Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
The other more poignant fact here is that that family that endured that attack and won will most likely go out and buy a gun so that they will have a better chance of being successful next time.
|
wow! you're a mind reader? or you have a crystal ball?
I read minds, too, but the voice in my head says that they are now advocates for the mandatory criminal checks on gun purchases so there's much less risk that there will be another occurence like this one....
Quote:
The second amendment is in place so that you don't have to disarm your assailant (criminal) to protect yourself. You can just shoot the criminal with your own weapon.
The reason that Mavdog's point is mute is simple:
1)Gun laws make certain gun ownership and use illegal
2)Criminals are defined as those that don't give a damn that point one above exists
3)The only ones who are abiding by the restrictions are the law abiding
4)Advantage criminal.
As to the availability of weapons, this is not a decent arguement either. Guns will be obtained illegally by those who are criminal. Period.
Did Prohibition remove the access to alcohol? Do the laws against meth and crack remove access? The answer is a resounding Hell NO.
You can't get rid of guns.
You better go get one to handle the next criminal that targets your house.
|
well hell, if laws are ineffective we don't need 'em, and we should just get rid of all of them, right?
laws against murder haven't stopped people from murdering, laws against driving drunk haven't stopped drunks from driving....just stop outlawing these acts 'cuz clearly they don't work!
your argument is specious.