Any gun toting person care to address the issue of an old and senile person packing heat?
And you are basing the accusation that he is senile upon what?Maybe he is just an @sshole. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?
I will. He may be a very bright, coherent senior. The younger may be an **CENSORED**. They might both be. In this instance it's is the presence of the gun that creates the death....not the dispute ...the death. It takes two stupid human beings for there to be a dispute but if there is no gun no one likely dies. You have a physical altercation at worst but others likely intervene or a senior never a feels emboldened enough to push the issue. The stupidity of two people creates the dispute but the gun is the proximate cause of the death. Because guns are lethal they turn disputes into death unnecessarily. They provide much less of a buffer for stupidity.
Do guns ever prevent a crime from happening?
Anyone think the 70 year old goes back to escalate the confrontation without the gun?Anyone think this event is just as likely to end in death if there is no gun?
Guns are banned in the movie theater.
That's unpossible. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but a gun was used in this death. It couldn't have been banned.
Buggsy, I know you don't think, but you should go find someone to explain to you that the argument you are making UNDERCUTS your views on guns. Do you even understand that? Wow...
Any gun toting person care to address the issue of an old and senile person packing heat?
And you are basing the accusation that he is senile upon what?Maybe he is just an @sshole. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?
I will. He may be a very bright, coherent senior. The younger may be an **CENSORED**. They might both be. In this instance it's is the presence of the gun that creates the death....not the dispute ...the death. It takes two stupid human beings for there to be a dispute but if there is no gun no one likely dies. You have a physical altercation at worst but others likely intervene or a senior never a feels emboldened enough to push the issue. The stupidity of two people creates the dispute but the gun is the proximate cause of the death. Because guns are lethal they turn disputes into death unnecessarily. They provide much less of a buffer for stupidity.
Do guns ever prevent a crime from happening?
I am sure they do but the self defense statistics available don't support the notion that the benefit received from self defense outweigh the detriment of having 300 million guns. To illustrate that point, no doubt the excop views his gun as a means of self defense. Suburban movie theaters are not high crime areas and yet he had the gun on him so it was available to escalate a garden variety dispute (that frankly doesn't probably even happen without the gun) into death Now Escobar there is a reason you asked a question rather than addressing mine right? Let's check your honesty and see you address my point. Was the gun the proximate cause of the death? Not the dispute, the death. Do you agree that if there is no gun present death is unlikely the result?
Any gun toting person care to address the issue of an old and senile person packing heat?
And you are basing the accusation that he is senile upon what?Maybe he is just an @sshole. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?
I will. He may be a very bright, coherent senior. The younger may be an **CENSORED**. They might both be. In this instance it's is the presence of the gun that creates the death....not the dispute ...the death. It takes two stupid human beings for there to be a dispute but if there is no gun no one likely dies. You have a physical altercation at worst but others likely intervene or a senior never a feels emboldened enough to push the issue. The stupidity of two people creates the dispute but the gun is the proximate cause of the death. Because guns are lethal they turn disputes into death unnecessarily. They provide much less of a buffer for stupidity.
Do guns ever prevent a crime from happening?
I am sure they do but the self defense statistics available don't support the notion that the benefit received from self defense outweigh the detriment of having 300 million guns. To illustrate that point, no doubt the excop views his gun as a means of self defense. Suburban movie theaters are not high crime areas and yet he had the gun on him so it was available to escalate a garden variety dispute (that frankly doesn't probably even happen without the gun) into death Now Escobar there is a reason you asked a question rather than addressing mine right? Let's check your honesty and see you address my point. Was the gun the proximate cause of the death? Not the dispute, the death.
Where is this question I'm supposed to be responding to? Please point to it so that I can in fact ignore it. I'll be doing so because you've proven time and again that you don't actually read responses. Edit. Oh, that (stupid) question. How's this. Post your stats that "support" the idea that not enough lives are saved by guns, and I'll consider answering your (stupid) question.
