So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
Stop messing this thing up with facts, would ya?The councilman with the gun is a member of the PD and acted exactly as he should.
Thom Paine
So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
The people it the world today ,are crazy !:shoot:stop:
Thanks,it doesn't matter to me what you think!:2wave:
So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
The people in the world today ,are crazy !:shoot:stop:
FYI cops are civilians. Anyone not on active-duty or drill orders under Title-10 or Title-32 is a civilian.So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
That was obvious to Hitler too.
I'm invoking Godwin's Law.
/thread
Whatever placates your system of denial.
Wow, really? :roll:
So applying Goodman's law changes the facts of history? Or just your having to accept it?
Applying Godwin's Law means you automatically lose for making lame Hitler references - the first resort of :censored
First, hypothetically, is killing someone more or less difficult if there was absolutely no guns? NONE. Let's give them to the armed forces. No guns in the civilian populace, and not even police officers, because they would be way too drunk with their power. None.
Don't you think less people would die? None of this, but he got this gun from Mexico thing. Just hypothetically, if there were no guns, how do you think it would affect the homicide count in particular?
So if I reference Hitler built the autobahn in a debate over highway construction I loose the argument? Non-sense, Goodwin's law is simply a, head in the sand, way out for those who can not participate in a debate.
First you have to explain in which reality would there ever be no guns?
That's part of my point. Gun manufacturers have essentially forced people to buy guns, not only for protection but for evil as well. And, as more school shootings happen, or homicides, that's exactly what they want!! Why? Because people want to defend themselves. So they buy guns.
And essentially this view would never happen, because not only would it kill jobs, but it would lose lots of revenue to the government. But honestly, if it were possible, and some countries in this world have done it, there would be far less violence without guns. I know people kill people, not guns. But guns are a form of technology designed to kill people instantly at a distance, and is somewhat easy to figure out how to shoot it. Guns make killing people easy, especially the automatics like in Columbine. If you make guns more easy to obtain, not only are guns easier to purchase for protection, but also for malice intent. To provide evidence about the gun industry wanting violence, there was a background check being considered in the senate. Over 90 percent of the general public was for this background check before purchasing a gun. Over 80 percent of NRA members were for this background check. The Senate didn't pass it.
It shows two things. First, the power of lobby. Second, that the NRA wants anybody and everybody, regardless of mental state, to buy a gun. The more violence you see on TV, the more prone you are to buy your own weapon.
In order to rid this country of weapons, we would have to disband the NRA and gun manufacturers, whenever a firearm is confiscated it is destroyed, and we would have to infiltrate the black market and destroy those guns. But America is so gunho and entrenched in this second amendment crap, that essentially we will never have a society with gun control, there are simply way too many guns. And that was exactly the plan from the get go from the gun industry.
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?