- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,390
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
oh it worked exactly as intended. reducing crime was never the real goal of such fruitcake laws. Harassing honest people on one hand, and pandering to the low wattage sheeple on the other, were the real goals and in both cases, the proponents achieved what they intendedWitnesses describe chaotic scene during California mass shooting: 'Running into each other'
Witnesses of the Sacramento shooting describe the chaotic scene.www.foxnews.com
Oh looky here, the land of fruits, nuts and gun control failed.
So one losing against many is your excuse to ban guns?Yep, killing anyone really.
Still even a trained professional got killed trying to fight back against armed criminals.
So one losing against many is your excuse to ban guns?
that might be safer. but when a victim kills or severely wounds an attacker, that is better for society. I wish every violent mugger, robber and rapist was shot by his intended victims. Crime would go way way way down in a matter of monthsNo, it's my reasoning not to "fight back" if you have an option to retire.
Rich has lots of reasons why he wants to ban guns. The most amusing entertainment is watching him argue against his own prior posts concerning the extent of his desired gun bansSo one losing against many is your excuse to ban guns?
Nobody cares, dude.I wouldn't advise you do it though.
Nobody cares, dude.
Rich has lots of reasons why he wants to ban guns. The most amusing entertainment is watching him argue against his own prior posts concerning the extent of his desired gun bans
No, it's my reasoning not to "fight back" if you have an option to retire.
that might be safer. but when a victim kills or severely wounds an attacker, that is better for society. I wish every violent mugger, robber and rapist was shot by his intended victims. Crime would go way way way down in a matter of months
The only option should be, let people decide for themselves. Not people like you to decide for them. It's their life, not yours.
Swing and a miss.Why do you talk in the third person, and why do you have such a low opinion of yourself ?
Having a bad day? A little ganja can help with that.You need higher self-esteem.
Sure, they can act the hero if they want...just hope that it's not an incident I'm caught up in.
And you don't do what safest for you, but act the hero instead ?
Somehow I doubt that.
speak for yourselfAnd you don't do what safest for you, but act the hero instead ?
Somehow I doubt that.
Rich wants potential victims rendered unable to do that. His goal is to make the working conditions for violent criminals saferAgian, not your choice. It maybe the safest option to fight back, if cornered and cannot retreat.
So just let criminals do whatever just get rid of crime altogether live in The Purge all the time.I wouldn't advise you do it though.
What do you think would be a more formidable adversary someone with a weapon or someone without a weapon?Like I said
Do you think that someone can only fight back if they have a gun ?
It's not about being a hero, but self protection if need be.
If self protection is your goal, then run followed by hide are your best bets
If faced with an armed robber, compliance is your best bet
If and only if, you are corned by an active shooter, should you attempt to fight - as it's the most dangerous option for you to take.
speak for yourself
All depends. Running and hiding while the rest of your family is exposed may not be an option.
Then agian, I'll leave that choice to each person to decide for themselves. Being a backseat victim for people who it doesn't effect, is much diffrent than being there.
Evidence?Fighting back when the victim of gun crime, is the surest way to get killed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?