Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you have an example of anyone stating that it did...? Your non-argument isn't getting any traction.My point is the presence of all those guns did not prevent anyone from being shot.Criminals with guns? What's your point..... Guns, even muskets, were banned in DC....March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
My point is the presence of all those guns did not prevent anyone from being shot.Criminals with guns? What's your point..... Guns, even muskets, were banned in DC....March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Do you think that by merely carrying a gun you can avoid getting shot?
Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Do you think that by merely carrying a gun you can avoid getting shot?
Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
Really?The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
and you missed the point that all the laws in the world will not stop a piece of shit criminal from shooting someone so we might as well let law abiding people carry so as to give a piece of shit criminal something to think aboutYou missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...But the mere the mere presence of a gun cannot keep you from getting shot, right?Personally I'd rather keep my options open. Besides, my gun may very well help you to avoid getting shot.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.It's no guarantee, but it most certainly can. It can also prevent you from being stabbed, or bludgeoned and assaulted in general. You should take your sage wisdom to your local police training facility. Explain to them how you cleverly deduced that having a gun cannot prevent a person from being shot. They'll probably quit arming their officers after you drop that nugget on them. Then you can take your message to the military... You're really on to something here...
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
Wrong again. The authoritarians are the ones that disarm the public. I would like to hear your plan to disarm the violent felons/criminals. The catch is, it can not include plans to disarm lawful citizens.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
Wrong. I'm stating that the "reason" you offered doesn't hold water. Learn the difference.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...March 1981. Four men are shot and wounded in the same incident on the streets of Washington D.C. Two of the men were carrying guns. Another was grievously wounded and confined to a wheel chair for life. The third was surrounded by the best armed, best trained cadre of security personnel in history. He was the President of the United States.
All those guns and yet four wounded. Yeah. I'm on to something.
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
Wrong again. The authoritarians are the ones that disarm the public. I would like to hear your plan to disarm the violent felons/criminals. The catch is, it can not include plans to disarm lawful citizens.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
If guns are supposed to avert gun violence ( a counterintuitive notion of the first order) why conceal them? Why doesn't every "law abiding citizen" just strap yer shootin' iron to yer hip and go full on Dodge City?Wrong. I'm stating that the "reason" you offered doesn't hold water. Learn the difference.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.This is retarded. Because a nut job shot Reagan, people should not be entitled to self defense? Sigh...
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
Because bed wetting liberals would cry. Full on Dodge City? I read a similar hysterical take in Salon that claimed Constitutional Carry would result in the Wild West. Hasn't happened. Again, it is the authoritarian governments that disarmed their citizens. Your desire to leave people helpless against the worst segments of our society is telling.If guns are supposed to avert gun violence ( a counterintuitive notion of the first order) why conceal them? Why doesn't every "law abiding citizen" just strap yer shootin' iron to yer hip and go full on Dodge City?Wrong. I'm stating that the "reason" you offered doesn't hold water. Learn the difference.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
I can't speak for eveyone but.... Here in Alabama we can open carry. And many, myself included often do.If guns are supposed to avert gun violence ( a counterintuitive notion of the first order) why conceal them? Why doesn't every "law abiding citizen" just strap yer shootin' iron to yer hip and go full on Dodge City?Wrong. I'm stating that the "reason" you offered doesn't hold water. Learn the difference.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
We have Constitutional Carrying Kansas. Open or concealed, no permit needed for concealed.I can't speak for eveyone but.... Here in Alabama we can open carry. And many, myself included often do.If guns are supposed to avert gun violence ( a counterintuitive notion of the first order) why conceal them? Why doesn't every "law abiding citizen" just strap yer shootin' iron to yer hip and go full on Dodge City?Wrong. I'm stating that the "reason" you offered doesn't hold water. Learn the difference.So you're saying that any argument against having more guns on the streets is amateurish, I'll-informed, foolish and those proffering such points are essentially out of their depth. The only points to be considered are those of the pro gun lobby, people who have a deep,affection for weaponry and Dirty Harry wannabes.You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are grossly uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...You missed the point. If I have a gun, I can prevent being a victim of gun violence.[/
You are out of your depth on this issue. It can prevent gun violence. And often times does. No one is going to fall into your foolish lead of trying to predict "what may have happened"; but instead one can rely on the mountains of facts in regard to "what did happen". If you really wanted to know; you could bury yourself in stories of armed people pulling guns, on armed aggressors which resulted in the cessation of a crime in progress. Including gun violence. Like I said. You are uninformed, and uneducated on this subject. Probably best for you to sit this one out...
Isn't that a bit authoritarian? And where guns are concerned, is authoritarian the correct way to approach the subject?
Really?The point is the presence of a gun cannot prevent gun violence.
As usual, when a liberal loses the argument, he often starts ranting hysterically like this. Especially when his points have been debunked several times over the years.If guns are supposed to avert gun violence ( a counterintuitive notion of the first order) why conceal them? Why doesn't every "law abiding citizen" just strap yer shootin' iron to yer hip and go full on Dodge City?
That's a major step in the right direction.We have Constitutional Carrying Kansas. Open or concealed, no permit needed for concealed.
