|
-
01-08-2015, 01:24 PM #151
-
01-08-2015, 01:24 PM #152
-
-
01-08-2015, 01:25 PM #153
-
01-08-2015, 01:26 PM #154
-
01-08-2015, 01:28 PM #155
-
01-08-2015, 01:32 PM #156
why do you need to shoot back?
shooting back does NOT make you safe.
the best way to be safe is to get out of the way.
arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen
outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7
-
-
01-08-2015, 01:35 PM #157
-
01-08-2015, 01:42 PM #158
-
01-08-2015, 01:44 PM #159
-
01-08-2015, 02:09 PM #160
-
-
01-08-2015, 02:15 PM #161
-
01-08-2015, 02:24 PM #162
-
01-08-2015, 02:26 PM #163
-
01-08-2015, 02:34 PM #164
-
-
01-08-2015, 03:27 PM #165
I doubt any pro-gun people will listen to you. I really get what you're saying though.
The pro-gun side has better points from an individuals point of view. Because lets face it, it would suck horribly to get shot at while you're unarmed.
But the anti-gun side is more about safety for everyone. Sadly most people can't think outside of their own individuality and thereby don't see the forest for the trees.
The fact is that disarming everyone would reduce the number of gun deaths/conflicts making you statistically and realistically safer from harm.
It's like saying, would you be safer with a gun in a urban shythole like Detroit... or safer unarmed in a rich superb. The answer is obvious.
-
01-08-2015, 03:50 PM #166
Agreed...this is called suppressing or covering fire.
arguing with an american gun nut is a lost cause,its like trying to tell a christian his god and bible is a load of fairy tales.they will not listen
outside of your **** hole of a country,shootings are so rare its not worth worrying about
your beloved faux news has turned you into pussies who think every stranger or muslim is out for blood 24/7[/QUOTE]
No, muslims have turned us into people that think muslims are out for blood.
-
01-08-2015, 04:03 PM #167
-
01-08-2015, 04:22 PM #168
- Join Date: Oct 2009
- Location: California, United States
- Posts: 14,227
- Rep Power: 188689
-
-
01-08-2015, 05:02 PM #169
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Cumming, Georgia, United States
- Posts: 130,807
- Rep Power: 564605
But they are wrong, disarming people, even as a whole population, does not make them safer. In the US more guns in private citizen's hands, and more free carry laws, has coincided with reduced violent crime, reduced gun crime, and reduced murders. In other countries gun bans have not reduced violent crime and have not even reduced murders.
Really? That'st he best you can do? Compare Detroit to a "rich suberb"? lol. We all [ought to] know that the local demographics are the most significant indicator of violent crime. You get Detroit's demographics and "socioeconomic status" and you are going to have a lot of crime. You get a "rich suburb" and you are going to have less crime.
-
01-08-2015, 05:18 PM #170
I don't understand how anyone can argue so vociferously against the most fundamental right to protect your very existence by any means possible... Just lol. Weaponry gives the peaceful a fighting chance to live in peace.
Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
**Flow with the Go Crew**
**Turn off lights in public restroom every time I'm first to leave crew**
Feeding off the tears of 19 year old misc philosophers since 2011
-
01-08-2015, 05:42 PM #171
-
01-08-2015, 10:14 PM #172
Concealed carry likely wouldn't have stopped anything in this case. Remember the North Hollywood shootout? 2 guys, who seemed to be not as well trained as the France killers, with nearly identical weaponry, took on dozens of armed LAPD officers and had them at bay for nearly 45 minutes. A pistol is no match for an AK-47 under the most ideal circumstances.
I am a huge advocate of concealed carry but in this case it likely would have resulted in one more innocent dead if they would have done anything except try to get away.
-
-
01-08-2015, 10:23 PM #173
- Join Date: Oct 2009
- Location: California, United States
- Posts: 14,227
- Rep Power: 188689
Not true at all. The police in the North Hollywood shootout weren't simply outgunned, they lacked proficiency and were horribly trained. Weaponry is part of it, but training and experience > all. Generally, cops are not well trained. I'd put money on your average citizen who goes to the range on his own is more proficient than your average cop.
The great thing about carrying a concealed firearm is that only you know you have it. The Oregon mall shooting from a year or two back was ended by a man with a concealed weapon. He didn't fire because there were people behind the shooter, but the sight of resistance caused the shooter to kill himself right then and there. Would the terrorists have done the same? Probably not, but their attention would have shifted to the threat and away from those who were unarmed.
It boggles my mind that anyone can think being unarmed is ever a better alternative. If a citizen had been present with a concealed weapon, it would have given them a fighting chance. Instead, they were rounded up in that office and executed.
You can rely on the mercy of a murderer if you want, I'll rely on myself to protect my life.Misc Firearms Crew
11B Crew
Beat LA
MAGA
-
01-09-2015, 12:22 AM #174
-
01-09-2015, 01:20 AM #175
-
01-09-2015, 01:26 AM #176
I'm afraid of the majority in the middle, not good guys or bad guys: poorly trained and dumb having a gun in their hands. "But I thought he was reaching for my purse. So I opened fire and riddled the Subway train with bullets and decapitated bystanders"
I have a left and right hand. I can protect myself. I don't need a tool to do it for me.
-
-
01-09-2015, 03:16 AM #177
-
01-09-2015, 03:23 AM #178
-
01-09-2015, 03:25 AM #179
-
01-09-2015, 03:29 AM #180
Bookmarks