Originally Posted by
little-acorn
(doubletake)
huh????
There are literally millions of events every year in this country, where a guy assaults or threatens or etc. A victim, and the victim turns out to have a gun.
In the vast majority, the victim never fires the gun.
He mentions the gun, or shows it in the holster, or pulls it out and points it at the sky or ground, or (more rarely) pulls it out and points it at the perp. The perp either runs like hell, or surrenders.
In the occasional instances where the victim fires the gun, it's usually a warning shot into the air.
Only rarely does he fire it at the perp and hit him. In most of those cases, the perp is injured, not killed.
In very rare instances, the perp is killed by his intended victim.
Studies by the u.s. Dept. Of justice and other groups have demonstrated these facts many times.
Bottom line: A gun in a law-abiding citizen's hands is usually used to deter a crime, with no one being injured or killed.
The argument that guns have no purpose other than to kill, is laughable.
If no victims had guns (especially if the criminals know that no victims have guns), there would be a lot more crimes, and probably a lot more injuries and deaths to law-abiding people.
When i hear people trying to argue for the disarmament of law-abiding citizens, i have to wonder if that's not exactly what they want to accomplish.
Noir?
Reply With Quote