DaVinci

A study was done in the military that showed that most troops didn't shoot to kill till they were in danger. The reason is that most are shocked, and when all hell breaks loose and they are in a situation they have never been in they have no idea how to react. Why not ask how a guy can burn in on a skydive an not pull anything...The skydiver has WAY more training and practice than a student sitting in a class...Yet skydivers with training still fail to act and die.

How about just not letting people who are carrying to drink?

everyone will start working for UPS?

But it is going to happen anyway when a nut case has a gun.

I don't see why you think a gun is bad, but hitting someone with a bat is OK? Both are weapons and both can kill. Simple fact is the act of pulling a gun is often enough to stop an attack.

Thanks for pointing out that criminals will get and use guns no matter what the law.

So you think that an average joe touches a gun and thinks, "Hey, I'll go shoot the President!"? Or do you think a guy wants to shoot the President and finds a way? And being how important the President is...I am shocked more attempts are not made.

Do those of us that have already had a gun pulled on us get to play? Simple fact....Crime does happen. YOU may not want to be armed to protect yourself, but others do. They have that right, just like you have the right not to be armed.

True, but it has been shown that even outlaws can get guns...Or that any person that REALLY wants to kill, will be able to find a method to do it. So we do have both sides here....I don't think that just because people can get guns they decide to try and shoot the President. However, I do think that people who want to hurt the President don't since they know they will have to face the Secret Service and they are armed.

Exactly

I think the point is that it happens less since they are armed.

How many Presidents do you think WOULD be shot at if the Secret Service DIDN'T carry guns? Would you rather be on a plane with a private pilot at the yoke, or a Dentist?

Thats why I tell people to get a simple double action only weapon...Complicated safety's only add steps. But, just pulling a gun out is enough for most crooks to run. And if a person is no longer in direct threat they may not think about shooting. LOTS of variables. But one thing is clear, having a gun does not mean you need to use it.

Wow, cause the President and some pot grower are so related Good fucking God!!!! We got it, you hate Bush, no need to say that to every post that is not even related!!!!

I thought the anti gunners just thought anyone that had a gun had a NEED to kill someone and was just looking for the chance?

Because other people are also free. And they think their freedom includes victimizing you.

The time to shoot is when you can't escape and feel you or another is in grave danger. Thats why you pull it out and if they still are agressive, you shoot. But there is NO need to shoot if the danger stops once they see the gun. For someone with NO training, I would agree. However, why not get the training? I see no reason to kill someone once they stop an attack.

HAHA...do your homework Great question. I think the number of the population that is poor is just higher. US population: 298,444,215 US population below poverty line : 12% 35,813,305 poor UK population: 60,609,153 UK population below poverty line: 17% 10,303,556 poor Canada population: 33,098,932 Canada population below poverty line: 15.9% 5,262,730 poor Source: CIA factbook. According to those numbers the US has more people below poverty level than Canada has TOTAL people. Even with the US's RATE being lower the greater number of people means the US has more poor people. Add into the equation that the larger the population the larger chance of that population having a born nutjob is also higher. That is simple...They can. The criminal will use the best tool for the job. Guns are easier to get here than in other places. So that is granted. Also the number of guns in circulation is also higher, again granted that the number of guns makes them easier to get and use. However, the fact is that even with gun laws other countries do have gun violence...And that the gun violence seems to be growing. Also, gun laws will not really prevent bad guys from getting them. Also, US news is broadcast all over the world. US papers are read all over the world and only bad news sells papers. I have had friends come over from Europe and expect to hear gunshots on a daily basis. All they ever hear about the US is the crime. Most return home quite surprised at the LACK of violence they encountered.

As much as you joke about that, some gun laws do that exactly. Such as the one in IL that put a very large tax on ammo. Making guns expensive is one of the ways to control them.

Cool, when you don't find many will you admit that as well? If you find a bunch I will admit you are correct...We can argue about many/a bunch later . In some sectors yes, others no. People in low income, low hope areas often turn to gangs and violence to feel credible. I think that that type of person has a problem with violence, not guns. However, I feel that is a much smaller section of society as a whole. I also feel that that group would engage in violent acts no matter what and that a gun is just the tool they use since it works well. I do feel that laws only hurt guys like me, not guys like them. Again yes and no. I think the homicide rate is a problem, but not just due to guns. I think the rate would still be high without guns. People have killed without guns for thousands of years, and they STILL kill without guns today. It is more a problem with people in destitute areas seeing violence as a way out. The gun is just a tool to implement violence. The gun is picked since it is the best tool to use to commit a violent act. However, it is also one of the best defenses as well, and a person without a gun has little chance against a person with a gun. I like the idea of crushing those that use tools for evil, no matter what the tool. I don't want to eliminate lighters when a guy uses one to set a fire...And getting rid of lighters would not stop a guy from setting a fire if he really wanted anyway...But it would make it hard for a guy that wanted to light a cigarette, or burn threads off while sewing. Same with gun laws IMO.

HAHAHAHAHAHA....Well if you are just talking about sex with a sheep sure

I am waiting for the list of posters that are afraid to leave the house without being armed. Of course the Vtec shootings kinda show how being unarmed could be very bad. Best bullet for killing. Most times it is written as best for Defense. Yep, it gets talked about just like people talk about which AAD to get. Most time the defense answer involves how to stop without risking others...A good topic. Shoot and then lie to the police. People do make those types of claims. I put that up to bravado. Most people who would actually shoot a weapon in a real situation will need the clean out their pants afterward. But I am still waiting on the list of people afraid to leave the house without a weapon.

Well written and I agree 100%. I would have added video games to the list of things that encourage violence. And I would have also added that it is up to the US to decide how to handle the issue, not well intending outsiders.

I'm gonna assume it is real. She is really out there. But some of what she said is right on:

Agreed, but would you agree that it is sad for EITHER side?