https://www.filmboards.com/board/p/3349847/
-
MovieManCin2 — 4 years ago(June 10, 2021 07:30 AM)
That is a false statement. Most guns are legal, but there are
lots
of guns in the world which were
never
legal. They were stolen or bought from a criminal, or a criminal enterprise. And you could never stop criminals from owning such guns, even you outlawed all guns.
But you just made my point, thanks. When the gun was in the hands of a
responsible gun owner,
there was no problem. The problem came when the gun fell into the hands
of the thug.
Neither the gun or any responsible gun owner is the problem. The
thug
is the problem.
MAGA! FAFO!
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. 
-
Deluded Juice — 4 years ago(June 10, 2021 07:48 AM)
"Most guns are legal, but there are lots of guns in the world which were never legal."
Even in America?
If so then where did they come from?
What factory is making those?
"And you could never stop criminals from owning such guns, even you outlawed all guns."
The numbers would be drastically reduced.
Your chances of being in a mass shooting would go way the **** down compared to now.
And look at countries where guns are outlawed and you do not see gun crimes as they are here where guns are legal.
And a lot of times those thugs started out as Responsible Gun Owners.
Like that Vegas shooter from his hotel window who bought all those guns legally.
Did you read the story, I think it was even posted on here, about a woman and her son who were bike riding and a dog was charging after them so she took out her gun and shot at it, missed and a bullet ricocheted and hit her son wounding him.
So is that the act of a Responsible Gun Owner?
If you think so then if she had hit and killed the dog, which seems to be a playful puppy and was probably not a threat, then would she be a RGO?
This was not the time or place to be shooting at a dog when there are other ways they could have protected themselves such as putting the bike between oneself and the dog or just simply ride faster than it can run.
Pulling out her gun and shooting at it was a chickenshit thing to do.
I hope it teachers her a harsh lesson to get rid of the gun which would be the right thing to do. -
MovieManCin2 — 4 years ago(June 10, 2021 08:08 AM)
They're made in factories, DUH. Are all factories legal? Are guns never stolen from them, or from stores?
And your chances of being in a mass shooting would be
the same
, because the crazies
would still have guns!
But your chance of
surviving
the mass shooting would
go way down
because you would be
defenseless.
That's why crazies pick
"No Gun"
zones for their crimes, because they know the people inside will be
defenseless.
And the fact that there are less shooting in other countries is
not
because they outlawed guns. It's because they don't have as many thugs, criminals and crazies as we do.
And it doesn't matter if the Vegas shooter bought them
legally
. Once again, the problem was not that he
bought guns,
the problem was that he went crazy! It's a
mental health
problem.
And pointing out
one isolated incident
proves nothing! The person who shot the dog needs to be more responsible. But I could point out
dozens
of incidents where a gun has
saved lives.
There have been many times where a mass shooting was STOPPED by a responsible gun owner who took out the bad guy.
MAGA! FAFO! Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. -
Deluded Juice — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:13 AM)
If that Vegas shooter did not have access to be able to buy those guns in the first place then he wouldn't have done his shooting spree.
We never did find out if he really was diagnosed as crazy or his motivation.
You are in denial that sane people with a gun are committing crimes as a way to justify them being around.
Your excuses are very weak and don't hold any water.
Gun crimes are down in countries that have them outlawed because those thugs, crazies and criminals don't have access to guns.
"There have been many times where a mass shooting was STOPPED by a responsible gun owner who took out the bad guy."
I don't doubt that but that rarely happens.
The majority of the time they are captured, killed by cops or commit suicide.
So it is a gun that ends their shooting. Just not by an armed citizen very often.
If guns were going to stop crime then it would have stopped already.
I don't why you or any sane person would want more guns out there that will only make things worse since it is giving more criminals more access to the tool they need for their job. -
Expired Shark Repellent — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:27 AM)
"There have been many times where a mass shooting was STOPPED by a responsible gun owner who took out the bad guy."
I don't doubt that but that rarely happens.
It's not rare at all and you're showing how dumb you are by making up your own version of the truth.
Here's some real truth for you, idiot.
The National Rifle Association reported in 2013: “Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.”
Gun Owners of America states that armed citizens kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year, 1,527 to 606. GOA also said that: “Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, a citizen kills or wounds his/her attacker."
According to Department of Justice’s Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped.
U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found. -
Reedy — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:44 AM)
Maybe I shouldn't have said it, but you are stating unsupportable positions.
You're a coward for not reading it (if you truly didn't). I think you know facts do not support your myopic view.
Do you really think if guns were confiscated (which will never happen here), that criminals won't find ways to get guns and go about their business undeterred?
I don't think you really believe that.
I think you know that would open the door for innocent Americans to be gunned down in their homes and on the streets in vast numbers. -
Reedy — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:33 AM)
Sorry, WP, you're simply uninformed. Or informed by "alternate facts" on liberal sources.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.
https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ -
Reedy — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:47 AM)
It's just common sense that law abiding citizens defend themselves, family members, and others with lawfully owned firearms all the time.
Your position would mean you want them to defend against criminals with what? Pepper spray? Baseball bats? Knives? -
Reedy — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 10:39 AM)
You're really not going to like this.
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?
John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
More:
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html -
MovieManCin2 — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 01:37 PM)
You're totally wrong, and a typical backwards Leftist.
The Vegas shooter would have gotten guns even if they were
outlawed.
Thugs, criminals and insane people like him are
NOT deterred by laws
. And it's OBVIOUS that he was insane. That is the only logical explanation.
The problem is NOT guns. It's the
thugs, criminals and crazy people.
And I'm not in denial about anything about anything. And I
never
said that sane people are committing crimes is a way to justify them being around. That's a LIE and a
ridiculous
statement. They're justified for
self defense
, and defense against a rouge government. If you choose to be defenseless,
fine.
I choose NOT to be.
That's the main difference between us on the Right and you Leftists. If we don't like guns, we don't own one. If you Loony Lefties don't like them,
you try to ban them for everyone else.
Who put you in charge?? Leave us alone, and mind your own damn business! Go live in Russia where they don't like individual freedom. You'd like it there.
And where did I say guns were going to stop crime? Nothing will stop crime, but I choose to be able to defend myself against it. Taking guns away from
law abiding
citizens would have
NO effect on crime whatsoever.
That's like punishing me because my neighbor broke the law. That's
stoopid!
And I'm not in denial about anything, and my points are
WAY stronger
than your weak Leftist nonsense
.
MAGA! FAFO! Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder. -
MovieManCin2 — 4 years ago(June 11, 2021 03:01 PM)
I own three: an AR-15, a P-38 and an old hunting rife.
- For self defense.
- For defense against the government.
- I enjoy firing them, and do so periodically at a range. I started firing
guns which my father brought home from WW II when I was a boy. I also
enjoyed firing them in the Army. - For sentimental reasons. One is a P-38 like my late father brought home
from WW II, and one is a hunting rifle which belonged to my late uncle.
MAGA! FAFO! Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. Dumbocraps: evil people who celebrate murder.