Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well I think the guns help. If you stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people.

 

It's not like those are the only two options. There are all sorts of weapons that murderers could use if they could not use guns.

Knives and machetes for example.

More importantly though, our freedom would be well worth the cost even if guns were an actual problem.

 

Which aren't as effective.

 

They are effective enough that the victim still ends up dead.

And like I said, our freedom would be well worth the cost even if guns were an actual problem.

 

Self-defense guns are designed to protect life.

Target-shooting guns are designed to strike nonliving objects.

It is a true statistic.

The cause of those deaths is the people who pulled the triggers.

They are useful for protecting against that crime however.

 

LoL

Aren't they the soldiers who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Guns aren't effective for self-defense either, since the US has one of the highest homicide rates in the West.... while having the highest number of guns per capita.

The reality is that a citizen cannot buy a nuclear bomb because it is extremely dangerous.

However, it's an inanimate object...

Weird, isn't it?

It may....

Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

Let me bring you back to reality

Maybe in your fantasy world a gun and a knife are almost equivalent to commit a murder, but in reality they are not.

And the statistics speak for themselves.

But maybe you are right.

So let's put two guys who hate each other face to face. One with a knife and one with a gun.

Who will kill the other?

Come on, make me laugh with an idiotic answer...

 

Prove it.

I mean, statistically.

Prove to me that the proliferation of guns has made America safer.

Look for it, you will surely find it easily given your implacable logic.

 

By killing
Yep killing/destroying.

 

I would give up my guns in a minute, if it would save one innocent life. The problem is that if I give up my guns, the bad guys will still have theirs and the three elderly people in this house would be left defenseless. That does not even address the problem of some young thug breaking into our house with a ball bat.

 

Seems to me the Supreme court has already 'demolished' any 2A enemies, and here is an award winning member of the Bar who is certified to appear before them to explain it to anyone who doubts that:

 

Can you show me what statute prevents you from doing that? PS... See my post above. Says it all.

 

In your life, how many crimes have you prevented with your guns?

All the Pro 2A's on this forum have definite ideas about gun ownership but are still unable to prove statistically that the proliferation of guns has made the country safer.

Will you be the first to prove this to me?

 

From heller

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

 

And Bruen clarified that, which you would already know had you bothered watching the video I posted. You responded so quick, you couldn't have even gotten past the intro, so, you lose.

 

I'm pretty sure I said this directly to you before, which you ignored, and probably will again, but the fact of the matter is that I personally know at least 6 people in 3 different families who are drawing breath today because one of them was armed at the precise moment they needed to be. And only one of them even needed to pull the trigger, but he had some 6' 11" pro-wrestler in full-blown roid rage attacking him and a family member. An elderly family member at that.

 

Zero and it is my plan to keep it at zero. The guns are a last resort. Keep in mind that the good guys getting rid of their guns does mean the bad guys will comply.

Guns defense is multi layered.

1) The criminal is deterred by the knowledge that the people in this house are likely to own guns

2) The criminal is deterred witht the knowledge that the people in this house do own guns.

3) The criminal is stopped with the threat of the home owner using his guns.

4) The criminal is stopped when the home owner does use his guns.

It is my prayer that the bad guy does not progress beyond step 2.

 

1:not a deterrent
2:how does he know?

 

Would you break into a house where there is a good chance that the owner of that house has a gun and is willing to use it?

I do not advertise the fact that I own guns, but neither do I keep it a secret.

 

With all due respect, I am not interested in your personal experiences.

Do you know how to use the internet?

Then prove to me that the proliferation of guns makes the country safer.

We're on the 39th page of this thread and you haven't submitted any data that proves what I'm asking.

Maybe it's too difficult?

 

That's the fancy theory of the pro 2A.

If this were true, the US would have by far the lowest homicide rate in the world.

But in reality, how do guns make the country safer?

Prove it to me with statistics.

I've asked every Pro 2A the same thing probably 50 times.

 

Depends on how wealthy he appears.

 

The

The fallacy of that argument is that the guns are already here. Making sure the gad guys get rid of theirs will take decades.

 

I live in a very rural area. All my neighbors own guns.

 

Still depends on how wealthy he appears.

 

I do not know or care how wealthy they are. I would not try to break into a house where the owner likely owns a gun.