Private Gun ownership Save Lives.

[RDD_1210]

i see the run around troll has been rendered to just that again. a run around troll. which is why what could have been a slam dunk, back ground checks failed. the anti gunners tried to give us a run around. we said, **** off and take your bullshit with you.

You'll do anything to avoid answering, won't you?

If only you could apply this persistence to your personal life, you'd have a steady job by this point in your life.

Troll

Be proud. Your argument has been reduced to single word name calling. Good for you!

 

[RDD_1210]

Being able to kill someone who is trying to harm you is a very useful purpose.

But you prefer people who are weaker or smaller than their attacker to have no chance at defending themselves.

So the only purpose for guns outside of killing people is........killing people?

You sure have proven your point! Well done.

The purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen is to kill someone who is trying to harm you. I guess you are the type that would just lie there and take it.

So we can agree then that there is no purpose for guns beyond killing another person, thus making your examples of cars a moot point since there is a VERY useful purpose for guns in society beyond that of killing people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the only purpose for guns outside of killing people is........killing people?

You sure have proven your point! Well done.

The purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen is to kill someone who is trying to harm you. I guess you are the type that would just lie there and take it.

So we can agree then that there is no purpose for guns beyond killing another person, thus making your examples of cars a moot point since there is a VERY useful purpose for guns in society beyond that of killing people.

I repeat a gun need not be fired to be a deterrent.

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[martybegan]

So the only purpose for guns outside of killing people is........killing people?

You sure have proven your point! Well done.

The purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen is to kill someone who is trying to harm you. I guess you are the type that would just lie there and take it.

So we can agree then that there is no purpose for guns beyond killing another person, thus making your examples of cars a moot point since there is a VERY useful purpose for guns in society beyond that of killing people.

Killing someone who is trying to harm me is a very useful purpose to me.

It is to society as well as more than likely my worth as an engineer is greater than some guy trying to hurt me.

You would prefer the attacker have the advantage i would guess.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which 1st world nation has more gun deaths than us? I'll wait for your insightful answer.

Prportionally -- that is, when taking the number of guns into account, a good number of them.

UK 1.5% as many guns, 33% as many deaths per gun
France 6.8% as many guns, 84% as many deaths per gun
Canada 3.6% as many guns, 67% as many death per gun
Germany 9% as many guns, 31% as many deaths per gun
Australia 1.2% as many guns, 58% as many deaths per gun
Japan 0.25% as many guns, 87% as many deaths per gun
Finland 0.9% as many guns, 70% as many deaths per gun
Spain 1.6 as many guns, 55% as many deaths per gun
Gun Policy Facts and News

A given gun in the US is far less likely to be involved in a death than in any of these counties; as such, it is impossible, with any degree of honesrty, to say that more guns = more deaths.

Holy ****, seriously?? Hahahahahahaahah!!

Since when did we, or anyone, start measuring homicide rates by number of guns?

The argument that more guns = more gun deaths necessitates exaclty that, as there is no other valid metric.

Each of the countries I noted have far fewer guns than in the US, but in proportion to their numbers, are used far more often to kill someone than in the US.

Fact is, it is impossible to soundly argue that more guns = more gun deaths.

 

[martybegan]

The purpose in the hands of a law abiding citizen is to kill someone who is trying to harm you. I guess you are the type that would just lie there and take it.

So we can agree then that there is no purpose for guns beyond killing another person, thus making your examples of cars a moot point since there is a VERY useful purpose for guns in society beyond that of killing people.

I repeat a gun need not be fired to be a deterrent.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Its nice when its a deterrent, its nicer still when it actually stops an attack in progress.

 

[RDD_1210]

Most certainly not you.

The U.S. does not have the worst firearm murder rate — that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the U.S. is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know the difference between a 1st world and 3rd world country....

Ask me how I know!

and yet alot of those 1st world countries have a violent crime rate higher than the US.

Maybe because the yobs know they have an unarmed populace to prey on?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

I'm willing to bet that those victims of violent crime are pretty damn happy a gun wasn't involved in the crime. Then they'd be dead....which I am willing to bet is less desirable than living. Crazy thought, I know.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know the difference between a 1st world and 3rd world country....

Ask me how I know!

and yet alot of those 1st world countries have a violent crime rate higher than the US.

Maybe because the yobs know they have an unarmed populace to prey on?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

I'm willing to bet that those victims of violent crime are pretty damn happy a gun wasn't involved in the crime. Then they'd be dead....which I am willing to bet is less desirable than living. Crazy thought, I know.

So people being beaten, stabbed, raped or otherwise brutalized is OK as long as the criminal doing the beating, stabbing, raping or brutalizing doesn't have a gun?

That makes perfect sense.

 

[martybegan]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't know the difference between a 1st world and 3rd world country....

Ask me how I know!

and yet alot of those 1st world countries have a violent crime rate higher than the US.

Maybe because the yobs know they have an unarmed populace to prey on?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

I'm willing to bet that those victims of violent crime are pretty damn happy a gun wasn't involved in the crime. Then they'd be dead....which I am willing to bet is less desirable than living. Crazy thought, I know.

I think they would be happier if THEY had a gun to defend themselves.

No one wants criminals to have guns. What you want is law abiding people to not have guns, and criminals being criminals will get them if they want them.

Criminals in places where gun control is strict do not NEED guns if they are big, strong, and willing to harm people. You prefer those types to rule the streets. I prefer the 110lb woman who doesnt want to get raped to be able to defend herself against a 210 lb brute.

 

[RDD_1210]

Thanks for not answering my questions.

Will YOU protect my wife at 3 AM or will you choose to protect your wife and family first?

Until you can allow your wife and kids get brutalized while you go save someone else then you my little sheep are just as selfish as am I.

I put my family (my wife) first before anything including the country and I happen to know that me owning a gun or guns is not harming the country so busybody hypocrites like you should mind your own business.

I'm trying to protect my family and your family from being shot....at home, at school, at the movies....anywhere. You're only concerned with protecting your wife at home. I care about her well being everywhere. Maybe she's better off with my protection than yours?

I doubt that you'd stand there and watch her get raped because you would have no way to protect her.

As I said my owning a weapon is no threat to the country, or anyone else's family and until you can prove that taking my weapons will make your family safer then you haven't a leg on which to stand.

I'll say it again: I will gladly give up my weapons if you can 100% unequivocally guarantee me that no one will ever assault me or my wife. Until that day comes i will keep my guns.

Can you 100% unequivocally say that your owning a gun will protect you and your wife at all times? Of course not. That doesn't matter to you though. Damn the stats, damn reality, damn the country. Me! Me! Me! Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So we can agree then that there is no purpose for guns beyond killing another person, thus making your examples of cars a moot point since there is a VERY useful purpose for guns in society beyond that of killing people.

I repeat a gun need not be fired to be a deterrent.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Its nice when its a deterrent, its nicer still when it actually stops an attack in progress.

A gun can stop an attack without being fired and without killing anyone.

 

[martybegan]

I'm trying to protect my family and your family from being shot....at home, at school, at the movies....anywhere. You're only concerned with protecting your wife at home. I care about her well being everywhere. Maybe she's better off with my protection than yours?

I doubt that you'd stand there and watch her get raped because you would have no way to protect her.

As I said my owning a weapon is no threat to the country, or anyone else's family and until you can prove that taking my weapons will make your family safer then you haven't a leg on which to stand.

I'll say it again: I will gladly give up my weapons if you can 100% unequivocally guarantee me that no one will ever assault me or my wife. Until that day comes i will keep my guns.

Can you 100% unequivocally say that your owning a gun will protect you and your wife at all times? Of course not. That doesn't matter to you though. Damn the stats, damn reality, damn the country. Me! Me! Me! Right?

Can you say 100% unequivocally that if the population was disarmed, the criminals would just take your TV/money/stereo and not kill you? Can you say 100% unequivocally that the criminal will NEVER be armed if we manage to disarm the population?

 

[Spoonman]

and yet alot of those 1st world countries have a violent crime rate higher than the US.

Maybe because the yobs know they have an unarmed populace to prey on?

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

I'm willing to bet that those victims of violent crime are pretty damn happy a gun wasn't involved in the crime. Then they'd be dead....which I am willing to bet is less desirable than living. Crazy thought, I know.

I think they would be happier if THEY had a gun to defend themselves.

No one wants criminals to have guns. What you want is law abiding people to not have guns, and criminals being criminals will get them if they want them.

Criminals in places where gun control is strict do not NEED guns if they are big, strong, and willing to harm people. You prefer those types to rule the streets. I prefer the 110lb woman who doesnt want to get raped to be able to defend herself against a 210 lb brute.

if we could replace RDD with a shoe box we could get some more intelligent conversation around here

 

[martybegan]

I repeat a gun need not be fired to be a deterrent.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Its nice when its a deterrent, its nicer still when it actually stops an attack in progress.

A gun can stop an attack without being fired and without killing anyone.

as long as it is at the scene of the crime, and in the hands of a law abiding citizen, be it a private citizen or a peace officer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm trying to protect my family and your family from being shot....at home, at school, at the movies....anywhere. You're only concerned with protecting your wife at home. I care about her well being everywhere. Maybe she's better off with my protection than yours?

I doubt that you'd stand there and watch her get raped because you would have no way to protect her.

As I said my owning a weapon is no threat to the country, or anyone else's family and until you can prove that taking my weapons will make your family safer then you haven't a leg on which to stand.

I'll say it again: I will gladly give up my weapons if you can 100% unequivocally guarantee me that no one will ever assault me or my wife. Until that day comes i will keep my guns.

Can you 100% unequivocally say that your owning a gun will protect you and your wife at all times? Of course not. That doesn't matter to you though. Damn the stats, damn reality, damn the country. Me! Me! Me! Right?

I can 100% say that I will at least have the chance to protect myself or my wife. If I do things your way I guarantee I will have no chance to defend myself or my wife.

And please make your case that my owning a gun is dangerous to the rest of the country.

I have been shooting for over 40 years and have owned guns since i was a kid and I have never once shot anyone or injured myself with a gun. So please tell me how you are safer if I don't have a gun.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm willing to bet that those victims of violent crime are pretty damn happy a gun wasn't involved in the crime. Then they'd be dead....which I am willing to bet is less desirable than living. Crazy thought, I know.

I think they would be happier if THEY had a gun to defend themselves.

No one wants criminals to have guns. What you want is law abiding people to not have guns, and criminals being criminals will get them if they want them.

Criminals in places where gun control is strict do not NEED guns if they are big, strong, and willing to harm people. You prefer those types to rule the streets. I prefer the 110lb woman who doesnt want to get raped to be able to defend herself against a 210 lb brute.

if we could replace RDD with a shoe box we could get some more intelligent conversation around here

Good one!

 

[Brain357]

Its nice when its a deterrent, its nicer still when it actually stops an attack in progress.

A gun can stop an attack without being fired and without killing anyone.

as long as it is at the scene of the crime, and in the hands of a law abiding citizen, be it a private citizen or a peace officer.

Or it can kill another good guy with a gun like in my link.

 

[Geaux4it]

Where is the statistic that shows how many of these murders are gang thugs killing each other?

I support that as a cost saving measure.

Less on the Obama dime and his voter constituency.

Slowly but surely

 

[candycorn]

LOL, We have more guns than any place on the planet. Why are we not the safest place on the planet?

so you didn't answer my question. I will take that as you don't have an answer for it.

We have more guns than any place on the planet. Why are we not the safest place on the planet?

Did they ever answer the question?

 

[RDD_1210]

so you didn't answer my question. I will take that as you don't have an answer for it.

We have more guns than any place on the planet. Why are we not the safest place on the planet?

Did they ever answer the question?

Of course not.