Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Apparently not, according to reliable and verifiable statistics.
|
If that were the case, then we wouldn't be hearing all the cries for stricter gun laws when one of these oh so rare occurrences happen, would we?
which is it? are random acts of violence so rare that nobody needs a handgun for defense, or are they becoming so much more common that people start wondering if everyone has gone mad?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Augi
They're paid to step into violence. Citizens are not.
|
Does that mean that we should not step in to violence if another citizen is being assaulted?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Augi
Unfortunately yes they do, but statistically, you are safe-ish.
|
statistics don't mean crap when it's you that becomes the victim.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Augi
There can still be mass killings in a gun show. Armed or unarmed targets is up the crazy shooter.
|
mass killings happen because none of the victims have a means of defense. They don't happen in gun shows because the people in there have a ready means of equal firepower to defend themselves, limiting any carnage and murder.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Are you under the impression that America has been a society always existing with a plethora of guns always in sight and that is the reason that nuts haven't been on the loose shooting people? I could ask my parents. My mother was born in 1939, my dad in 1930. Do you suppose if I asked them, they would claim that guns are less existent in their lives now than they were growing up? I think not.
|
Am I under the impression there were more guns? no, nor did I say that there were. What i said was that back then, people weren't restricted in the places where they could carry guns for protection as compared to now. THAT is why nutcases have an easier time of shooting people.