There is every reasonable expectation that it could, either way. And how many crimes against you have you stopped with a gun?
That is the dumb fraidy cat manifesto because every day people who own guns get robbed, murdered, and raped despite having a gun. Of course, having a gun means they can also shoot their kids, blow their nuts off, or lose their gun.
No, there isn't. I've owned guns for decades and have never committed even a small crime with one (or even a small crime without one, for that matter). You may as well say I shouldn't own a car because I might just choose to run someone over with it. None. I also haven't used my fire extinguisher or my catastrophic health insurance, but I'm keeping them both.
I was wondering how long before we were treated to the Fire-Extinguisher Argument. Mention hammers and flowerpots and you win the trifecta.
But your catastrophic health insurance cannot accidentally go off while you are playing with yourself and blow your dick off. Just saying you probably should play with one gun or the other from now on so no accidents happen.
It's funny how the people who want to ban guns because they are afraid of them like to accuse others of being fraidy cats.
I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of psychos with guns. And you're edging more and more in that direction daily. Keep up the good work!
A friend of mine once opined that many people who are afraid of others owning guns have dark impulses themselves and are projecting them onto others. There may be something to that.
We are afraid you are going to hurt yourself with your gun like so many of those responsible gun owners accomplish every year. Plus you are correct. I am not to keen on getting shot because you have a small dick and quiver in fear every time a person gets near you. Take some valium and some Viagra and save us the collateral damage.
There's no turn in my logic. You maintain that there's some likelihood of crime from me and my guns. I explain that there isn't any reasonable likelihood, and show--with the car example--that you could fear any capability I have that could potentially result in harm, regardless of whether such fears are realistic. You then question whether a gun is, in fact, useful because it hasn't been used to stop crime. I give examples of things that--like guns--are not used unless one has extreme need.
In the first half of your post, you use as one of your premisses, "If something hasn't happened in a long time, that means there is no reasonable expectation that it will happen in the future." In the second half of your post, you explicitly argue that "If something hasn't happened in a long time, that doesn't mean that it isn't reasonable to expect it to happen in the future." This is what we call an opposite. Note that I didn't question whether a gun is useful because it hasn't been used to stop crime. A full response to this post should include an explanation for why you felt it necessary to make that up.
Your friend is probably saying more about himself than about anyone who wants to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters.
I acknowledge I may never need my gun. But the downside for needing it and not having it is pretty severe, so I choose to have it. I presumed that's where your argument was headed.
You realize that very, very, very, very, very, very few gunowners are potential mass shooters? To be fearful that your gun-owning neighbor is going to kill someone is akin to being fearful that your gay neighbor is a child molester. There are examples of people who are both things, but they are extremely unusual and not at all representative of the group as a whole.
That's nice. It doesn't address even one of the points above though. My response to you saying that your gun can be useful in the future was, How did that suggest that my argument was headed in the opposite way?
It is interesting that none, not a single post addresses anything in the article. There are no quotes, no claims that are argued, no opposing statistics cited. Therefore I say that there is a lot of going on. Does anybody have any problems with the research or do you just already "KNOW" what you need to "KNOW"?
