Gun reality finally illustrated!

I know this won't make die-hard gun junkies change, but this study shows exactly why they have no clue about real world situations. If you think you can handle the truth, check it out!
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s[/video]

 

Lol.... in before all the videos of people using firearms to save themselves and others. Fantasy world.... pshhh.

 

I see 51k down votes to 6k up votes on this video. When I see a video that only about one in ten like that usually means I shouldn't waste my time war hung it.

 

LOL, not that you take time to notice all the gun fail videos which outnumber those by 10 to 1! Also, the people who get killed don't generally get to post the videos of that! You are 22 times more likely to die by your own gun than you are to use it in self defense!
[video]https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=AMO_Hi-uA-s[/video]

 

Negative. You dont like guns, dont carry one. Take out suicide and get back to me with your 22 times nonsense. If you think you lack control and are going to kill yourself with a fire arm, dont buy one.

 

Police are concealed carry holders in a sense. The grabbers don't want to get rid of concealed carry, they want to ensure it's licensed. Problem is they want these licenses to be only issued to those who are agents of the state, rather than those who are capable.

Make citizens do a complete police training course if you have to - making concealed carry prohibited to citizens on a blanket level is frankly totalitarian.

 

uhhh I guess I'm confused here... you seem to suggest that people who own guns, think they would be 100% accurate under stressed conditions... I'm not sure I've heard anyone with a gun say they are not going to have a diminished capacity or reaction under stress... in fact many have been through training courses demonstrating this, so they are MORE aware than non-gun owners the reality of the situation... this happens on gun ranges on a daily basis across america, gun-owners aren't in denial of the reality that having a doesn't doesn't mean they will be safe... however they are saying, at least there an opportunity... without a gun there is NO opportunity, with a gun there IS an opportunity...

I think you're confusing liberal stereotypes placed on conservatives, as something conservatives believe or state...

please recognize the difference... any reasonable person knows how adrenaline affects many things in life...

now if you want to turn this into "there is no proof guns save lives", we need only look at the tens of thousands of videos from gas stations and other environments that have demonstrated a legal gun owner did in fact stop a robbery... and there are many instances where a shooter was taken down by a gun owner... so its not really a disputable fact that good people have stopped bad people... and I would argue most gun owners acknowledge stressful reactions are different than a range...

 

It will happen every time when an amateur goes against a trained instructor, so the premise is false. Most bad folks would be just as inept as the student, leveling the field. I'd like to see them try that one for the camera, or put the instructor as the armed citizen and the amateur as the bad guy.

Can you handle the truth?

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

 

You are also far more likely to be killed by second hand smoke than a gun. Want the CDC stats?

 

Actually, that very situation took place right here in Washington a few years ago. A just released convict walked into a coffee shop and shot 4 armed, trained, and proffessional law enforcement officials dead. Only one of them even got a shot off to injure the shooter, but still didn't kill him.
Another incedent involved an unarmed suspect in a police station who got one of the police officer's hand gun away from him and managed to shoot and kill 4 cops before they could gun him down.
Your argument is debunked and denounced.

 

Problem with your argument is not that many people smoke anymore, and cigarettes are better regulated than guns are. 33k is still 33k, no matter how you cut it.

 

Problem with your argument is, you missed the part about second hand smoke. People still smoke and they still kill far more innocent people than guns making smokers significantly more dangerous to innocent people than gun owners. Why are you focused on the less dangerous as opposed to the obvious public safety hazard?
Care to do some math with me? Ill use your stats and we can compare dangers in our free society. Agree?

 

If I need/want a gun for any reason, all I need to do is find an idiot who owns one and take it from him. I've done it many times just to make my point. If i get within 6 feet of a person with a gun, they will never get to use it.

 

I'd agree with that, if you make everyone do monthly and periodic qualification exercises, like police do. It strikes me as silly that a full time FBI agent cannot carry a concealed weapon on the job without being fully trained and qualifying monthly but I can

 

That is a BS stat, because it ignores all the successful firearm defense that is accomplished without firing a shot.

Besides, we have a right to keep and carry arms, recognised in our Constitution. If you don't like that, there are provisions for constitutional amendments. And that of course would require strong agreement. So let's check recent polling:

"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?"

Favor - 49%
Oppose - 49%

Yeah, that's going nowhere

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

So you would steal a gun instead of legally obtaining one? You are part of the problem sir.

 

And yet you miss the point that if you don't have a gun, you don't need to worry about someone taking it or using it on you. People who own guns are far more likely to be targeted by criminals. Far better that I get your gun than those other guys! Hahaha!

 

If I were a crazy guy planning to shoot up a bunch of people, my first objective would be to neutralize any possible threat to my goal, so I would be watching for anyone who looked like they were going for a gun and take them out first. If I believed someone could possibly be armed, I would take them out first. If this is premeditated, nobody except the gunman will even get a shot off.

This idea that you are going to gain equal footing with a real killer is just that, a FANTASY.

 

So the supposed successful gun defence scenario is you wave a gun at a bad guy and he runs off? No deaths no data, so people who claim such events could be just as valid as people who claim to see bigfoot or aliens! Hard to accept that as a legitimate argument.

 

No one missed the point. It's right there on top of your head.

 

..and the gun-grabber thread of the day has run its course to failure.

 

Here is the difference of your squirrel argument in a nutshell, as a citizen, I can keep my wife, my kid, and myself away from smokers. I can effectively eliminate that particular threat from my family's life, but I can't do that with guns, for legal reasons that need to be changed. Children in the USA have the greatest risk of being killed by a gun than in any other industrialized nations in the world.
If you want to talk math, check out how many children die from guns per capita, because that number is consierably higher than just general gun deaths.

 

You must realize, the Second Amendment fanatics have convinced themselves they are expert marksmen. That they will stay calm, cool, and collected in any emergency, and that they will be the triumphant hero receiving countless accolades.

Would they freeze, shoot an innocent bystander(s), or get shot or killed themselves? No way, no how.

Anyone reading threads concerning firearms or regulating their sale has seen this very response from the Second Amendment fanatics time after time. Professional gun handlers, whether they be police or private companies, no one can explain to a Second Amendment fanatic they were not born as another "Dirty Harry".

If this thread continues, just look at the responses, you will see.

.