More on that Mother Jones article one of your friends posted:
Liz Blankenship: Fun with Statistics: Mother Jones reported that in 62 cases of mass killings, none were stopped by an armed civilian. Whereas
Larry Correia states that "The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The
(
Read more... )
The gun control freaks keep demanding a 'compromise'. Despite the fact that they have gotten countless such 'compromises' in the past. Which, btw, have failed to work. A 'compromise' by definition, gives the two (or more) parties, both part of what they want. For instance, if I were to buy a sword from your sharp pointy things, and haggled you on the price, a 'compromise' would be if I paid a price higher than I might want, but lower than you might want. In return for which, I would get a sword. Which, as part of the compromise, might be a better sword than you wanted to sell me for the price, but not as good a sword as I was hoping to get.
What the gun control freaks call a 'compromise' is the equivalent of you pointing a gun at me, and demanding $200, but settling for only $100. And giving me nothing in return. Then coming back the next week and demanding another $100. Or $200. This is not a 'compromise', it is robbery and extortion.
I might also point out that what the gun control freaks call a 'conversation' is actually nothing of the sort. A conversation is speech between two parties who assume eachother to be fairly equal, and are willing to actually consider the viewpoint of the other party. For instance, if I talk to my boyfriend the trumpet player about whether or not it is feasible to make a mouthpiece out of magnesium, and what the resultant sound might be like, that is a 'conversation'. If I talk to him and demand that he stop playing the trumpet, or play it only when I see fit to allow him to play it, that is not a 'conversation', it is a demand for compliance, and any supposed 'debate' on the matter is merely cosmetic.
Reply
Leave a comment