Car control we need it now more than ever!

[trappincoyotes39]

So then we have made the point guns shoot a projectile at something and knives cut things, after that it all comes down the person behind the gun or knife and what there intentions are with each which can mean many, many uses for either .

Do we call them both weapons then?

[trappnman]

wow- what does it take to admit you misspoke-

guns shoot things-

pretty obvious fact-

yet, you immediately, since pam said it, jumped on that calling it not true.

and carried that debate o nfor multiple posts-

just fess up- pam was right, TC was wrong.....

[PamIsMe]

You tell me TC, what other use is there for a gun than to shoot at something? I could probably come up with 100 uses for a knife, starting with buttering my toast in the morning.

Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Knives are made to cut and guns are made to shoot.

Then we can get into what they can each do. One can shoot targets, one can shoot game, one can shoot enemies of war, etc. some are just bought for a collection piece. I know plenty of guys that have guns that have never fired a shot through them. One guy I know has 3 24 gun safes full of guns and never has one been fired, some collect cars, others guns etc. Some collect knives as well. Knives that never cut nothing,

They can both be used as weapons and many have so then we call them both weapons because of that use correct? During 9/11 the wackos had box cutters correct? A knife design for cutting boxes quickly transferred into a weapon. Let's have background checks on all knives then as well.

[PamIsMe]

Ask the people's families whose 100+ relatives were at a concert in France tonight whether they would have rather been attacked by knives than shot and killed.

Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam not even close, they set off bombs as well. These are terrorist and can get their hands on anything they choose due to deep pockets. Wondering if every fan in their would have been armed? Would these terrorist have used a different weapon ?

9/11 and Timothy Mcvay chose different weapons to cause mass destruction in our country.

These types or more than your run of the mill deal.

Also the French specialist used guns to kill some of these guys correct?

[trappincoyotes39]

That is like saying because 20 people are caught poaching during deer season all deer hunters are poachers LOL

[James]

Maybe if French people were allowed to carry, not so many of them would have been slaughtered like sheep.

Jim

[PamIsMe]

Or, even more innocent people would have been killed in all the panic and confusion.

Sheesh,
Pam

[James]

In a terrorist scenario, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

Jim

[PamIsMe]

If I was the first one shot it probably wouldn't make any difference. If 3 or 4 gunmen with automatic weapons start shooting into a crowd, I'd not be the one to try and be a hero, I'd either run or lay down and play dead.

One guy in the front of movie with raised theater seating might be a different story, although I think my first inclination would always be to drop down and hide.

You guys can try to be the hero's :-)

Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam run or hide? You think terrorist would not see you? Or the use bombs is going to help?

If 2/3 of the people inside that stadium where armed they would have had a great chance against those terrorist 5,000-7,000 people with hand guns versus 4-6 with automatic weapons?

Strength in numbers. I am not afraid to die for the right cause as odds are good I could be dead anyway or a few 1,000 armed people could have saved 100's of lives.

The point being and it is a key one, they knew none of those people would be armed inside that stadium and made things much easier and quicker for them to rain down their terror on all of those people.

An armed society is a safer one, again look at states with more Liberial gin laws and crime rates versus those with much stricter guns laws and It will be interesting to see those that have loosened their gun laws in the last few years to see if th crime rates decline or stay the same.

Australia is a great example they made gun ownership far stricter and emir violent crime rates went up.

[trappnman]

I'd do like Ben Carson-

shoot him

[trappincoyotes39]

What?

You never answered or added to the questions ?

[PamIsMe]

"If 2/3 of the people inside that stadium where armed they would have had a great chance against those terrorist 5,000-7,000 people with hand guns versus 4-6 with automatic weapons?"

First of all none of the suicide bombers made it into the actual stadium, 2 bombs went off outside, one guy was fond out when he tried to enter and the blew himself up outside the gate. It was a concert that people got shot.

Did you know that guns are not allowed in NFL stadiums, even off duty cops, except in Texas off duty cops can register and tell them where they are sitting. source

Talk is cheap, no one really knows what they could do in those situation, gun or not. And guns would be no defense against a convert suicide bomber.

Cheers,
Pam

[PamIsMe]

"Australia is a great example they made gun ownership far stricter and emir violent crime rates went up."

Is it?
Snopes re Australia crime rate going up

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam yes it is all snopes did was tell you about numbers and how they could be massaged but the numbers are still the numbers and they never stated it was false, we are all well aware of what either side can do with numbers, but the fact remains they had increase rates after the gun debacle and one could clearly see that comming.

Remember this gun ban was out in place in 1996 almost 20 years ago. The snopes paper was going off of a guy's assessment after 12 months! The KEY factor snopes never mentioned was calling in 600,000 guns at a very high cost, never lowered the violent crime rates overall to amount to a hill of beans. So why take away the guns?

That is the real question? If these super strict gun laws wgphere put in place in Australia and other countries and they do little to curb crime what is the point?

To compare one country with another is difficult as well because we are not all alike, when it comes to the make up of the people, yet places like Austraila and Chicago have super strict laws pertaining to guns and ammunition and we have not seen a major decrease in violent crimes? South Africa is also another tough place to own firearms and ammunition yet who wants to go down there?

Gun control should not be about the law abiding person, just the criminal aspects. We all know gun control will never take away guns from the criminals just make it more difficult for the law abiding citizen is all gun laws have ever done that is 100 Percent fact!

[trappnman]

you tend to lump everything into one point- where in reality, there are multiple points, questions, concerns and solutions.

when you try to make it political, you lose all validity

[trappincoyotes39]

That is what gun control,is all,about is politics. Trying to take care of this base or that base anti gun or pro gun. What we need is common sense but that has no bearing inside of politics or we would be far better off.

Tman easy to see look at states with the most restricted guns laws and how they vote in an overwhelmed majority, not rocket science is it?

Pam I realize that guns are not allowed in many stadiums. NFL, MLB,NHl etc.

You made my point rather well this was less about guns and more about terrorist and bombs. Covert suicide bombers have nothing to do with gun control or lack their of.

[PamIsMe]

" Covert suicide bombers have nothing to do with gun control or lack their of."

Exactly so why did you even bring up:

"If 2/3 of the people inside that stadium where armed they would have had a great chance against those terrorist 5,000-7,000 people with hand guns versus 4-6 with automatic weapons? "

Pam