[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Thank for exactly proving the point of the person you responded to. It's not about belief or disbelief, it's about having a hole blown in you by a bullet. It is difficult to tell if your very tired old substitution example ('ladder' in your case) is more missaplied or simply point-blank stupid. You know as well as anyone, a ladder is not a easily transportable and concealable weapon. You do know that a firearm is much more lethal by it's very nature, and you do know that the lethality of a weapon directly correlates to the fatality rate of a conflict. These are facts. No attitude or level of self-centered stupidity changes them. All sensible people are able to determine the difference between sensible gun control (no all-caps needed) and an outright ban on private firearms (which no one is seeking). So get a life, begin thinking, and stop being a crazed fanatic. There is no question whatsoever that a general redution in firearms will reduce the rate of firearm deaths. Current policies are too loose, and have too many loopholes. Sensible controls will help, leaving a greater ratio of firearms in the hands of trained law abiding citizens. You're not Rambo. You, in an armed conflict, would crap your pants and spray a couple of shots, hopefully, at the ceiling, if not at an innocent bystander. Why do we universally see combat veterans as the most vocal against carry and especially concealed carry promotion? They've been there and they know how average Joe-target-plunker would do in a real conflict. They'd rather not get their kid or wife or mom shot.[/citation]
Wow! You make all the classic arrogant, intellectually dishonest, intellectually sophomoric, anti-gun arguments, with no facts with which to back up your blanket assertions.
LOL! "All sensible people . . ." Sensible according to whom? Are we to assume that only anti-gun people are "sensible, and thus by definition anyone who wishes to own, possess, use firearms is irrational or "unsensible?" Too funny! You make a circular, irrefutable and unsubstantiated argument based on your own biases and beliefs. Very typical of those on the left and those who fundamentally disbelieve in the concepts of individual liberty, freedom and responsibility.
Poll after poll shows that not only do combat veterans, but street level police officers overwhelmingly support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The ratio isn't even close and most of those (always the most parroted and echoed by the MSM) who do oppose it are the political appointees, like police chiefs.
The examples I gave are exactly applicable. The likelihood of any one individual being shot by a law abiding citizen exercising their right, as protected under the 2nd amendment is vanishingly small by comparison to virtually every other common form of death. Remember that those "homicide" number you always see reported include all justifiable (self-defense) killings as they are classified as homicides.
The most readily apparent fact about every one of these mass killings is the fact that they invariably occur in "gun-free zones." Hmmm. . . . why do you suppose that is? Could it be because the perp knows with absolute certainty that he will not face someone capable of stopping him in his malevolent intent?
What is absolutely clear about you, who would restrict of completely outlaw possession of firearms for the average law-abiding person, fear your fellow citizens more than you fear a tyrannical government. History is replete with examples that prove your fear to be misplaced. Tyranny can only occur when those in government do not fear their citizenry, which is one reason those bent on such action begin with an effort to outlaw firearms.
Our American Founding Fathers understood this fact (being far better educated than most modern liberals, far better and clearer thinkers, and having expended their blood and treasure to free themselves from the tyranny of a despotic king). Thus they included those rights under the rubric of those "endowed by our Creator," those "unalienable rights" which spawn directly from the right to own property--the paramount right (as far as they were concerned), and restricted, with specific language, the power of our government to interfere with that right.
The worst and by far most nonsensical thing people like yourself do is to anthropomorphize firearms (and other policially incorrect inanimate objects), attributing to them traits with are only found in living beings, such as "evil" or the ability to kill. Inanimate objects are only that, they cannot initiate actions on their own. It takes a human being to cause those evil acts to occur. To attribute such traits to firearms is irrational. As are those in the anti-gun movement.
/nssf.org/safety/basics/) less tragic crap like this would happen.[/citation]
Facebook
Twitter