I have heard this statement used in the context of debate on gun ownership, can someone explain please?
I have heard this statement used in the context of debate on gun ownership, can someone explain please?
What it simply means is that contrary to what the liberals and Leftists believe, GUN CONTROL SOLVES NOTHING. Indeed it creates serious problems.I have heard this statement used in the context of debate on gun ownership, can someone explain please?
I have heard this statement used in the context of debate on gun ownership, can someone explain please?
What it simply means is that contrary to what the liberals and Leftists believe, GUN CONTROL SOLVES NOTHING. Indeed it creates serious problems.
what do we need then, people control?
Is anyone saying that firearms can in and of themselves do anything?A firearm is an inanimate object, in and of itself it can do nothing. In order for a firearm to discharge a person must intentionally squeeze the trigger, it will not discharge by itself.
We don't blame the car or car manufacturer when someone uses a vehicle in an illegal or unsafe manner that results in death, so why are firearms and their manufacturers blamed when a firearm is used in a criminal or wreckless manner and someone dies?
Okay. I haven't heard anyone argue 'forks don't eat too much food, people do'.It's the same as someone saying a fork made them fat. You can use a fork to eat healthy or you can use it to eat pie all day. The object is in your hands and you choose whether it's used for good or ill.
Your question to start this thread certainly implied it.Is anyone saying that firearms can in and of themselves do anything?
I don't understand how my question has 'implied' anything in particular, let alone that 'firearms can in and of themselves do anything'.Your question to start this thread certainly implied it.
How would YOU answer your question?
never heard of that either lolOkay. I haven't heard anyone argue 'forks don't eat too much food, people do'.
No. What we need is people in government who have (i) honesty and (ii) integrity. Then, instead of pushing for gun control, they would honestly address the issues which lead to murder and gang violence. Not go after law abiding citizens, which is always the choice of the dishonest Democratic politicians.what do we need then, people control?
By definition anyone who commits a crime is a 'criminal'.No. What we need is people in government who have (i) honesty and (ii) integrity. Then, instead of pushing for gun control, they would honestly address the issues which lead to murder and gang violence. Not go after law abiding citizens, which is always the choice of the dishonest Democratic politicians.
Democrats are ready to push gun control again, even if it makes no difference on crime
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...again-even-if-it-makes-no-difference-on-crime
"More to the point, criminals are the least likely to comply with such laws."
"If guns are made illegal only criminals will own guns!"
Yeah...that's kinda what happens when something is made illegal
its a silly phrase meant to imply that guns arent dangerous weapons at all.
When we know they are thats why they need to be handled with care or restricted.
Its kind like saying weedkiller doesnt kill weeds, people do. Or poison isnt poisonous.