Eh...so I was wrong on the count. Doesn't change the fact that there are billions of people who can go their entire lives without needing a gun. Now...speaking of not living in a factual world. I am the furthest thing from anti-gun as I am a gun owner. I have stated that MANY, MANY times on many different threads. Been shooting guns since I was 16. Are you man enough to admit you're wrong?
What the hell kinds of night clubs are you going to that you need a knife and pepper spray? I dunno...maybe it's time to make better choices as to where you hang out.
As I said before to you on another thread, if something quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. You quack like an anti-gunner, you are certainly not a pro-gunner, and you certainly don't have a good grasp of numbers.
So because I have the ability to point out a simple fact that billions of people can go their entire lives without needing a gun THAT makes me anti-gun? Do you EVER make sense?
I am not a fan of questions based hypothetical scenarios, particularly when posed to Liberals that live in a hypothetical world where they will counter every proposed hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer biased to substantiate their position. I based my post on actual experience using the framework of the OP question because actual experience trumps hypothetical projections and readers will either learn from that or will develop how they would have, hypothetically, done something different that would keep their narratives and biases intact. When I have trained in the various self defense methods I have, I trained with those of experience, not theory.
I stated a single reason why people need guns--emergencies. That's why I have a gun. I don't know what the future will bring. I could be plunged into relative chaos (at least temporarily) in a few days. That kind of chaos is happening not even 150 miles from where I sit. That, and you don't know if those billions of people wouldn't be better off with guns. Many people who need guns may simply not have them. That is why they are at the mercy of the gangs and corrupt governments. Sure they can survive without guns, but you don't know (and I don't know) if they are better off with or without guns.
Yes, some people in the US have needed guns. No doubt. But a VAST majority have never needed a gun. Hence my original point that there are hundreds of millions of US citizens who will live their entire lives without ever needing a gun. Sorry if you don't like that fact. Not sure why it triggers certain people.
Meaning that it is purely speculation devoid of anything resembling actual proof. Therefore it is irrelevant. Then name them. Show what these "other means of self defense" are that is being referred to on the part of yourself. Demonstrate what these other means are, that are apparently able to render firearms unnecessary, and can be utilized by absolutely anyone.
The statement on the part of the member Bulgarica can easily be interpreted as a simple statement of fact that it is impossible to live in a world where firearms either do not exist, or are simply not accessible by those that would misuse them for the purpose of victimizing others.
And that fine. You should be able to have a gun. And fillig out a few forms would not stop you from having a gun.
So because somewhere around 8% of Americans have concealed carry permits, which doesn't say how many actually carry daily, we have a significantly lower murder rate? I don't buy it.
Is there no end to the excuses you guys can come up with? At 11 years old I went through a hurricane here that almost killed my younger brother and flattened over 50 pine trees in my backyard. I don't carry a firearm.
Common sense. Criminals, like the rest of us, weigh the risks/benefits of their crimes. The more lawful people that are armed, the greater the risks, which makes it so that the criminals don't try the crime. Too high of a chance of running into an armed civilian. Even if that theory isn't true, regardless, the increase in concealed carry due to the liberalization of CCW permits isn't increasing the murder rate as some predicted before they were passed.
No, common sense says 95% of Americans don't carry, so no just because of a few do, it wouldn't necessarily lower the murder rate. A few have always carried. There are other reasons most likely the murder rate has gone down.
I don't mind filling out those forms. I just don't delude myself that filling out those forms does a damned thing to decrease criminals with guns. All it does is provide security theater, which does nothing tangible, but makes people think something is being done. Heck, the ATF pursues almost no leads of people who try to illegally buy guns and fail the background checks. The whole thing is a farce and wastes time and resources that would better be spent enlarging prisons to harshly punish those who use guns to commit other crimes.
The vast majority might encounter conditions where they might need a gun. Most people don't need fire extinguishers either, but that doesn't mean that they are any less useful.
Its just a coincidence that ONLY the places that have those forms have low gun deaths. Sometimes even with the form you will have high gun deaths (bad enforcement, corruption....etc) but you can ONLY find low gun deaths in places that have those forms. Come on.....that is not a coincidence
No, the vast majority of people don’t encounter conditions where they might need a gun. We know this based on crime statistics.
Not at all. The stats don't say anything about a few people carrying firearms has lowered the murder rate. That interpretation is all in your mind.
If the stats said the opposite, I'm sure you'd be crowing about it. Regardless, an increase in people carrying firearms doesn't increase the murder rate.
Don't tell me what I'd crow about and what I wouldn't. The point is your connection hasn't been made, yet you're pretending it has.
