- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 10,876
- Reaction score
- 4,415
- Location
- The late great Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then why do armed bad guys seem to prey on the ones they are pretty certain are unarmed?
Then why do armed bad guys seem to prey on the ones they are pretty certain are unarmed?Why is that "pathetic" ?
It's absolutely correct.
Then why do armed bad guys seem to prey on the ones they are pretty certain are unarmed?
That's because they are too fracking lazy to get jobs to get money the right way.But they also prey upon people they think have $$$.
So I protect some unarmed person being attacked? I would assume I would become a target if said target wasn't neutralized ASAP.Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens
Research carried out at The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. Nothing skewed there.Good stat
Out of interest, where did you get it ?
No they are NOT. They only look scary to you.AR-15's ***ARE*** assault weapons.
" cap to crocs."I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.
How do they tell who has the $$$? Car, dress or maybe they saw them leave a ATM?But they also prey upon people they think have $$$.
I think they should serve for a while at first before being able to carry a firearm. Partnered with an armed officer for safety.It is indeed a spurious argument, individual on individual. How is a criminal to know if their victim is armed?
Generalized though, the argument does make sense. Committing a crime without a gun is a lesser legal risk, and if gun ownership was very rare then burglars and muggers would be far less likely to carry. And that would be good, because fewer people would die.
Police not regularly carrying guns is worth considering as policy. If they didn't pose a risk to the lives of criminals, the latter would be far less inclined to shoot at them. In 2021, 73 officers were murdered, but 1,055 members of the public were killed by police. It's pretty obvious who is shooting first.
blah, blah--------just get regulations that keep these out of the hands of wackos............In other words you still hold that AR-15s are "assault weapons" because of appearance and shoot more or rather hold more than 10 rounds in a standard magazine. "Assault weapons" are a myth designed to confuse the people that don't know the difference between those and actual assault rifles.
I can't wait to see what you think would work.blah, blah--------just get regulations that keep these out of the hands of wackos............
Much stricter wait periods for certain weapons; liability laws stricter, etc............I can't wait to see what you think would work.
A general search on DuckDuckGo concerning self defense and those who carry; they seem to come up with less marketing and sales content than Google.Good stat
Out of interest, where did you get it ?
I learned to not link to sources like Fox and CNN when possible; been spanked too many times doing that.Talk about cherry picking. 90% of the case group were young Black males outside in the most drug infested neighborhoods in Philly. Even noted gun control advocate Garen Wintemute thought this study was crap.
As a 3rd party to a crime, I suspect using deadly force against someone targeting someone else would be very thin ice. In this type of a situation, it would likely only stand up in court if the perp actually shot their victim, and was not just waving a gun around for intimidation.So I protect some unarmed person being attacked? I would assume I would become a target if said target wasn't neutralized ASAP.
Don't worry I know the difference between waving around to intimidate and actually a threat on his or her life. How do I know? I just do. You carry you know.As a 3rd party to a crime, I suspect using deadly force against someone targeting someone else would be very thin ice. In this type of a situation, it would likely only stand up in court if the perp actually shot their victim, and was not just waving a gun around for intimidation.
It may seem to be the best thing to do at the moment, but taking the life of another, even when 100% justified, is the thing nightmares and psychosis is made of; worse yet if left to contemplate in prison for 10 to life...
There are regs. the 1934 NFA banning them (assault rifles) unless you jump through their hoops and pay the silly ass tax.blah, blah--------just get regulations that keep these out of the hands of wackos............
What the baby brigade would love is a 2023 YGFFA. YOU. GOT. ****ED. FIREARM. ACT. and if you were a good little boy or girl you could maybe have a DBL shotgun. And real good one, a muzzle loader .50 exemption. Might shoot down an airliner.I can't wait to see what you think would work.
Would mass murders be concerned about liability or waiting periods?Much stricter wait periods for certain weapons; liability laws stricter, etc............
Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens
AR-15's ***ARE*** assault weapons.
So what, they carried guns and got shot
How do the people who shot them differ from the people who rob other demographics ?
You mean the gangbusters in Philly didn't read and heed it?The point of the study (and the poster's point in citing it) was to discourage the carriage of arms by law-abiding citizens only intending to protect themselves.
You mean the gangbusters in Philly didn't read and heed it?
You just make stuff up huh?One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
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?