Are you for or against Total Gun Abolition ?

The District of Columbia effectively outlawed guns in the early 70s. The result? They have earned the title of the "Murder Capital of the U.S." at least 7 times since banning guns. More than 90% of all homicides in the District are committed with firearms.

Last year in DC, a woman in her 70s was sitting in her bedroom when armed thugs broke into her home and shot and killed her son as he sat on the couch, then began shooting at her daughter who ran. As the thugs searched the house, the mother retrieved her gun and shot one of them dead as he came through her bedroom door.

The police charged her with illegal possession of a firearm.

Gun owners of America have another well held mantra: "Better judged by 12 than carried by 6".

The jury refused to convict her.
 
Non Lethal Weapons

The funniest aspect of the gun control debate, just like capital punishment and abortion issues, is that it seems to be grounded in the genetic code of those who support of gun ownership, captial punishment, and denying women the right of choice on the abortion issue.

It must be somewhere in the Bible that gun ownership is a decree from God, as people act and think like the right came from heaven above.

You can see the weakness, and true intent of the "gun nuts" when you suggest the possibility of replacing guns with non lethal weapons.

They go nuts when you suggest this. Even though the outcome is the same, self defense, there is something about the ability to not only stop an attacker, but to be able to kill the attacker that is foremost in their minds.
 
This is not my lingo below but a copy from an english text so you can't pretext not understanding ... so next time you will aggress me try to think twice about the argument I should present :D

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...=6&pagenumber=2

WHAT IS A FREEMASON?
A man who joins a society which he knows nothing about.
The two authors of the book "The Hiram Key", Chris Knight and Robert Lomas, bear this statement out in an article printed in the Yorkshire Post, 11 May 1996. Please bear in mind that what you are reading herewith is not a criticism but pure fact. Both these men are Freemasons ...

Quote from candletrader:

To tell you da God-given truth dude, I am having a real tuff time decipherin your lingo... :confused:
More...
 
If you can defend yourself only by stopping the attacker with minimal harm, then you have lost some of the fear deterent that you are hoping for in having available a lethal defense. With the number of guns there are out there, if the desire to kill the attacker was the primary motive then wouldn't there be vastly more killed attackers or would be attackers than there is now. We hear about the attacks where shots are fired but not about the vastly more numerous confrontations where would be attackers have second thoughts and leave. This second senario is definitely the hoped for one.
 
I don't know in US but in france if you only wounded the finger of a burglar with an arm or even with just an aerosol to defend yourself if he tried to really kill you yourself the burglar can complain and it is you that will go to jail because it would not be considered as legitime defense. Whereas if you kill the burglar there is more chance that it will be considered as legitime defense that's crazy. So you better not use an arm even an aerosol.
 
In a true democracy one shouldn't need guns and I used to be against guns because I thought it was the case. Now that time is changing and that dictature threat is showing serious sign - as I said a famous french writer has been threaten of assassination for revealing that Socialist Mitterand is in fact a right wing extremist and that he was found dead one day on the beach - I am now for. So it is not so much for defending against buglars than defending against a police state tyranny in a future civil war if 1984 realises.
 
Quote from Doubter:

If you can defend yourself only by stopping the attacker with minimal harm, then you have lost some of the fear deterrent that you are hoping for in having available a lethal defense. With the number of guns there are out there, if the desire to kill the attacker was the primary motive then wouldn't there be vastly more killed attackers or would be attackers than there is now. We hear about the attacks where shots are fired but not about the vastly more numerous confrontations where would be attackers have second thoughts and leave. This second scenario is definitely the hoped for one.
More...

Ya, ya, ya. And capital punishment deters murders. And countries with gun control have more crimes.

Just nonsense, and ignoring the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top