartment." And he would have been fine.

Your ignorance of the law is astounding. Nobody has the right to physically attack another person that was "stalking' them, even though that was not the case. If I go for a walk, and half-way down the street another person decides to do the same and is behind me, there is no law that permits me to beat the shit out of them, giving them a broken nose, two black eyes, and a laceration to the back of their head. There is no law against following another person.

A person is only legally allowed to use physical violence in defense if they are physically attacked. The lowlife would have been arrested and charged with felonious assault and tried like an adult.

You've used that metaphor several times. Not to mention comparing them to spoiled milk and several other unpleasant analogies you've used to dehumanize them.

met·a·phor| ˈmedəˌfôr, ˈmedəˌfər | noun

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable: her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor | “I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors. • a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract:

Where do you see a comparison in these definitions?

Um, yeah, if the worst you could come up with was "Here's a picture of him smoking", this isn't the fucking 1950's, guy. Smoking is no longer considered a sign of juvenile deliquency.

Where are the pictures of 12 year old Tamir Rice looking menacing...

Oh, there aren't any. because he was a 12 year old kid.

It has nothing to do with him smoking pot, it has to do with that's what he looked like when the animal violently attacked Zimmerman.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's the thing. If we limited the ownership of guns to just the criminals and cops, we'd drop the death rate from guns considerably.

Because 80% of our 15,000 gun homicides are people who are known to each other, we'd take 12000 homicides out of the mix along with 23,000 suicides and 500 accidents.

So that means we go from 39,000 gun deaths a year to a mere 3000.

Progress!!!

But it gets better. Once criminals know it's a lot harder to get guns, and cops can spend more time on criminal intradiction because they aren't cleaning up suicides and domestic homicides, we can probably get that number down, too. We'd also have less cases of cops shooting civilians, because then the cops can't use the excuse "Well, I thought that toy was a real gun!!!" or "He was reaching for his cell phone and I thought it was a gun" or "Oops, how did that gun get into his hand after I shot him."

You leftists live in your own little world. The people doing the killing are not law abiding citizens. In many cases they are gang related like we have here, you have there, and in just about any Democrat run major city. The killing would only increase because the gang murders would stay the same, and the rest of us would be defenseless.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Americans use their guns over a million times every single year to protect themselves, other people, or to stop a crime. That means without us, we add an additional one to four million more crimes in our country.

Like I tell you leftists all the time, if you really believe disarming the good people would be such a great idea, get a huge sign made that says THIS HOME HAS NO FIREARMS IN IT and place that on your front porch. Get back to us in a month or two (if you're still alive) and let us know how that worked out for you. Because by disarming the public, that's exactly what you're doing---putting a sign on all of our front porches we can't defend ourselves.

 

[postman]

Um, yeah, if the right wing nuts started shooting politicians, you'd see the ATF beefed up so fast it would make the Gestapo look like the Girl Scouts. Get real. Far more Americans are killed by household members than "criminals"... no matter how much NRA Spooge 2TinyGuy puts on here.

Even the OP has the shooter likely acquainted to the woman.

Man hid in car trunk before shooting at woman outside San Antonio abortion clinic, police say

San Antonio police are searching for a man accused of shooting at a woman outside of a...

www.expressnews.com

San Antonio police are searching for a man accused of shooting at a woman outside of a San Antonio abortion clinic on Saturday.

She did not know the man was hiding in the trunk of her vehicle. The man got out of the trunk and began firing several rounds at the woman.

Here you have two gun owners in Texas, and the result of the shootout between the man who got out of the trunk, and the bystander with a licensed pistol.

Several facility windows, however, were hit

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here's the thing. If we limited the ownership of guns to just the criminals and cops, we'd drop the death rate from guns considerably.

Because 80% of our 15,000 gun homicides are people who are known to each other, we'd take 12000 homicides out of the mix along with 23,000 suicides and 500 accidents.

 

[postman]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Americans use their guns over a million times every single year to protect themselves, other people, or to stop a crime. That means without us, we add an additional one to four million more crimes in our country.

The other statistic is that careless gun owners are responsible for hundreds of gun accidents, and thousands of guns getting into criminal hands.

According to the FBI, during the six-year period from 2012 to 2017, more than $829 million worth of guns were reported stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.8 million guns

 

[postman]

Here's the thing. If we limited the ownership of guns to just the criminals and cops, we'd drop the death rate from guns considerably.

Because 80% of our 15,000 gun homicides are people who are known to each other, we'd take 12000 homicides out of the mix along with 23,000 suicides and 500 accidents.

Not to mention a big chunk of the 300.000 guns a year that fall into criminal hands.

 

[JoeB131]

Your ignorance of the law is astounding. Nobody has the right to physically attack another person that was "stalking' them, even though that was not the case. If I go for a walk, and half-way down the street another person decides to do the same and is behind me, there is no law that permits me to beat the shit out of them, giving them a broken nose, two black eyes, and a laceration to the back of their head. There is no law against following another person.

Tell you what, you go follow someone around, and see how well they take it. (Please leave your gun at home, we don't want you committing a hate crime).

A person is only legally allowed to use physical violence in defense if they are physically attacked. The lowlife would have been arrested and charged with felonious assault and tried like an adult.

Would he have? Creepy ass guy follows you home, you have every right to defend yourself.

It has nothing to do with him smoking pot, it has to do with that's what he looked like when the animal violently attacked Zimmerman.

Still looks like a kid.

You leftists live in your own little world. The people doing the killing are not law abiding citizens. In many cases they are gang related like we have here, you have there, and in just about any Democrat run major city. The killing would only increase because the gang murders would stay the same, and the rest of us would be defenseless.

Guy, according to the National Gang Survey Analysis, only 2000 murders a year (all methods) are "Gang related"

National Youth Gang Survey Analysis: Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

The NGC conducted an annual survey of law enforcement agencies to assess the extent of gang problems. This page shows data measuring the extent of gang problems.

nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov

The rest are people who know each other.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Americans use their guns over a million times every single year to protect themselves, other people, or to stop a crime. That means without us, we add an additional one to four million more crimes in our country.

Except this is such total bullshit it doesn't pass the laugh test.

So I ask again, if you gun wankers are waving your guns around stopping crimes like Batman, how is it that only 200 homicides a year by civilians are ruled as "Justified", according to the FBI?

You would have us believe that out of a million times you gun wankers pull out your guns, that happy day you finally get to play Batman, and of those, you refrain from shooting that Darkie dead 999,800 times?

Like I tell you leftists all the time, if you really believe disarming the good people would be such a great idea, get a huge sign made that says THIS HOME HAS NO FIREARMS IN IT and place that on your front porch. Get back to us in a month or two (if you're still alive) and let us know how that worked out for you. Because by disarming the public, that's exactly what you're doing---putting a sign on all of our front porches we can't defend ourselves.

Most people who are going to break into a home don't break in when someone is home to start with. That escalates burglary to home invasion, and carries much stiffer penalties.

They break into the home with the gun in it to help themselves to a free gun.

500,000 guns are stolen every year. So obviously, disarming everyone would cut off the bad guys main source of guns.

 

[Mac-7]

.