Gun violence at lowest level in the recorded history of the United States.

[2aguy]

What percentage of assaults with firearms were prevented with someone with a firearm?That might actually be a more important factor, don't you think? I can look it up, and I am sure that that percentage is rather tiny. The right to bear arms might have more significance IF it didn't enable criminals and the NRA gun fetishes than to actually stop criminal threats. I am not seeing gun violence lessening at all.

Do you realize that as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns the gun murder rate has gone down......by 43% by one set of figures..........

 

[Brain357]

And how funny is this???

Of the mass shootings on Obamas watch, how many of them were committed by people obtaining a gun through private sale or gun show??

Exactly ZERO!!!

The gun grabbers........lets face it, these people are the most stoopid mofu's walking the planet!!! If the intentions are noble and good, just do it!! If it is Disney thinking, so what? As long as the intentions are good.

You see......this gun issue displays something very vividly: that progressives have this unyielding tragic view of life and the world. It is why Obama cried yesterday.........it is impossible for them to comprehend that life is about tradeoffs, some good, some bad. Clearly, there is some mental disorder here....brain just cant reconcile despite knowing what the facts are. These nuts think that if you can somehow control the institutions, you can make bad stuff go away!! Its a brain fuck up......these people mean well but just absolutely cannot deal. These knuckleheads DO dream of a world without guns all the time!!! As if it were an obtainable objective.

But heres the thing.........in not being able to deal with life, their thinking puts others at risk. And that's just not acceptable.

You are wrong.

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

This is why I don't respect you brain....this brain dead crap...the article itself points out that this is crap....

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

and obtained the weapon two days after becoming subject to a restraining order that required him to turn any firearms he owned into police.

On August 29, Cam Edwards, the host of Cam & Company on NRA News, obfuscated the loophole during a segment in which he expressed opposition to a proposal by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to require background checks on nearly all gun sales.

CAM EDWARDS: As you know, the gun laws in this country are the same for private citizens at gun shows or at their home. The laws in the country are the same for federally licensed firearms retailers whether they are at their brick-and-mortar store or whether they are manning a table at a gun show. The laws don't change based on the location.

Edwards' focus on where guns are sold is a distraction from the real issue: the lax regulation of private gun sales creates a venue for prohibited persons, like Haughton, to obtain firearms.

In 2010, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied against Wisconsin legislation that would have required individuals subject to a restraining order to turn in their weapons within 48 hours or face arrest.

So the very article points out that the guy got the gun 2 days.....you know...48 hours, after the restraining order so he would not have been required to turn in any guns he already had and he wouldn't have been in violation within that 2 day period......


And keep in mind......the guy was going to commit murder......if he wanted a gun he would have gotten a gun...you know...considering he was going to commit murder.......

And then this...

It is unknown at this time if law enforcement made any effort to determine whether Haughton owned any weapons when the restraining order was granted.


In any case, because Haughton was subject to a restraining order, he was prohibited under federal law from purchasing a firearm at the time that he bought the murder weapon from a private seller.

What a crock of crap....

Gun was bought in a private sale.

So...millions of other guns were bought in private sales and not used to commit murder.....as you say...this is a tiny, tiny problem...why be a scaredy cat...right brain?

He said zero were purchased in private sales, obviously he was wrong. The terrorists recently also obtained their assault weapons from a friend.

 

[2aguy]

What percentage of assaults with firearms were prevented with someone with a firearm?That might actually be a more important factor, don't you think? I can look it up, and I am sure that that percentage is rather tiny. The right to bear arms might have more significance IF it didn't enable criminals and the NRA gun fetishes than to actually stop criminal threats. I am not seeing gun violence lessening at all.

The major problem...gun grabbers such as yourself have created Gun Free Zones in almost every public space...so that mass shooters never have to worry about armed citizens......

And here you go.....real world results..

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Then why aren't your republicans pushing to end gun free zones? They control congress. They should start with corporations.

Corporations...what is your hang up...they are private businesses........you guys want bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake so yeah....they should have to allow guns.......but how about we start with public places...where we all own them....

and the move is on to end gun free zones...that is what Campus Carry is all about.

 

[2aguy]

And how funny is this???

Of the mass shootings on Obamas watch, how many of them were committed by people obtaining a gun through private sale or gun show??

Exactly ZERO!!!

The gun grabbers........lets face it, these people are the most stoopid mofu's walking the planet!!! If the intentions are noble and good, just do it!! If it is Disney thinking, so what? As long as the intentions are good.

You see......this gun issue displays something very vividly: that progressives have this unyielding tragic view of life and the world. It is why Obama cried yesterday.........it is impossible for them to comprehend that life is about tradeoffs, some good, some bad. Clearly, there is some mental disorder here....brain just cant reconcile despite knowing what the facts are. These nuts think that if you can somehow control the institutions, you can make bad stuff go away!! Its a brain fuck up......these people mean well but just absolutely cannot deal. These knuckleheads DO dream of a world without guns all the time!!! As if it were an obtainable objective.

But heres the thing.........in not being able to deal with life, their thinking puts others at risk. And that's just not acceptable.

You are wrong.

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

This is why I don't respect you brain....this brain dead crap...the article itself points out that this is crap....

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

and obtained the weapon two days after becoming subject to a restraining order that required him to turn any firearms he owned into police.

On August 29, Cam Edwards, the host of Cam & Company on NRA News, obfuscated the loophole during a segment in which he expressed opposition to a proposal by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to require background checks on nearly all gun sales.

CAM EDWARDS: As you know, the gun laws in this country are the same for private citizens at gun shows or at their home. The laws in the country are the same for federally licensed firearms retailers whether they are at their brick-and-mortar store or whether they are manning a table at a gun show. The laws don't change based on the location.

Edwards' focus on where guns are sold is a distraction from the real issue: the lax regulation of private gun sales creates a venue for prohibited persons, like Haughton, to obtain firearms.

In 2010, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied against Wisconsin legislation that would have required individuals subject to a restraining order to turn in their weapons within 48 hours or face arrest.

So the very article points out that the guy got the gun 2 days.....you know...48 hours, after the restraining order so he would not have been required to turn in any guns he already had and he wouldn't have been in violation within that 2 day period......


And keep in mind......the guy was going to commit murder......if he wanted a gun he would have gotten a gun...you know...considering he was going to commit murder.......

And then this...

It is unknown at this time if law enforcement made any effort to determine whether Haughton owned any weapons when the restraining order was granted.


In any case, because Haughton was subject to a restraining order, he was prohibited under federal law from purchasing a firearm at the time that he bought the murder weapon from a private seller.

What a crock of crap....

Gun was bought in a private sale.

So...millions of other guns were bought in private sales and not used to commit murder.....as you say...this is a tiny, tiny problem...why be a scaredy cat...right brain?

He said zero were purchased in private sales, obviously he was wrong. The terrorists recently also obtained their assault weapons from a friend.

They were both legal and could have purchased them at a gun store all by themselves...they were under the impression that someone would care that 2 muslims were buying guns.......They would have passed current, federally mandated background checks and any universal background check forced on a private seller, since they can pass current background checks......try again.

 

[Brain357]

You are wrong.

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

This is why I don't respect you brain....this brain dead crap...the article itself points out that this is crap....

Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

and obtained the weapon two days after becoming subject to a restraining order that required him to turn any firearms he owned into police.

On August 29, Cam Edwards, the host of Cam & Company on NRA News, obfuscated the loophole during a segment in which he expressed opposition to a proposal by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to require background checks on nearly all gun sales.

CAM EDWARDS: As you know, the gun laws in this country are the same for private citizens at gun shows or at their home. The laws in the country are the same for federally licensed firearms retailers whether they are at their brick-and-mortar store or whether they are manning a table at a gun show. The laws don't change based on the location.

Edwards' focus on where guns are sold is a distraction from the real issue: the lax regulation of private gun sales creates a venue for prohibited persons, like Haughton, to obtain firearms.

In 2010, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied against Wisconsin legislation that would have required individuals subject to a restraining order to turn in their weapons within 48 hours or face arrest.

So the very article points out that the guy got the gun 2 days.....you know...48 hours, after the restraining order so he would not have been required to turn in any guns he already had and he wouldn't have been in violation within that 2 day period......


And keep in mind......the guy was going to commit murder......if he wanted a gun he would have gotten a gun...you know...considering he was going to commit murder.......

And then this...

It is unknown at this time if law enforcement made any effort to determine whether Haughton owned any weapons when the restraining order was granted.


In any case, because Haughton was subject to a restraining order, he was prohibited under federal law from purchasing a firearm at the time that he bought the murder weapon from a private seller.

What a crock of crap....

Gun was bought in a private sale.

So...millions of other guns were bought in private sales and not used to commit murder.....as you say...this is a tiny, tiny problem...why be a scaredy cat...right brain?

He said zero were purchased in private sales, obviously he was wrong. The terrorists recently also obtained their assault weapons from a friend.

They were both legal and could have purchased them at a gun store all by themselves...they were under the impression that someone would care that 2 muslims were buying guns.......They would have passed current, federally mandated background checks and any universal background check forced on a private seller, since they can pass current background checks......try again.

It was again private, proving his claim of none wrong.

 

[Brain357]

What percentage of assaults with firearms were prevented with someone with a firearm?That might actually be a more important factor, don't you think? I can look it up, and I am sure that that percentage is rather tiny. The right to bear arms might have more significance IF it didn't enable criminals and the NRA gun fetishes than to actually stop criminal threats. I am not seeing gun violence lessening at all.

The major problem...gun grabbers such as yourself have created Gun Free Zones in almost every public space...so that mass shooters never have to worry about armed citizens......

And here you go.....real world results..

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Then why aren't your republicans pushing to end gun free zones? They control congress. They should start with corporations.

Corporations...what is your hang up...they are private businesses........you guys want bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake so yeah....they should have to allow guns.......but how about we start with public places...where we all own them....

and the move is on to end gun free zones...that is what Campus Carry is all about.

Mass shootings happen at work, shouldn't those people be safe?

 

[2aguy]

What percentage of assaults with firearms were prevented with someone with a firearm?That might actually be a more important factor, don't you think? I can look it up, and I am sure that that percentage is rather tiny. The right to bear arms might have more significance IF it didn't enable criminals and the NRA gun fetishes than to actually stop criminal threats. I am not seeing gun violence lessening at all.

The major problem...gun grabbers such as yourself have created Gun Free Zones in almost every public space...so that mass shooters never have to worry about armed citizens......

And here you go.....real world results..

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Then why aren't your republicans pushing to end gun free zones? They control congress. They should start with corporations.

Corporations...what is your hang up...they are private businesses........you guys want bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake so yeah....they should have to allow guns.......but how about we start with public places...where we all own them....

and the move is on to end gun free zones...that is what Campus Carry is all about.

Mass shootings happen at work, shouldn't those people be safe?

Yep......and when we have a chance we will address that civil rights violation as well...

 

[Brain357]

What percentage of assaults with firearms were prevented with someone with a firearm?That might actually be a more important factor, don't you think? I can look it up, and I am sure that that percentage is rather tiny. The right to bear arms might have more significance IF it didn't enable criminals and the NRA gun fetishes than to actually stop criminal threats. I am not seeing gun violence lessening at all.

The major problem...gun grabbers such as yourself have created Gun Free Zones in almost every public space...so that mass shooters never have to worry about armed citizens......

And here you go.....real world results..

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Then why aren't your republicans pushing to end gun free zones? They control congress. They should start with corporations.

Corporations...what is your hang up...they are private businesses........you guys want bakers to bake cakes they don't want to bake so yeah....they should have to allow guns.......but how about we start with public places...where we all own them....

and the move is on to end gun free zones...that is what Campus Carry is all about.

Mass shootings happen at work, shouldn't those people be safe?

Yep......and when we have a chance we will address that civil rights violation as well...

Pretty sure once you try to go after companies you are very much done.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know I do.

Where have you been hiding Grump?

How are things in the Asia-Pacific region?

Well that mad bastard in North Korea lit a fire cracker, the Chinese economy is starting to slow, and Australia finally dumped the Mad Monk. Outsida that, everything is dandy. You?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Gun violence at lowest level in the recorded history of the United States."

This fails as a red herring fallacy, having nothing whatsoever to do with the president's proposals or the merits of firearm regulatory policy in general.

 

[Skull Pilot]

See you people always do that

Focus on being killed or killing in self defense

You do realize the people are assaulted and robbed all the time in this country without being murdered don't you

You do realize that self defense with a firearm doesn't have to mean killing anyone don't you?

Yes I'm aware. You are aware that in a country of over 300 million there are like 1.2 million violent crimes? Many are criminal on criminal. We are very safe.

Yeah you're very safe until you aren't.

If you're lucky you might not ever find out but what happens if you're not so lucky one day?

Look at the numbers. I'm not gonna be scared and paranoid for something so unlikely to happen. You fear an outer space alien invasion too?

If you want to live your life by stats that's your problem

I'm asking you a simple question.

WHat happens the day you become on of the statistics?

Why would I worry about it, better chance of winning the lottery. Haven't done that either.

So tell me do you not have homeowners insurance because the chances of your house suffering major damage is very low? And if something did happen you and your family would be out on the streets
Do you not have life insurance because if you did it would mean you're afraid you're going to die tomorrow? And if you did die you would want to leave your family in ruins financially
Do you not have disability insurance because the odds of you getting seriously injured and being unable to work are low? If you did you would lose your home, your car and then what?

Hey it's all statistics until you become one of those statistics right?

So go away now and hope no ill befalls you but when it does don't whine to anyone else for help

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

 

[Brain357]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

Yes a very small number of people in a country of over 300 million. Common sense keeps one safe, no need for a gun.

Would a gun really keep me safer? Many armed people are shot and killed too. Pull a gun on somebody looking to just rob you and they are much more likely to shoot. Oh and how many people shoot and kill themselves in accidents? There are probably as many of those as there are victims of murder who were not involved in criminal activity themselves. The country is very safe, no need to carry. And if you do it may not be making you safer anyhow.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I'm aware. You are aware that in a country of over 300 million there are like 1.2 million violent crimes? Many are criminal on criminal. We are very safe.

Yeah you're very safe until you aren't.

If you're lucky you might not ever find out but what happens if you're not so lucky one day?

Look at the numbers. I'm not gonna be scared and paranoid for something so unlikely to happen. You fear an outer space alien invasion too?

If you want to live your life by stats that's your problem

I'm asking you a simple question.

WHat happens the day you become on of the statistics?

Why would I worry about it, better chance of winning the lottery. Haven't done that either.

So tell me do you not have homeowners insurance because the chances of your house suffering major damage is very low? And if something did happen you and your family would be out on the streets
Do you not have life insurance because if you did it would mean you're afraid you're going to die tomorrow? And if you did die you would want to leave your family in ruins financially
Do you not have disability insurance because the odds of you getting seriously injured and being unable to work are low? If you did you would lose your home, your car and then what?

Hey it's all statistics until you become one of those statistics right?

So go away now and hope no ill befalls you but when it does don't whine to anyone else for help

The chances of those things are much higher than needing to defend yourself with a gun. Heck the chance of dying one day is 100%.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive your car?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

Yes a very small number of people in a country of over 300 million. Common sense keeps one safe, no need for a gun.

Would a gun really keep me safer? Many armed people are shot and killed too. Pull a gun on somebody looking to just rob you and they are much more likely to shoot. Oh and how many people shoot and kill themselves in accidents? There are probably as many of those as there are victims of murder who were not involved in criminal activity themselves. The country is very safe, no need to carry. And if you do it may not be making you safer anyhow.

So go and cancel all your insurance policies and take your chances

 

[Brain357]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

Yes a very small number of people in a country of over 300 million. Common sense keeps one safe, no need for a gun.

Would a gun really keep me safer? Many armed people are shot and killed too. Pull a gun on somebody looking to just rob you and they are much more likely to shoot. Oh and how many people shoot and kill themselves in accidents? There are probably as many of those as there are victims of murder who were not involved in criminal activity themselves. The country is very safe, no need to carry. And if you do it may not be making you safer anyhow.

So go and cancel all your insurance policies and take your chances

Why? They have 100% chance of helping me one day. Your gun might just kill you one day.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah you're very safe until you aren't.

If you're lucky you might not ever find out but what happens if you're not so lucky one day?

Look at the numbers. I'm not gonna be scared and paranoid for something so unlikely to happen. You fear an outer space alien invasion too?

If you want to live your life by stats that's your problem

I'm asking you a simple question.

WHat happens the day you become on of the statistics?

Why would I worry about it, better chance of winning the lottery. Haven't done that either.

So tell me do you not have homeowners insurance because the chances of your house suffering major damage is very low? And if something did happen you and your family would be out on the streets
Do you not have life insurance because if you did it would mean you're afraid you're going to die tomorrow? And if you did die you would want to leave your family in ruins financially
Do you not have disability insurance because the odds of you getting seriously injured and being unable to work are low? If you did you would lose your home, your car and then what?

Hey it's all statistics until you become one of those statistics right?

So go away now and hope no ill befalls you but when it does don't whine to anyone else for help

The chances of those things are much higher than needing to defend yourself with a gun. Heck the chance of dying one day is 100%.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive your car?

A weapon is nothing but insurance it's best to have it an never need it than not to have it if you need it and it will cost you less than any other insurnce policy you will ever own

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

Yes a very small number of people in a country of over 300 million. Common sense keeps one safe, no need for a gun.

Would a gun really keep me safer? Many armed people are shot and killed too. Pull a gun on somebody looking to just rob you and they are much more likely to shoot. Oh and how many people shoot and kill themselves in accidents? There are probably as many of those as there are victims of murder who were not involved in criminal activity themselves. The country is very safe, no need to carry. And if you do it may not be making you safer anyhow.

So go and cancel all your insurance policies and take your chances

Why? They have 100% chance of helping me one day. Your gun might just kill you one day.

No they most likely will be paid for for years and years and never used

 

[Brain357]

Look at the numbers. I'm not gonna be scared and paranoid for something so unlikely to happen. You fear an outer space alien invasion too?

If you want to live your life by stats that's your problem

I'm asking you a simple question.

WHat happens the day you become on of the statistics?

Why would I worry about it, better chance of winning the lottery. Haven't done that either.

So tell me do you not have homeowners insurance because the chances of your house suffering major damage is very low? And if something did happen you and your family would be out on the streets
Do you not have life insurance because if you did it would mean you're afraid you're going to die tomorrow? And if you did die you would want to leave your family in ruins financially
Do you not have disability insurance because the odds of you getting seriously injured and being unable to work are low? If you did you would lose your home, your car and then what?

Hey it's all statistics until you become one of those statistics right?

So go away now and hope no ill befalls you but when it does don't whine to anyone else for help

The chances of those things are much higher than needing to defend yourself with a gun. Heck the chance of dying one day is 100%.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive your car?

A weapon is nothing but insurance it's best to have it an never need it than not to have it if you need it and it will cost you less than any other insurnce policy you will ever own

Except it may make you more likely to be shot by a criminal and over 17,000 people accidently shoot themselves each year, over 500 fatally.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry guys, you can't talk about how low crime is and that most victims are themselves criminals, and then claim everyone needs a gun for defense. You are countering your own argument like you so often do.

When the crime rte is O you might have a point

Just be glad you haven't been the victim of a crime but don't be so fucking naive as to think people aren't victims of crime every day

Yes a very small number of people in a country of over 300 million. Common sense keeps one safe, no need for a gun.

Would a gun really keep me safer? Many armed people are shot and killed too. Pull a gun on somebody looking to just rob you and they are much more likely to shoot. Oh and how many people shoot and kill themselves in accidents? There are probably as many of those as there are victims of murder who were not involved in criminal activity themselves. The country is very safe, no need to carry. And if you do it may not be making you safer anyhow.

So go and cancel all your insurance policies and take your chances

Why? They have 100% chance of helping me one day. Your gun might just kill you one day.

No they most likely will be paid for for years and years and never used

The life insurance is 100%. The others are all far more likely than ever needing a gun for defense. And you won't accidently shoot yourself with insurance.