The Left Have Shot Themselves In The Foot

The answer is no.

 

Using your example, the fact that someone can come from behind and shoot them in the back means they shouldn't be armed to begin with.

Why do they deserve protection while the female in my example does not?

 

Surely you recognize that had the will of the majority of voters translated to electing Dem candidates prez (as it should), and then those Dem prez's had selected SC justices that disagree with your misguided opinion (and that of radicals like Scalia), it's likely Kyle would have been arrested on the spot (rightly so) had he shown up at a protest in order to recklessly wield a lethal weapon.

 

So in addition to being wrong about muskets, you added being wrong about kyle as well. At least you are consistent. Now we can take a good look at results. What your party has created is a land where the criminal is king.

 

Are we polite? I know we are armed, but I dont agree about the polite, at least not here in Florida. Everyone is packing here, but it does not make people polite, it just makes them fearful. Mid-West might still be polite. I lived in Illinois, Ohio and Michigan and people were pretty polite. As a matter of fact those places are so polite there is no need to carry guns.

 

I live in Los Angeles, where no one is allowed to carry. Polite people are few and far between here.

 

A polite society requires that everyone be armed. It doesn't work if only half or a few are armed. Guns are the great equalizer. If you are a 120 pound guy and you get jumped by three 200 pound guys, well, that gun is going to save your ass...

 

For example, in a world where every single person on the planet is armed, are you going to break into someone's house knowing they are armed and you're probably going to die the instant you kick in the door? Nope. Are you going to carjack someone that you know is armed? Probably not. Are you going to rob a store where there are 20 people in there armed? I highly doubt it...

 

What you're consistent about is making unsupported assertions. It's amazing that you view this country as one where the criminal is king with our jails full of people who don't belong there. Unless you were referring to Trump, who wasn't king but was prez thanks to your party.

 

You're reinforcing the fallacy of a safer world filled with guns when study after study (and the Rittenhouse killings) proves the opposite is true. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

Here's a math question for you that I realize will cause an apoplectic reaction. How many Americans would be shot with a gun tomorrow if no American had a gun?

 

Zero. And those people that normally would have been shot with a gun would instead be stabbed, beat to death, ran over, or blown up. Whatever the person trying to kill them can get their hands on....

 

Long story short, a world full of guns would get rid of a lot of retards and people we don't really need. I mean, seriously, if you are the type of person who would attack someone knowing full well that person is going to instantly shoot you in the face if you do, then you're an idiot with a deathwish. And the more of those types of people we can get rid of, the better...

 

Maybe it takes the threat of death for you to be polite, but dont assume everyone is like you. I have been to plenty of polite places where no one was armed. If three 200 pound guys want your gun, they'll knock you out and take it.

Besides, in your dream world where everyone has a gun, the criminals would have them too.

 

No, they won't, because remember everyone is armed. In that example, if you get in a bar fight, street fight, or road rage incident, and those three guys jump you, there are also 50 or so other armed people right there that aren't going to let it happen...

 

Robbers are not looking for a "fair fight". They'll shoot you in the back of the head, and you won't even know it happened. They'll take your gun and you wallet and leave you on the street. Besides, didn't we just prove that bystanders should NOT confront an armed person, because they can get shot in the process. People who get involved are called "idiots".

 

So just look the other way, dont' get involved, and just let criminals do whatever they want. Because that's working out so well....

 

If being incorrect came with frequent flyer miles, you would be in good shape.

I voted against trump twice and I have heard more of his messages from you than from him.
I don't believe nonviolent people should be incarcerated. They should work off their debt to society.
The most dangerous cities are your parties gun control petri dishes. Results speak for themselves.

 

LOL What sort of world do you live in? Do you sit at your front door with your gun in fear that someone is going to break in any second now?

Are you ready for this break in, queue Jim Jefferies, 2:55

 

Do you not agree that martial arts is a form of self-protection?

 

So shoot first then rape. Yea most of em do it that way.

 

I don't chase diversions. Are you able to address my post?

"Using your example, the fact that someone can come from behind and shoot them in the back means they shouldn't be armed to begin with.

Why do they deserve protection while the female in my example does not?"

 

i don't understand the question. Rephrase it again.

 

The left this, the left that, blah dee blah. It's all right-wing fiction.

 

My pleasure. Responding to my example of a 98 pound female against a 220 pound rapist/killer, you responded with:

"So if the rapist comes up behind the unfortunate victim and pulls out his gun and shoots & kills her, how good did that gun do for her?"

If this justifies disarming her, it also justifies disarming police officers since someone can shoot them in the back as well. You don't support disarming the police, so my question is:

Why are the lives of these police officers more valuable than the young female in my example?

 

Enjoy. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/