There’s the cold hard facts for you up above.
And there are the cold hard facts of the inner city I had to live through.
I meant “seriously” in the context of public awareness of it.
People don’t tattoo the 3A on themselves, don’t use it as a rallying cry on political gatherings and most certainly do not paint it on their vehicles and personal items nor yell it at strangers claiming that “you can’t change it”
So his buddy could then shoot you at a red light later on. Should have just surrendered. Do as they say. I mean, hey, you made it out alive. Had you been armed, you more likely would have had your own firearm used on you, or used on someone else because it was stolen from you. Guns turn into accidental shooting guns, suicide guns, and homicide guns far more, FAAAAR more, than they do into justifiable shooting guns. Again, facts up above. All that is left is the hobby shooting justification…A most selfish, immature, and illogical reason if I’ve ever heard of one. Not one child’s life is worth that hobby!
I understand. I assume that’s because the Government doesn’t frequently attempt to violate that law.
1 Like
The type of person that’s uneducated about the laws already on the books who then commits a crime on tape and posts it to social media. I.e. not the brightest person.
I have taught cops weapons retention so I seriously doubt that would have happened.
Tell that to any cop who used his gun.
I think I already said that.
Nope, sorry. Once again, look up above. Cold, hard, facts. There’s simply no room for argument. Folly.
Actually there is. Where in the article does it state that a gun is not an effective self-defense tool?
The article talks about justifiable homicides but what about cases where a criminal is wounded? What about cases where the gun acted as a deterrent? What about cases where the criminal surrendered before getting shot?
Justifiable shootings are a rare species. What actually happens is that people are killed by their own guns, or other people in the home are killed by the that person’s guns, or that the firearm is flat out stolen and used to kill other people.
When it demonstrates how more often those self-defense tools are turned on themselves, others in the home, or simply stolen and used elsewhere. FAAAAAAR more often than any justifiable homicide. Sorry, that’s cold hard reality. No romantic antiquated self-defense fantasy bullshit here in the real world.
Kill other people without guns.
"…Or, put another way, 1.2 million scenarios in which there was potential for someone to kill in self-defense.
Oh, and match those 259 justifiable homicides with the theft of about 232,000 guns each year, about 172,000 of them during burglaries. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals."
Reposting.
And where in that article does it mention unarmed people getting murdered or victimized? Is an unarmed person more likely to be a victim than an armed person?
The criminals are often armed because of the bullshit need for self defense. Do I really need to quote it again? I literally just did.
That is a false statement because it implies that a legal judgment was made.
Are you sure they weren’t claimed as burglaries but were really just a way to sell a gun to a criminal?
A criminal can’t claim self-defense.
Follow along. They burglarize homes and steal the guns of those who thought they were going to defend self and home…
"A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740