So what? Freedom is messy and it has moments of tragedy. While tragic and unfortunate, such incidents have nothing to do with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Now if you want to talk about ramifications for parents whose negligence kill their children, I am open to that.
Freedom is messy is not much comfort to a grieving parent. Every single person in this country sacrifices some freedom for security. You sacrifice some freedom every time you stop at a stop light. We don't just let people drive however they want and they when they die say freedom is messy. If you want total freedom go live in a cave. But if you live in society you accept that even freedom has limits
but you gun banners only pretend that your desire to limit our freedom leads to security. It doesn't except job security for violent criminals.
Freedom has it's limits...when it limits the freedom of others. It is obvious the government can't provide security to it's citizens and what you continually advocate is equivalent to sacrificing freedom to provide for personal security thereby resulting in neighter freedom or security... old Benjamin Franklin anticipated those too weak to the cause of freedom would give up freedom for the illusion of security. You dishonor all of those that have died for your right to freely express you opinion here.
The BM doesn't even pretend that their jihad against our rights is designed to make people safer. No one can believe that a law that disarms victims at much much higher rates than people who have already proven that they won't follow criminals laws, is actually going to make us safer. what the BM members ignore is that arms in the hands of good people decrease crime. That is a fact they refuse to acknowledge because they have a specious monolithic view that guns-no matter who has them-cause crime
Part of the objective of the left is to create an illusionary perception that only the government can provide security and therefore be amenable to surrender freedom. For them it's about the power of perception as reality.
When you adjust facts to suit an Agenda, you present things in a false manner. No deaths would be best. However, I have been threatened with injury many times by huge unarmed guys with hands like small hams.. Just because they don't have a gun does not mean they can't kill you. There are other methods used to kill people and firearms are only one method of many. The Gun Ban advocates pretend that limiting access to guns will by art of magic reduce Crime, this is untrue. When you take Guns away from Law Abiding Citizens, you get Unarmed victims.
You can say lots O'Stuff, however I go by what I have learned in life, as a hunter, as an Officer of the Law etc..... I have proof that firearms have saved my life countless times, I learned at an early age to respect firearms and that Guns were not toys. Fantastic claims by the Anti-Gun advocates prove false, one only has to hear of reports of defensive gun use.. Aderic White is a good example, a career criminal and Armed robber, shot while robbing a Dollar store, not killed however. Every day, there are many defensive gun uses, many times no shots are fired, nobody is hurt or killed and many times the incident goes unreported. There are many incidents of negligent shootings in Ghetto Neighborhoods, these are not indicative of normal gun owners, people strung out on illegal drugs and having past histories of criminal convictions already prohibited from owning firearms do not qualify.
Never mind that the fact a state can require a license to exercise the right to carry in no way means a right can be constitutionally licensed.
Because you know a firearm need not be discharged when used in self defense, you know this statement is false.
This is going to sound a bit cold but I don't give the grief of a single parent or even a group of parents a thought when measured against the guarantor of all the other amendments. And I watched my nephew, mind lost to a heroin addiction, put a 1911 in his mouth and pull the trigger. I still don't want to ban guns or pain medicine.
You can't or should not equate the actions of criminals with those of law abiding citizens. Drug dealers kill people, your solution ? Let's have more gun control laws that will be tough on Law Abiding people and no effect whatsoever on criminals.
we cannot trust what you claim. IN the past you have said you wanted to ban them all if we didn't accept some of the silly BS laws you want. The fact is-once someone has decided that the way to stop criminals from getting guns is to ban honest people from getting them-you have adopted all that is necessary to be a full out gun banner. Given your lack of rational arguments in support of your "public safety" schemes and your obvious hatred towards honest gun owners, no one can trust your claims
Not if you're a home invader in Georgia. The safest, most law abiding group in the US are those legally carrying firearms on a daily basis.
So you're saying he shouldn't defend himself from the three intruders? BTW stories like OP happen far more often than accidental shootings.
What is there to regret. Your home got invaded. You shot them all dead. Sounds like it deserves a medal to me.
My go-to gun is my 45ACP which is always in one of two places -- - in its holster at my side; or - under my pillow at night while I sleep. For my first go-to backup there is my shotgun in my gun safe loaded with 8 shells but not chambered. For my next go-to backup there is my 5.56x45 carbine with its 30 round hi cap mag loaded but not chambered in my gun safe as well. That totals 48 rounds -- a veritable riot of epic proportions -- worst case.
More and more states are passing constitutional carry laws. Meaning you don't need a license to carry.
My state like shall-issue licensing better. Only took 40 days to arrive in the mail. Looks like a driver's license.
That's because most defensive gun uses require no shots being fired at all. The FBI only counts shootings which end in the death of the assailant. Surely you know by now that's not the whole story.
