#66 BBob, still smarting from the logical whupping he took, said> The bad guy was a 22 yr old punk who had no intention of shooting anyone.
I think the ass kicked is in your pants.
And you know this how? Did you read his mind? Was it given in the statement by the police investigators? Was it on the cover of the tabloids that I missed standing in line at the grocery store?? Inquiring minds want to know!
I know, because he didn't shoot. He had every opportunity to shoot, and he didn't. Simple isn't it.
BB> He wasn't committed.
And how do you know that? Again, are you using your mystical powers to know things the rest of us don't?
I know that because he didn't shoot. It doesn't take much to figure out that if he had the ability to try and hide under a car, he had the ability to pull a trigger.
BB> Do you think that all you have to do is pull out your gun when a bad guy has his gun on you? Are you that dim? Just because it worked out once, doesn't mean it works out every tme.
I never said it would work that way every time. Feel free to look back through ALL of my posts and find it -- you cannot! But you said "Who ever moves first wins." and that is an absolute statement with no conditions at all. You didn't say "if they are committed", "if they have ninja skills" or anything else. So I showed you ONE situation where the real world operates on a different principle and proves that your absolute statement is false.
In a given scenario, I would always have to assume that the bad guy is committed, and will shoot. What you say is true---not all bad guys are committed--not all will shoot. My point is this---when it is no longer an excercise in "what ifs"--no longer fantasy scenarios--When the bad guy has a gun on you---will you take that chance? Will you get the 22 yr old bad guy who doesn't want to shoot---or the Wild Bill bad guy who will shoot and brag about it?
I have NEVER said I was interested in "guns shooting unarmed people". Once again, feel free to point out any post of mine where I stated that. Again, you cannot. In fact, as a gun rights supporter, if the criminal is stopped WITHOUT SHOOTING HIM, I feel that a positive outcome has been achieved. But I also realize that sometimes shooting and killing the criminal is the only way to preserve the life of the defending person.
I did say that guns in the U.S. stop criminal acts and cited peer reviewed work by criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck, to the tune of 2 million incidents each year. In only a tiny fraction of those incidents is a gun even fired. I also previously pointed out that a Dept. of Justice study differed from Dr. Kleck and said that such events occur ONLY about 800,000 times per year. Sounds like it works pretty well in reality!
I missed that link. I doubt his numbers, and I doubt a gun was necessary in all those instances. Alternatives would have worked just as well in 99% of them.
BB> it will be shown that the guns were the major CAUSE of the problem--rarely a solution.
You have not shown a single case where the GUN was the major CAUSE of the problem, remember "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Or are you saying an inanimate object CAUSES social problems?
You don't read well. I listed this very case--the 22 yr old that you posted doing the carjacking. If the 22 yr old and the driver had no guns, the carjacking wouldn't have taken place. I doubt a knife would have given the 22 yr old the courage needed to attack strangers.
Take this case--take away all the guns---tell me how it goes down--how does the crime happen.
#85 | Posted by AKat at 2009-05-11 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:
