Tell that to families of the thousands of victims who could be here still if someone could have stopped them.

Your idea is just trading one life for another. I'm done with this. I'll just ask you and Uncle Jed to refrain from calling me out in threads where I'm not involved. :irked:

The same logic that has cost countless people their lives and will continue to do so as long as people think this way.

 

Point is, too many are dying your way. Your way doesn't work.

 

What is too many and how could you possibly know that it would be less if more people carried guns? The police and our legal system do a fine job. They have their shortcomings and aberrations but it is nothing to warrant anarchy in my eyes.

Your idea is just trading one life for another. I'm done with this. I'll just ask you and Uncle Jed to refrain from calling me out in threads where I'm not involved. :irked:

Oh puuuleeezeee.

What is too many and how could you possibly know that it would be less if more people carried guns? The police and our legal system do a fine job. They have their shortcomings and aberrations but it is nothing to warrant anarchy in my eyes.

Your use of this word is further proof of how far off base you are in this discussion.

 

If you can't see the light, continue to dwell in darkness.

Because not nearly as many people carry concealed weapons as compared to those who don't. It's simple: adding more guns to any situation isn't going to make anyone safer. No amount of statistics can prove or disprove that, just logic.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt they heavily weigh the amount of CWs that will be at the place of their shooting. Especially considering they usually shoot themselves. Suffice to say they know how it's going to end, they don't really care how.

 

So, we take the weapons away from our soldiers in Iraq and Baghdad becomes a safer place?:sssh:

Your idea is just trading one life for another. I'm done with this. I'll just ask you and Uncle Jed to refrain from calling me out in threads where I'm not involved. :irked:

I think the whole crux of this thread is the idea that you could trade one life (who no one disputes is going to end anyway, either by execution or suicide) to in turn save countless others. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't be in favor of that.

Because not nearly as many people carry concealed weapons as compared to those who don't. It's simple: adding more guns to any situation isn't going to make anyone safer. No amount of statistics can prove or disprove that, just logic.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt they heavily weigh the amount of CWs that will be at the place of their shooting. Especially considering they usually shoot themselves. Suffice to say they know how it's going to end, they don't really care how.

Simple logic tells me that if I believe there to be a deterrent to my effort, I may refrain totally from the attempt. What I find funny is that you in other threads often state the stats in favor of your argument. In this case you state that there are no such stats, yet you're still correct.:confused: Sounds like my wife.

I think the whole crux of this thread is the idea that you could trade one life (who no one disputes is going to end anyway, either by execution or suicide) to in turn save countless others. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't be in favor of that.

 

FINALLY, you got one right...:thumb:

 

 

:p

I think the whole crux of this thread is the idea that you could trade one life (who no one disputes is going to end anyway, either by execution or suicide) to in turn save countless others. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't be in favor of that.

 

I guess it is a warped sense of democracy. The life of one outweighs the life of many.:cry:

FINALLY, you got one right...:thumb:

 

 

:p

Well, if we agree, perhaps I need to take a hard look at my stance.

Well, if we agree, perhaps I need to take a hard look at my stance.

 

Valid point...