Yes, the point is that a trained user of a gun is still not safe. I am sure red knows what he is doing, he has a ppk. Smart and competent, he is. Gun makes his life less safe. Someone could shoot him with it. He could shoot himself. It could be stolen. He could brandish it and frighten a crook into shooting him. He could smoke some bad drugs and shoot his lady, cops shoot him. Dangerous. I don't own a gun. I could be mugged. I won't get in a shoot out. I would run. Nobody can steal my gun and kill me or go on a rampage. I am safer for my lack of a nearby gun.
Silly argument. Can easily turn around and say that you shoot the mugger who intended to take your gun and go on a rampage therefore saving lives. Therefore safer community. You are clearly smarter than this.
woman in connecticut was trained. went to the range. was an enthusiast. she gets bullets in her head from her own gun. owning guns didnt work for her. neither did proper training. neither did her sanity or good intentions.
best policy is never be mugged, that is my plan. if mugged, i give up my shit and thats it. i dont shoot anyone. fuck that. you could offer me the gun right before the mugging and i dont want it. starting gunfights is stupid.
You are lumping again. Safety and dangerous are vastly different. SO when you decide to make a clear argument, we can continue.
yes they are different. gun makes you and everyone else less safe and more dangerous to yourself and everyone else. not confusing.
You haven't made any point to that. Provided nothing than your own opinion. Yes, guns DO make you more dangerous. That's the point of arming for protection or arming for harm. Arming for protection can just as easily increase your safety due to being MORE dangerous than said attacker. Even if you are THE attacker, it can increase YOUR safety by virtue of being MORE dangerous. You claimed the unprovable Martin.
to you and everyone else. the dangerousness applies to you most of all. you are more likely to be killed with your gun than anyone else.
This has no grounds Martin. It is strictly up to the user. Hell, drunkards driving are more of a risk than simply "owning" a gun. The tool at which people use guns is just that a TOOL. The intent will forever be there with or without guns. Than anyone else what? This statement is about as juvenile as this article, which statistically true btw: "OK, maybe not you -- you may well live in a state other than Texas. And if you do live in the Lone Star State but you're white, that'll also decrease your odds of taking the needle. But in terms of overall population, Texans are more likely to have their execution order signed by Rick Perry than they are to die in an airplane crash." http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...y_rick_perry_than_dying_in_an_airplane_crash/ You would think that as the resident professor of logic around here you would have a better argument than this.
