More than half of that are suicides. The rest are drug and gang related. Excluding those you get a very low gun death rate from accidents, mass shootings, and a random mugging.
No, I'd prefer liberty. Again, how did training work out here? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MZBS_p-NVFI This is your solution. Pray tell. I've got more visual examples if you continue to sidestep.
Your evidence is a single case? Hilarious. There are bad doctors....should we eliminate medical schools? Lol - - - Updated - - - Suicides and gangs exist in other countries too.....but not our gun deaths
Oh I doubt that. All day every day all you do is peck away at your keyboard on an Internet forum. Unemployed, financially broke, and so unenthusiastic you are bored.
I’m sorry, and I know you need one, but I missed the part where I agreed to be your research assistant. Read the case…. Discussion is a two way street my friend. You answer my questions and I will show you what you ask for. I have not asked you that many questions after all—I’ve just had to repeat them because you refuse to address them. As always, you don’t have to answer them if you don’t want to—but you have no moral authority to demand all the answers be handed to you while you refuse to give any answers yourself. Yes it can. It can (and does) plainly say “keep and bear arms.” You should take off the “what would Justice Stevens do” bracelet. He will have you forget the “keep” part in his haste to declare the “bear” part must have meant only while in active military/militia service. Spock would call that “illogical.” Then it is the pity of the world that you could not back up your claim by showing us where SCOTUS “SPECIFICALLY” said so in Heller—or failing that at least find the hidden footnote attached to the words “we do not address it” which say “but we think it’s OK anyway.” In any event, I found this complaint leveled against the supposed posting habits of someone else, and found it very appropriate…. Bravo! I could not have framed my complaint against you any better. I also asked you direct questions and you cannot answer them. You refuse to even acknowledge my questions. Why? It must be because you have no answer for them—or you don’t like the answers you find. So do me the courtesy of either answering mine or at least telling me you don’t want to. Come on now, if you won’t address my questions then how will we ever get to the part where you have to explain the immunity from prosecution your scheme will have to grant to all the felons?
No. I said, and you even quoted it, that "I've got more visual examples." https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=6bw7Y_18Cg4 Clearly you are not paying attention. This is the most sensible thing I've seen you say. The problem with you, however, is that you cannot apply this line of reasoning to your Australian style stance on guns. And that is not LOL funny, but rather a poor record of your own reasoning. Yet even you can present gems as in this last quote of yours. There are bad apples among gun owners as well. Thus I ask you with regard to your Australian style gun stance, would you eliminate guns and/or gun manufacturers/traders?
How can I show you something that is not there? Hilarious. Heller did not say CCW is a core right right here. . That is too funny. - - - Updated - - - Wait....I have a single visual example that make my case.....lol
That was a second, different visual example presented by me to you. The two links are not the same. You are LOL stupid. Please pay attention. Now, your side stepping aside, respond to my post.
I love visual examples. They are so much better than statistical evidence. Lol I love your insults. I accept the defeat they scream. Lol - - - Updated - - - And paying taxes
Still avoiding my post I see. You must be Hillary's mini me. Now you are here complaining about statistical evidence. You have been trying to use statistics of gun violence to argue against guns when moat of the people in your statistic are not even homicides. Go figure. You love to side-step and continue to do so without any great flare. Your position is so weak that you've resorted to side-stepping and we've hardly done any digging in. Again, respond to my post.
More insults! I love it! Keep it coming! - - - Updated - - - No son. I would not eliminate gun manufacturer. Lol
The Hillary mini me doing what the Clintons do best, that is, don't even respond, or go off on a tangent. Which side of the family are you on, and respond to my poats please. Still waiting. You're going to pull your groin with all of this side-stepping.
I don't know how many answers you want. Lol. But I bore of the insults. They have become repetitive....not even creative. Have a super night!
I just want reasonable responses to my posts to you. Not your side-stepping, and going off on your tangents Hillary mini-me.
I suspect that in most legitimate self defense situations that might occur, you won't have the time to actually aim, with sights, or a laser. The one person I know who actually pulled the trigger in a legit self-defense situation did so before his sidearm got anywhere near being sight usable. He hit the perp in the neck (out of blind luck), and the perp is currently paralyzed in prison. On edit: Or at least was as of about a year ago. I haven't asked for an update since then.
At one time, a .380 acp was a great choice because of it's relatively small size and light weight compared to other handguns, now with available similar sized handguns in 9mm and .40 S&W, there are better choices than .380 acp available.
Irrefutable proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, that what you propose as solutions would actually yield to a proven, statistically significant decrease in the rate of criminals acquiring firearms through theft and illegal sales, and using them for the purpose of harming and killing others. Is that really what you want? Police officers are trained to use deadly force at the slightest provocation, the slightest threat to the safety of a police officer, even when there is no legitimate or actual threat. The news media of the united states is filled with countless examples of fully trained police officers killing family pets, carrying out raids on wrong houses due to incorrect information, and shooting unarmed suspects in the back when they were fleeing. Do you really believe every firearms owner being trained in this degree of deadly force for sixteen weeks is what needs to be implemented? Do you really wish for private citizens to be shooting and killing possible threats at the first sign of trouble, because that is what training similar to law enforcement qualification amounts to? That is ultimately what your requirement would amount to.
And every time a repeat offender gets out, commits a new offense, gets arrested, and must be given a new trial, your taxes are paying for that new trial, and all the related expenses. How many trials for a single individual to you truly wish to pay for, when all conventional wisdom says that they will not stop committing crimes?
Then you would know, having served, that all U.S. Military training is well documented and standardized, so any Soldier that is transferred to another unit or assignment has a personnel record that lists all training etc.... That is how you know.
