It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida gun deaths suspect named as Shawn Tyson

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
What I am going to be watching is how many Britains begin to smuggle and own firearms when Shariah law takes over as they are allowing it to do. And, where are they going to get them from? Those nasty old gun toting yanks and they will be thankful for them when the infidels start being stoned to death. My understanding of Britain is that the police are afraid to go into certain districts. Not here bub. Our cops will go anywhere. I know, I went there when needed. As a matter of fact, I went there when not needed even on routine patrol.
edit on 19-4-2011 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think you are missing the point.......you go ahead and get attacked by a guy with a gun, and I'll take my chances with the guy who has a knife.....Lets see who comes out of that ordeal alive. My point being, sure I could get killed by a knife...but there is a much greater chance that I will come out of it with some nasty stitches and a brief hospital stay. You on the other hand would likely be dead....which is the point. Knives are simply no where near as effective as guns in killing people. Otherwise our military would save some money and just use knives instead of guns....and gun nuts would have no argument for possessing guns for self protection (which when looked at statistically falls apart as a rational method of self defense anyway, since its far more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one, than successfully defend oneself against an attacker).

Anything can kill someone....if you hit someone in the chest just the right way, their heart can stop....the point being that unless you are going up against a 'Ninja' (as in one story someone mention in this thread) then the chances of being killed by a knife are simply, far, far less than with a gun. That's just common sense. And since I have never ran into a Ninja in my day, to day life...I'm not too afraid of getting killed by one. Guns on the other hand are a bit more prevalent than Ninja's...

edit on 19-4-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: I just noticed that I miss-attributed the 'ninja' story to someone who didn't say it....so I just changed it to "someone"



Incorrect. Studies show that you are unlikely to be hit by a bullet from more than 10 feet away if the scenario is not premeditated. Unlike the FACT that is a person pulls a knife on you...you're going to get cut 10 out of 10. Hand to hand combat is MUCH more dangerous, ask any Navy Seal, SAS, whatever.

Guns, especially pistols are so inaccurate at a distance that even if you did get hit, the chances of it being deadly are slim, since it's either gotta hit you in the head or heart or liver, and even then, the liver takes a minute to bleed out...so if you've got a cell phone...you probably have about a decent chance of at least being in a coma until you wake up a few weeks later.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

This is one of the points that the American gun fetishists continually choose to ignore; gun proliferation begets gun crime.

In a society where guns aren't readily available, guns aren't used that much.


Really?... Let's take a look at the facts from YOUR country...



Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 11:02 GMT
Gun crime soars by 35%

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

RECORDED CRIME RISES
Overall crime: 9.3%

Gun crime: 35%

Robbery: 14.5%

Domestic burglary: 7.9%

Drug offences: 12.3%

Sexual offences: 18.2%

Source: Home Office
...

news.bbc.co.uk...

When did the British people get their guns banned?....


Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was the second of two Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1997 that amended the regulation of firearms within the United Kingdom. The other Act was the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It was introduced by the newly elected Labour government of Tony Blair.
...

Link

Who would have thought it? 6 years after the gun ban in Britain and Wales GUN CRIMES have gone up, and within a year from 2002 to 2003 it rose 35%...

Shall we continue to look at more FACTS?...


UK News

28 gun crimes committed in UK every day

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent 10:49AM GMT 24 Jan 2008
The spiralling problem with gun culture was highlighted by figures that show 28 firearms crimes are committed in England and Wales every day.

Crime in England and Wales: Full report [pdf]
Have your say: Does your area feel safer?
Home Office figures showed gun crimes rose by four per cent last year, the largest increase for three years.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So gun crimes has continued to go up in the UK despite the lies, I mean false claims from the gun-grabbers.


UK News

Murder rate increasing amid epidemic of knife and gun crime

The murder rate has risen in England and Wales in the past year, crime figures are expected to show next week.

By Christopher Hope and Graham Tibbetts 8:38PM BST 11 Jul 2008
Amid rising concerns over an epidemic of knife and gun crime - there were six fatal stabbings in one day this week - some forces have reported a doubling in killings.

On Thursday, there were four stabbings in London, one in West Bromwich in the West Midlands and a sixth in Tarleton in Lancashire.

On Friday, a 17-year-old youth was shot dead in Sheffield's Burngreave area in what was described as the latest in an escalating war between youths from rival "postcode gangs" in the area.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...


What has the police in the UK had to do since the gun ban in the UK?...


Armed police plan angers Met authorityAnnouncement of specialist unit armed with submachine guns causes consternation amongst authority members

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Thursday 29 October 2009

In the report below on the controversy over Metropolitan police plans to make firearms officers available to commanders for duties in five London boroughs, we said these officers would carry submachine guns. The Met points out that the weapon in question is the single-shot variation of the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun (the MP5SF). What we should have said, therefore, is that the officers would be carrying semi-automatics.
...

www.guardian.co.uk...



Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

By James Slack
Last updated at 8:42 AM on 27th October 2009

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

FACTS suck sometimes don't they?... At least when some people are trying to sell lies and false propaganda...



Should the UK Restore the Right to Bear Arms?

Studies have shown that crime rates are higher where there are stricter laws on gun ownership, and lower where gun restrictions are more relaxed.
...

In the USA, where the right to bear arms is laid out in the Second Amendment, statistics show that areas with stricter gun control suffer higher crime rates. According to The Future of Freedom Foundation, as of 2002, the murder rate in Washington D.C. has risen 134% since strict gun-control laws were introduced in 1976, in the state of Maryland the murder rate increased 20% since new gun laws were introduced in 1986, yet Vermont, which has the least restrictive gun laws, ranks 49 out of 50 out of all the states in its overall crime rate and comes 47th in murders.

In the UK, a Cambridge University study in 1971 showed that gun crime was lower before 1920 when gun control legislation was passed in Britain. This is documented in Colin Greenwoods book Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Fierarms Control in England and Wales, published by Routledge & Kegan Paul Books on November 4, 1972
...

www.suite101.com...


edit on 19-4-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The idea that the UK is a fluffy, nice country because of our gun laws is absolutely ludicrous, as is the idea that the UK is full of cowards because there are no guns.

There are plenty of guns. There are many families in my area who own at least one; the same kind of legally-owned firearm that some loony in Cumbria recently went on a killing spree with. Guns don’t kill people by themselves, it is said a little too often but it is true. They certainly help, though. Thankfully, the vast majority of people aren't particularly keen on shooting folk.

Secondly, anyone who has spent a decent amount of time in any UK city at night knows that this is not some flowery place where everyone says their pleases and thankyous. Working on the doors for a few nights would open your eyes a little, as well as other parts of your body if you’re not careful. In some areas, even tiny pizza and kebab shops require their own security because of drunks going absolutely ballistic over too many tomatoes in their salad or something like that.

Americans are welcome to their guns. In my opinion, there are so many floating around that you would need a bloody good reason not to own one yourself. That isn’t the case over here, to be fair.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Shawn Tyson? For a moment I thought it said "Mike Tyson". But if did then it wouldn't say "gun deaths". Instead it would say "biting deaths".


Anyways...

...I don't know what else to say about the whole 'gun-toting yanks' issue. But someone mentioned what would happen to brits when sharia law takes over their country? By then they'll be needing guns and where are they going to get them? Us gun-toting-yanks is right.

Something similar happened in history. It was called "World War 2". A lot of guns that the British military were using against the Germans came from....that's right. YOU guessed it. USA. Some guns the British already had were crudely made out of plumbing parts like the STEN sub-machine gun. Back then it cost about six american dollars to manufacture just ONE STEN sub-machine gun.

Also another thing to remember is that if it weren't for us gun-toting yanks then the Germans and Japanese wouldn't have thought twice about trying to invade the United States. Just food for thought.


edit on 4/19/11 by Marked One because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When will the USA get over its primitive, fearful gun-toting culture ?

Here we have two British tourists who went to the wrong side of town, and got shot dead, largely due to the primitive gun culture in the US.

There is nowhere in Britain where the possibility of being shot in the 'wrong part of town' is a serious consideration.

It's about time the USA entered the 21st century, and stopped the opportunity for these needless murders.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 18-4-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: Shocking grammatical error !


Hey Sherlock, first off, you sound like a disinfo agent. next time put a little common sense into your act! When you say, "largely due to the primitive gun culture in the US" it's a dead giveaway to your agenda. Moron.

2nd, here in America a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty. Maybe your "British tourists" were actually a couple of ax murderers who thought they had found their next victim, but ended up F'n with the wrong American. Maybe the Brits were trying to rob the dude at gun point & he wrestled the gun from them and showed em some justice. Or wouldn't it be a tasty bowl of crap you'd be eating if it was actually a murder/suicide & the guy was actually 100% innocent?

And finally, this country declared it's independence from your primitive, thoroughly enslaved monarchy a long time ago. And in doing so, we gave ourselves the right to arm & protect ourselves. It was to protect ourselves from the same criminals who've oppressed you & your culture throughout it's entire history. You'd think after all this time, such an evolved class of humans would have the sack to overthrow it's oppressor. Happy slaves!!
I bet your keeping up with all the news & details of the royal wedding too, huh?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


What statistics?

Care to share them?

"University of Pennsylvania researcher Charles Branas has tried a new tack -- employing methods normally used by epidemiologists to study cancer and other diseases.
Branas compared a group of shooting victims to a similar set of "controls" who had not been shot. His results, he said, show that guns did not, on average, protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault -- and in fact raised the risk by four times or more.
"People shouldn't feel that firearms are going to enhance their safety," Branas said. The study was published in the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Public Health." & " The U.S. has a far higher per capita rate of gun violence than any other developed country, he said. If guns really made us safer, he said, "we should be the safest country on Earth." - www.cleveland.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kellermann investigated in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years, and found that the risk of a homicide was higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. This increase in mortality, was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against burglaries or home invasions.
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an assailant in self-defense."

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.

&

Kellerman, et al., Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J. Trauma, 1998, Aug;45(2):263-7)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you own a gun you are forty-three times more likely to kill a family member, than an intruder. Suicide is another big factor, out of 389 homicides related to guns in the home, 333 of those are cases of suicide. With such staggering numbers threatening gun owners why do people still find it necessary to own a handgun? “The gun, if it does nothing else, gives the citizen reassurance” (Thomas Draper 12)

In 1988 the amount of people murdered by handguns in Great Britain was 7, 8 in Canada, Australia had 13, 25 in Israel, 53 in Switzerland, and a staggering 8,147 in the U.S. These numbers show undeniably that those laws are working. “Looking at this global picture suggests that gun control laws do indeed work, countries with tighter gun control laws have fewer homicides” ( Maggi Atkens 67)

Draper, Thomas. The Issue of Gun Control.
New York: 1981

Aitkens, Maggi. Should We Have Gun Control?
Minneapolis: 1992
www.chuckiii.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What FBI statistics reveal and police officers have long known is that most homicide does not result from criminal attacks or pre-meditated murders. The majority of firearms homicide stems from arguments that turn deadly because of ready access to a gun. As the country's firearms population has increased, so has its per capita homicide rate. From 1963 to 1973, the per capita homicide rate more than doubled: from 4.3 per 100,000 to 9.3 per 100,000. During this same period, the nation's handgun population tripled.
A more striking contrast comes from comparing firearms with nonfirearms homicide trends for the same period. The nonfirearms homicide rate increased 55 percent, from two per 100,000 in 1963 to 3.1 per 100,000 in 1973. The firearms homicide rate, however, jumped 148 percent, from 2.5 per 100,000 in 1963 to 6.2 per 100,000 in 1973.

Without doubt, handguns and other firearms stop crimes and kill criminals. The question is, how often? Anecdotal evidence is offered each month in the Armed Citizen, a column in the National Rifle Association's (NRA) American Rifleman magazine. The column offers an assortment of self-defense gun incidents culled from newspapers across the country, and each one begins with the same statement: "Studies indicate that firearms are used over one million times a year for personal protection and the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances." That claim comes from NRA polls and from research conducted by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University. But the flaws in Kleck's research are evident to even the most casual reader; among those who have questioned his analysis and methodology is the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

Those who argue that handguns are in truth rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes point to information tabulated by the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports defines a justifiable homicide as "the killing of a felon by a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony by a private citizen." In 1992, handguns were used only 262 times by law-abiding citizens to kill criminals justifiably.

Although the Uniform Crime Reports offers no information on nonlethal self-defense firearms use, the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey does. What is most striking is how rarely firearms are used in self-defense. In 1987, in only one-half of one percent of all intended or actual incidences of violent crime was a firearm available to the potential or actual victim--both gun owning and non-gun owning. For that year the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that there were 5,660,570 violent crimes (attempted and completed) in the United States. Using these figures, there were approximately 28,000 instances in which there was a firearm available to the victim. And of these instances it's not even known whether the gun was used successfully to stop the crime.

These figures pale in comparison with the tens of thousands who die from firearms each year and the more than 150,000 injured annually. Research has consistently shown that a gun in the home is far more likely to be used in suicide, murder or fatal accidents than to kill a criminal. A 1988 study of gun deaths in King County, Wash., for the period from 1978 to 1983, conducted by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, found that for every time a firearm was used in a self-protection homicide, 37 lives were lost in gun suicides, 4.6 lives were lost in gun homicides, and 1.3 lives were lost via unintentional gun deaths--43 deaths for every self- defense homicide. A second Kellermann study, released in October 1993, showed that keeping a gun in the home increased the risk of homicide nearly threefold.

On the national level, using FBI figures, for every time a citizen used a handgun in 1992 in a justifiable homicide, 48 lives were ended in handgun murders. By including the estimated 12,500 handgun suicides that occurred that year, the ratio of lives lost for every justifiable homicide jumps to 95 to one.

www.vpc.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[also this was an interesting page...]

Hemenway and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (HICRC) recently launched the National Firearms Injury Statistical System (NFISS), a surveillance system to capture objective, ongoing data for use in planning and evaluating gun injury prevention policies. "We'll collect more detailed information on the demographics of the victim and suspect, their relationship, the gun, and the circumstances of the incident," says NFISS co-director Catherine Barber. Questions the system will address include: Did the incident occur indoors or outdoors? Was a short or long gun used? Were trigger locks and other safety features available? Were drugs or alcohol involved? What were the make and model of the gun? How was the gun acquired?

[so what is his conclusion?]

"Handguns are not a good instrument for protection. "

www.hsph.harvard.edu...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
What I am going to be watching is how many Britains begin to smuggle and own firearms when Shariah law takes over as they are allowing it to do. And, where are they going to get them from? Those nasty old gun toting yanks and they will be thankful for them when the infidels start being stoned to death. My understanding of Britain is that the police are afraid to go into certain districts. Not here bub. Our cops will go anywhere. I know, I went there when needed. As a matter of fact, I went there when not needed even on routine patrol.
edit on 19-4-2011 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)


Only 2.8% of the UK is Muslim....and yet you think that Shariah law is taking over the UK?!?! Wow....I think perhaps you are letting your own bigotry skew your view of reality just a tad, my friend.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xterrain

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think you are missing the point.......you go ahead and get attacked by a guy with a gun, and I'll take my chances with the guy who has a knife.....Lets see who comes out of that ordeal alive. My point being, sure I could get killed by a knife...but there is a much greater chance that I will come out of it with some nasty stitches and a brief hospital stay. You on the other hand would likely be dead....which is the point. Knives are simply no where near as effective as guns in killing people. Otherwise our military would save some money and just use knives instead of guns....and gun nuts would have no argument for possessing guns for self protection (which when looked at statistically falls apart as a rational method of self defense anyway, since its far more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one, than successfully defend oneself against an attacker).

Anything can kill someone....if you hit someone in the chest just the right way, their heart can stop....the point being that unless you are going up against a 'Ninja' (as in one story someone mention in this thread) then the chances of being killed by a knife are simply, far, far less than with a gun. That's just common sense. And since I have never ran into a Ninja in my day, to day life...I'm not too afraid of getting killed by one. Guns on the other hand are a bit more prevalent than Ninja's...

edit on 19-4-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: I just noticed that I miss-attributed the 'ninja' story to someone who didn't say it....so I just changed it to "someone"



Incorrect. Studies show that you are unlikely to be hit by a bullet from more than 10 feet away if the scenario is not premeditated. Unlike the FACT that is a person pulls a knife on you...you're going to get cut 10 out of 10. Hand to hand combat is MUCH more dangerous, ask any Navy Seal, SAS, whatever.

Guns, especially pistols are so inaccurate at a distance that even if you did get hit, the chances of it being deadly are slim, since it's either gotta hit you in the head or heart or liver, and even then, the liver takes a minute to bleed out...so if you've got a cell phone...you probably have about a decent chance of at least being in a coma until you wake up a few weeks later.


Yes this is true for being TEN FEET AWAY!!!! I seriously doubt most robbers stand so far away when they are trying to get your money....I can just picture them in the distance "throw your wallet over here, or I'll shoot you.....what? why am I so far away? Because unlike most criminals who like to get up close so no one else can see what I am doing, I like to stand out in the open so that everyone can see....I also think its more challenging to shoot someone at this distance"

Though if you ignore the whole distance factor your argument is a pretty good one for how ineffectual guns really are, and how someone should actually carry knives around instead.

Murder rates in USA where criminals are likely to use a gun are on average 4 per 100,000

Murder rates in all of Western Europe where criminals use knives are on average 1 per 100,000

hubpages.com...



International data indicate that the U.S. doesn't have more crime than other developed nations, just more lethal crime. www.hsph.harvard.edu...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Oh, and our guns will help us rid our country of tyranny when the people choose.

What will Britain do?

 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



In Britain we'll serve Fish & Chips



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


I suspect all your studies are bogus. I'm not going to bother checking them but you should know the Kellerman study has long been discredited.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 



Yes this is true for being TEN FEET AWAY!!!! I seriously doubt most robbers stand so far away when they are trying to get your money....


Doesn't this admission go against the theory that guns are more dangerous, because they are less personal? If you must be within 10 feet to use the gun, and you think most robbers are even closer than that, then I would say a knife is equally as deadly, or possibly even more deadly in close proximity.

A small caliber handgun, at close range, is going to leave a fairly small hole, and as long as it misses major organs and arteries, then it probably won't be deadly. A knife is going to leave a large gaping wound, probably with tearing action as they pull it back out, and the chances of hitting an organ, or damaging an artery are increased.

Up close and personal, the knife is more deadly. If you admit the threats are normally up close and personal, then the addition of firearms isn't significant at all for the robber, but it might be significant for the defender! Once again, the gun wins as a tool of self-defense, and it proves to be insignificant in the commission of the crime.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Which is why one must be always alert and aware of their surroundings.

Personally, I am very conscious of my personal space and it is a natural automatic thing for me to normally keep people at least an arms length away from me. If people start getting too close to me, I maneuver myself to try to keep the distance.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Kellerman was full of it and would have flunked a high school statistics class

Here's a study from the Harvard Journal of Law 2007 that carries a bit more weight: PDF

At least it hasnt become a research laughing stock like Kellermans bogus crap.

Every one of your sources can be torn apart here but I doubt you'll bother checking into it. Gospel is never wrong, right? Even when it's yours and your alone.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


I suspect all your studies are bogus. I'm not going to bother checking them but you should know the Kellerman study has long been discredited.



If you won't bother checking them then you are choosing ignorance my friend.....Many have argued both for and against Kellerman's conclusions. Luckily there are many studies using different methodology that come to similar results. If you choose to ignore this, and would rather rely on your own blind faith that you are right....well, what can I say. Nothing can ever convince someone who will refuse to even open their eyes and consider the evidence at hand.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 



Yes this is true for being TEN FEET AWAY!!!! I seriously doubt most robbers stand so far away when they are trying to get your money....


If you admit the threats are normally up close and personal, then the addition of firearms isn't significant at all for the robber, but it might be significant for the defender! Once again, the gun wins as a tool of self-defense, and it proves to be insignificant in the commission of the crime.


You do realize that you are contradicting yourself massively with that logic don't you? It wouldn't help the robber but would help the defender?!?!?! SAY WHAT?!!?!?!

edit on 20-4-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: One of the little 'puzzled' faces didn't come out....not sure why I need to tell you this, but if it makes you happy to know that, then I am pleased.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
What percentage of murders in the US are comitted with registered firearms? I rest my case.

P.S. If your wife were being raped, would you still insist on her not using a firearm to defend herself? It's funny that "civilized" people are willing to sacrifice their security so willingly.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


No, I didn't contradict myself. I pointed out the contradiction in the other argument. You admitted that most robberies occur up very close, If they are up very close, and the criminal is armed, then it doesn't really matter whether they have a knife, a gun, or a baseball bat. Someone that is willing to be up close, personal, and violent, is potentially deadly with any weapon, so the gun is insignificant. On the other hand, an elderly female, walking along the street is a helpless victim. Even if you gave her a bat or a knife, she is still likely going to be killed. BUT, give her a gun, and a little bit of gun training, and now she is equally as deadly as the thug with his weapon of choice.

SO, for the criminal, the gun is insignificant, but for the little old lady, the gun is a force equalizer and a very significant addition for her defense.

Not contradictory whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


I'm not your friend. If we met in real life I would probably find it hard to refrain from hurting you.


That aside here's an article that trashes another one of your studies:

www.nraila.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
REMEMBER FOLKS, WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY, SOMETIMES HOURS. TILL THEN, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!!! DO WHAT'S NEEDED TO PROTECT YOURSELF. THE POLICE IN THE US ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU BY SCOTUS PRECEDENT!

No Duty To Protect!


Zindo

edit on 4/20/2011 by ZindoDoone because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/20/2011 by ZindoDoone because: forgot link




top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join