"You people don't know what you're doing."

 Has anyone here said all guns should be taken away?

You're too smart to
KEEP NEEDING TOLD

Mr and Mrs America
Turn them all in.

And you may not want
All of them..
But you can't have ANY,

You people are playing with fire.
There are tons of people out there who are young and aware of the way it goes.
You take some guns,, and you think those people are just gonna be cool?
nuts,, what did you people learn just removing statues?
Instead of removing guns
From Law Abiding Citizens
Let people CARRY, for their own protection..
Lefties always go at stuff wrong..
How have the no gun zone signs been working?

How is it you people aren't seeing the
Turn in your KNIVES
Drives in Europe.

We don't have a gun problem.
We have society in decay.
Thanks lefties.

Ahh, so you're Against taking guns now.

I remember you asking
Again
For proof that people want
All guns gone
I've done it
Several times

You want a discussion?
How many dead BECAUSE of laws against good people carrying?
If YOU, Eegore, don't want to see any guns taken, good for you.
Then I'm talking to those who Would.
My statement remains.
You can discuss everything I've said.

https://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

How many more innocents need to die before you turn your guns in?

Makes as much sense as
How many more rapes need to happen before you cut your d!ck off.

And not liking that question doesn't keep it from being a perfect example of the faulty logic of law abiding citizens being punished for evil deeds by evil people.

People NEED to be able to defend themselves.
Notice where the shootings aren't.

And no
Even with more people carrying
All shootings won't cease
And
Even being armed won't guarantee you don't get shot.

So, I have stated it
Let's try to not pretend I'm an idiot who believes otherwise and how about everyone just grow up and not try that
Little game,, where you pretend that unless the answer is perfect it's not good enough.
Seatbelts don't save everyone..
That doesn't mean they aren't generally good.

 Society is safer now than before the proliferation of concealed carry.

Who wouldn't wish they were armed if some idiot started shooting?

You could also look at the bigger picture.

I recently heard that the earth is the last planet where people think, they have the right to do another damage.

What would america look like if weapons were banned. Would the number of robberies fall over time? Could it drastically reduce problems in certain neighborhoods? Would some people adopt a healthier attitude to life?
Walking around with guns is actually something for a war zone.

Self-defense is of course allowed.
Self defense must be proportional at all times.
And that is almost impossible with guns.

This topic is now on our plate.
Why don't we deal with our anger once and for all, in adulthood?



The vast, vast majority of us do deal with our anger. The St Louis metro area where I live has a population of just under 3 million. I believe we had a little more than 200 murders last year. A handful of zipcodes had virtually all the murders. I would assume all major matro areas follow the same pattern. That plate is too uncomfortable for most to look at so they broaden the view to make it more palatable.

Draw a mile wide circle around my house and within it, you would find thousands of firearms in homes. However, its virtually certain none of those will ever be used with murderous intent. 99.xxx% (insert whatever number of 9's you'd like)

As far as proportionally, if someone's coming at me with a knife intent on killing me, I consider a gun a proportional response.

What would the world look like with no guns? Go back 500 years and see how peaceful it was......  

If you think banning weapons would bring about a world where the lion and the lamb lay down together, as they say I've got a bridge in Brooklin to sell you.

"Self-defense is of course allowed.
Self defense must be proportional at all times.
And that is almost impossible with guns. ?

 If criminals possess guns, and use them to kill, what would be "proportional" self defense?

 Also what would be "effective" self defense?  I propose any self defense that is unuseable/ineffective can not be considered proportional.

"And if you can,t out run him, shoot the leg."

 There is a fundamental problem with this philosophy.

 Real violence doesn't involve a guy standing in front of you presenting a knife saying "gimme your money".  To say people have an obligation to precisely impact a highly mobile target while in fear for their life is something that only a person who has never had to use a firearm in a violent encounter would think is plausible.

 Now to say "they shouldn't have a gun unless they can use it accurately" is again in issue with people who don't save lives with firearms as a tool.  I've run thousands of active firearm exercises in my career, it's not plausible to tell people to target specific parts of the human body while under duress.

 I have invited many critics of firearm usage to our exercises and to date maybe a hundred have shown up.  Nobody, not one has successfully shot a subject in the arm that held a weapon (hammer or bat) while under duress.  

 As such I invite you to attend a Simunition exercise, (no real bullets) and you can demonstrate shooting in the leg while under assault from a person with a knife.  We have done this for years (It's called the Tollet principle) and to be fair you can practice ahead of time with the weapon and the distance of the attacker will be no closer than 25 feet.

 Also there is no obligation to run out of one's home to spare themselves violence, and there should not be.

How is
Mandatory gun "buyback" Not violence?
If it's
Mandatory
And you choose to
Not participate
You will get violence.