Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

venom

The British Called...They Want Their Guns Back!

37 posts in this topic

i didn't say anything should be taken, i just made a comment on how stupid it is to think you're safer because you have a gun when the opposite is true.

history tells a different story, and your analogies are childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

history tells a different story, and your analogies are childish.

i remember how gun owners in america triumphantly rose up and opposed the bush administration while it lied to them about the reasons to wage war in iraq and systematically stripped them of their civil liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're more likely to be killed by a tiger if you have a tiger. you're more likely to be killed by a grenade if you have a grenade. you're more likely to be killed by a gun if you have a gun.

My family and I are safer b/c I own and know how to use weapons. We will not be victims and you shouldn't have to be either. If you choose to not own a firearm, that's your choice. But please do not say that law abiding citizens who chose not to be a statistic are more likely to be killed. That is a farce. People are killed and raped every single day. There is no easy way to offer a solution. But if they chose to arm themselves, then they could in turn defend themselves.

S4300855.jpg

S4300849.jpg

S4300850.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't say anything should be taken, i just made a comment on how stupid it is to think you're safer because you have a gun when the opposite is true.

your point fits in with what i'm saying. you're more likely to get in a car wreck if you have a car.

I think the logic could hold statistically but in that logic it would have to be one's own tiger, car, gun, etc. While the # of gun murders and attacks may be high, the #'s for accidental gun injuries are low. Key word accidental, as in self inflicted or inflicting on someone near you without intention. If that is what you mean then I most certainly agree with you, as you can't harm yourself with that which you do not have. I would disagree if you meant that the odds are better of one getting shot by a criminal if they themselves are armed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family and I are safer b/c I own and know how to use weapons. We will not be victims and you shouldn't have to be either. If you choose to not own a firearm, that's your choice. But please do not say that law abiding citizens who chose not to be a statistic are more likely to be killed. That is a farce. People are killed and raped every single day. There is no easy way to offer a solution. But if they chose to arm themselves, then they could in turn defend themselves.

having a gun does not make you a super hero. if you're going to be killed, you're going to be killed. the only difference is being around gun makes you more likely to be shot by one. your kids are less safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember how gun owners in america triumphantly rose up and opposed the bush administration while it lied to them about the reasons to wage war in iraq and systematically stripped them of their civil liberties.

oh jesus here we go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having a gun does not make you a super hero. if you're going to be killed, you're going to be killed. the only difference is being around gun makes you more likely to be shot by one. your kids are less safe.

So from your stand point, if there were no firearms in the house, and a group of armed men forced entry, raped my wife, then murdered us, we are safer then if we have firearms to defend ourselves and actually have a chance of survival? I'm lost.

And no, I'm no superhero. But I will kill a piece of poo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal policies only work if everyone plays by "the rules".

By definition criminals do not obey "the rules".

And regardless, guns are necessary as a deterrent of tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from your stand point, if there were no firearms in the house, and a group of armed men forced entry, raped my wife, then murdered us, we are safer then if we have firearms to defend ourselves and actually have a chance of survival? I'm lost.

And no, I'm no superhero. But I will kill a piece of sh*t.

scenario 1: a group of armed men force entry, rape your wife, murder you.

scenario 2: one of your kids uses judgment common to their age.

i guess everyone is welcome to play the odds of what they think is more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scenario 1: a group of armed men force entry, rape your wife, murder you.

scenario 2: one of your kids uses judgment common to their age.

i guess everyone is welcome to play the odds of what they think is more likely.

scenario 2: my weapons are locked up and are not accessible to my kids. I have a handgun in a night stand safe. My old man always had guns in the house, NOT locked up. We knew they weren't toys and Dad would beat the poo outta us if we even looked at em.

Just b/c you think the way you do about this issue doesn't mean every American that owns firearms are irresponsible heathens. Yeah, sometimes poo happens. Compared to the amount of folks that own firearms, that sometimes is low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal policies only work if everyone plays by "the rules".

By definition criminals do not obey "the rules".

And regardless, guns are necessary as a deterrent of tyranny.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when i was a teenager my mom came in my room at about 4am, woke me up, and said "do you need to see a brochure?" i had to walk her back to her bed without waking her up.

i never forget that when i think about guns in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites