It’s one of the reasons British Bobbies don’t often carry a firearm.Vonsalza:
IF that was a scenario of any frequency, it would be foisted in our face.
It’s not, because people who LEGALLY CARRY just don’t seem to to that.
Don’t make up boogie man stories not based in reality.
So your proof point is the guy who had the most severe case of CTE the doctors had ever seen at his age?
Theo, if you think men shooting other men outside of bars is a virtually nonexistent event then you’re just incredibly sheltered and I’m unsure whether to pity or envy you for it.
Yet again you fail to support your scenario. That story gives zero indication the shooter was legally carrying.
Your attempt at distinction is a red herring and it’s sooo obvious.Vonsalza:
Yet again you fail to support your scenario. That story give zero indication the shooter was legally carrying.
Not at all.
i showed the english stats because it is a result of gun control. once guns are gone it makes sense to burglarize an occupied home. actual surveys of criminals in british prisons said they did it because the take was usually bigger and it was faster. the victims usually hand over what they have.
london shows the results will be the same. if the perp is intent on bodily harm, they will use a knife and you will still be dead.
if all states ban all guns the black market will provide them. look to australia for a thriving gun black market, australia doesn’t have our open borders.
didn’t they say the same thing about abortion? who would have imagined a few decades ago it would become legal to kill your baby?
these are the organizers with the big dollars. they have made their goals known, read their own words.
Without commenting on your other arguments I would like to say something about this one. I don’t think you’ve been paying sufficient attention to the dynamics of asymmetrical warfare. What do you think the odds are of the government deploying tanks in any US city? Or planes? Or cruise missiles? Do you remember the chaos that was caused by the beltway sniper in DC? I don’t think you appreciate the effect even a handful of individuals can have on a modern society, let alone an appreciable percentage of its citizens.
Gun violence cannot be reduced simply to availability. Newark is ten miles from New York City and has ten times the rate of gun violence. There is much more involved here than mere access to firearms.
Let me adjust that a little bit;All you’ve shown so far is that people illegally carrying weapons do pose a risk of violence.
The NRA agrees with you
Absolutely.
No it isn’t.
Right, you only see confiscation as the solution.
Nope, that’s the boogey man you need in order to stroke a defense via pathos because logos isn’t holding up well for you.
I would think this point to be central to the argument. If the shooter was already violating existing laws then what argument is there that more laws would have any effect? If you’re going to argue that the law abiding citizen ought to lose his right to own and carry a weapon it really ought to be necessary to demonstrate that his exercise of that right is a problem.
Because the mechanism of action primarily isn’t legal - it’s economic. Producers simply cannot produce any more in the US.