A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

...science can prove that gun control is about saving lives?

You gotta explain this one.

 

He has posted some skewed studies with maths included, attempts to prove a greater danger of firearms kept in the home, to those people living in the home v home invaders, or criminal elements, stating that suicides and homicides are more likely in such homes.

 

In truth all science can do is provide evidence. But there is lots of evidence gun control saves,lives.

 

Yes, Gun Control saves lives, and the Moon is made up of all varieties of cheese and salami and crackers, and rivers of French champagne, and the peaks are baguette and ham, chicken and Swiss cheese sandwiches.

 

Theres nothing like intelligent debate. Lol

 

Sayeth the pot to the kettle.....

At least I did not say:.
Baloney sandwiches.

 

And gun control laws have costs lives

 

And save lives. They save much more lives though

 

No, law abiding people save lives, I carried fire extinguishers in my personal truck as well as medical supplies, and was able to stabilize and help injured people until an Ambulance arrived.

Your claims were debunked in 1764 by Cesare Beccaria in his essays on Crime and Punishment.

 

Well present your evidence. I could present the Luca study....but really....why bother. Lol

 

I can not prove of a single traffic death prevented by traffic laws. This is freaking hilarious. Lol

 

Well, that is true, once a fatality has occurred it is impossible to prevent.
So no, traffic fatalities cannot be prevented after they occur.

Case & point, in a small town in Southern Maryland, there was a shopping mall accross the way from a main highway, no traffic lights to help pedestrians cross, many fatalities of pedestrians crossing and no safe way to cross except to make a pedestrian bridge, this was called "too expensive" as lives are cheaper than a bridge.

 

Because laws, rules, and regulations cannot and do not prevent acts from being committed. They exist solely to clarify what sort of punishment is handed down after the wrongful act, and on what basis.

 

Eliminate traffic laws! Freedom! Lol

 

you are confusing-as usual-laws that prescribe penalties for action vs laws that harass lawful ownership

 

Ok. You are free to sound ridiculous if you want.

 

Well, I'd say more people on this forum think your posts are ridiculous than mine; so there's that.

 

Which is meaningless. The majority of gun owners aren’t as crazy sounding as the vocal minority here on this forum.

 

Well, if we're going anecdotal, I can honestly state that the overwhelming majority of the gun owners I interact with would characterize you as a Fudd who will accept any and all abuses, no matter how egregious, just so long as a court says you should. To them, you are crazy... and lacking in moral fortitude.

 

STILL feeding the troll. Wow.

 

to gun owners who seek to appease and curry favor with the creeping crud of collectivist gun confiscators, I guess any of us who want to draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE sounds crazy. but we also realize if we go brain dead and agree that 350 rounds a minute ceases to garner second amendment protection, then next year its 250 then 150 then 50 etc

 

6Gunner is quite within his cabals and I dissent such an opinion as biased and unsound and a mere slur because you do not like his stands on various diverse issues.

 

Your definition is unsound and prejudicial against a wide swath of legitimate gun owners that believe on the Second Amendment.

 

The majority of which exist for no legitimate reason, other than taxation without the need of legislation that would actually amount to increasing the taxes the people must pay to government.

 

I am not confused.....but you are. Lol