Re: "Stop blaming guns, start shooting terrorists" : Pirro
It is understandable that some people want to be in gun free zones and feel safer in them. But this is based on two things. One is a purely emotional decision based on feelings only. The second does involve some logic at a lower level. They are betting on the odds that the bad guy going into a gun free zone will be somewhere else and not where they are at. And this is reasonable, but both are not the best approach and answer to the problem, and this is what they cannot get past.
Those of us who see the whole picture and do so from a rational perspective and one free of emotion understand good people with a gun make a place safer, and somewhere at some point in time as we all know, the bad guy is going to show up to kill people. When this happens, for those people, the odds of it happening are no longer in question, but the odds of them surviving are greatly in question.
One of the things I've noticed with liberals, generally speaking, is they have their idea, such as gun free zones are good, and they stop there and cannot think beyond it. No argument, no reasoning, no facts, no figures, no logic can sway them otherwise.
Once the liberal reaches this point, you can argue that the rest of us good folk should not be subjected to being defenseless as they wish to be, but in their minds they revert to the odds, so you are wasting your breath.
Now, what does this liberal do when a bad guy goes into a gun free zone and kills a bunch of people? Do they think that if a good guy with a gun had been there, they might have stopped the bad guy? Of course not, because to them, the gun is the problem and not the bad guy. They've just come full circle. Which is why talking with many liberals is a waste of time.
Originally posted by keck553
View Post
Those of us who see the whole picture and do so from a rational perspective and one free of emotion understand good people with a gun make a place safer, and somewhere at some point in time as we all know, the bad guy is going to show up to kill people. When this happens, for those people, the odds of it happening are no longer in question, but the odds of them surviving are greatly in question.
One of the things I've noticed with liberals, generally speaking, is they have their idea, such as gun free zones are good, and they stop there and cannot think beyond it. No argument, no reasoning, no facts, no figures, no logic can sway them otherwise.
Once the liberal reaches this point, you can argue that the rest of us good folk should not be subjected to being defenseless as they wish to be, but in their minds they revert to the odds, so you are wasting your breath.
Now, what does this liberal do when a bad guy goes into a gun free zone and kills a bunch of people? Do they think that if a good guy with a gun had been there, they might have stopped the bad guy? Of course not, because to them, the gun is the problem and not the bad guy. They've just come full circle. Which is why talking with many liberals is a waste of time.
Comment