“If we allowed concealed carry of guns, I could just shoot the rapist in the balls.”
Hysterical!
I thought this would be better than a straw man argument. How about inviting anyone from the gun control groups for a real debate?
Anytime. They are welcome here. Really. But as you mentioned it, I’ll reach out again.
My mom wears my sweatshirt which states “GUN CONTROL MEANS HITTING YOUR TARGET” enough said LMAO
Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, that failed to protect them. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it and held there fire. It seems that the criminals weren’t too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as Chicago murders are almost universally committed using supposedly banned guns, wielded by those who cannot lawfully posses them. Wolves attack sheep not bears. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage.
The Sheppard lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dogs teeth were no sharper nor its bit more vicious than the wolf but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.
Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pale in comparison and are insignificant to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.
Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and there life to yet another criminal. Predators are themselves preyed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they also make the best victims as they are not going to call 911 and usually have something worth steeling. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses and victims. Would you turn it or testify against a criminal in his prime to whom you have no defense against. I think not. He may have friends, relatives, employees or fellow gang members. He might even get out and thank you personally for giving evidence against him.
It takes but a single dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.
“If we allowed concealed carry of guns, I could just shoot the rapist in the balls.”
Hysterical!
I thought this would be better than a straw man argument. How about inviting anyone from the gun control groups for a real debate?
Anytime. They are welcome here. Really. But as you mentioned it, I’ll reach out again.
My mom wears my sweatshirt which states “GUN CONTROL MEANS HITTING YOUR TARGET” enough said LMAO
Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, that failed to protect them. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it and held there fire. It seems that the criminals weren’t too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as Chicago murders are almost universally committed using supposedly banned guns, wielded by those who cannot lawfully posses them. Wolves attack sheep not bears. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage.
The Sheppard lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dogs teeth were no sharper nor its bit more vicious than the wolf but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.
Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pale in comparison and are insignificant to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.
Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and there life to yet another criminal. Predators are themselves preyed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they also make the best victims as they are not going to call 911 and usually have something worth steeling. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses and victims. Would you turn it or testify against a criminal in his prime to whom you have no defense against. I think not. He may have friends, relatives, employees or fellow gang members. He might even get out and thank you personally for giving evidence against him.
It takes but a single dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.
Comments are closed.