Scalise was bulletproof

The politicians in the UK certainly think guns protect people, since they're surrounded by armed men with guns at all times.

 

she can't defend herself against a nut with a gun , either

Think about it for a second (PLEASE!)

The weak are as likely to be evil as are the strong. So "equalizing" does nothing to eradicate evil.

It only ups the stakes.

How else does a spotty teenager kill 12 people including an adult? Sucker-punching?

 

The police may need to kill. Doesn't mean that everyone should have them.
Nor that just anyone having a gun makes life safer for anyone, including the holder of the gun.

As soon as there is a substitute that is equally economic but less likely to be used to kill, I would expect trucks to be phased out. That's logical.
But if there was a gun that was less likely to kill, you'd all be kicking the dirt in frustration and whining that you don't get to kill nuffin

 

Sure she can. She can shoot first. In a home invasion, there is a huge advantage to the person inside, if they have a gun at the ready. The intruder doesn't know where in the house you are, but you know where they came in at.

 

Killing someone for home invasion is neither proportionate nor appropriate. If she had a fear for her life, sure, but you can't determine any dangerous intent from simply breaking in. That's not "equalizing".

Of course, shooting first is also a huge advantage in killing your 7-year old grandson by mistake.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to presume anyone entering your home via force means you harm. It's legal to shoot such a person in all 50 states.

Humans have two eyes. One can check to see if it's little billy, or a man in a mask, before they open fire.

 

yeah, sure
Teen who shot at 'burglars', charged in shooting 2 Detroit police officers
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/249537815-story

I feel safer already

 

Stop embarrassing yourself. There already are guns that are more or less likely to kill someone or something and no one's "kicking the dirt in frustration".

 

The armed police stopped him. That is sufficient.

 

Really? For the same money, and all other circumstances the same, would you (honestly) prefer the gun that is less able to kill or the gun that is more able to kill?
That's not the same priority-set for people that ordinarily buy trucks, is it?

 

And there it is. You think anyone who has a gun enjoys killing.

A firearm definitely makes you safer than your empty hands. Just ask your politicians and their armed bodyguards.

 

Neither.

I want a weapon that will allow me to stop the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

Really.

My wife and I own both and my preference in any circumstance depends on the intended purpose of the gun. I prefer a small caliber gun or rifle for target shooting but if I'm walking my dog out in the woods while the black bear are migrating I'm going to carry a 20-gauge shotgun for protection. Conversely, in the case of a home intrusion, a handgun may be safer, yet less lethal, to use in self-defense than a shotgun.

 

People who have called 911 for help have also been shot by responding police. Stuff happens.

 

So when someone kicks in your front door do you hand them a questionnaire asking if they intend to do you harm?

People don't break into your house to ask how you're doing.

No wonder Europe is in the situation it is. All the man-DNA died in WW1 and WW2.

 

People with guns stopped him.

The same way two armed civilians with guns captured two escaped convicts who had killed two other police officers when escaping.

The same way 3 or 4 people in the last 6 months have saved the lives of police officers by coming to their aid with firearms.

 

And, strangely enough to some ears, as safely as possible. There's not only the threat to consider but the background, etc., to worry about. For example, most of the hunters in our country use shotguns because we have strict strict limitations on what caliber rifle one is permitted to hunt with (max 22 mm) in order to prevent someone from getting killed by a stray bullet. Right now, local officials are considering making changes for hunters using stands since the trajectory of a bullet will be headed towards the ground instead of parallel to it.

 

Nice try but, from your article:

I never said shooting randomly out your window was ok. Please stick to the truth.

 

The same way that people with guns threatened officers in the first place.
You seem to struggle with the idea that if the perps don't have guns, then the problem isn't there to be solved by gun toting vigilantes.
The perps get guns by robbing gun toting vigilantes.

 

Oh. I see.

So your plan is to ban guns from the earth, THEN people will stop trying to kill other people. Great.

Side question:

What would you do if someone broke into your house and attacked you with a knife.

 

And yet in a span of five minutes, eighty six individuals were murdered by one terrorist operating a motor vehicle in the city of Nice in the nation of France. That single incident results in more deaths than any mass shooting in the united states, committed with any firearm that was legally accessible on the open market. The pulse night club shooting came closest in scope, and yet the body count was only slightly more than half of what happened in the city of Nice.

 

VA shooter An FBI Asset - Heneghan Reports!

Jun 14, 2017

Tom Heneghan just reported to Stew Webb that James T. Hodgkinson has already been tied to FBI Division 5. There is also a Mossad overlay involved. Tom received this information from his sources in US Intelligence.

 

The 9-11 attacks were not deterred by armed civilians

That was quite serious, so the reaction was to increase airport security rather than arm the aircraft passengers.

 

There were no armed civilians to begin with, either on the airplanes involved, or in the location of the crash. Therefore the comparison being made by yourself is moot.

Which ultimately means nothing. It does not change the fact that motor vehicles have been responsible for greater mass killings than firearms. Nor does it even begin to answer the question that was presented to you, pertaining to exactly what the united kingdom can do to prevent motor vehicle-related terrorist attacks, since they cannot do anything to restrict motor vehicles in the way they have done firearms.

 

Yeah, they were.

Determined civilians who knew what happened to the other planes charged the cockpit, forcing the terrorists to crash the plane in Pennsylvania before they could hit their target.

Those brave souls used whatever they had to try and take back the airplane, and 9/11 is the reason that we have armed men with guns on every flight now.