>>THE GUNS DID KILL 4 PEOPLE.

Many more people would have died had not the armed citizen stopped him!!!!!! What is so difficult
to see about this. The presence of a firearm in the hands of a citizen prevented MORE people
from being killed.


>>I cannot believe the ignorance behind the reasoning the gun saved people lives. You tell that to
>>your children at school when another kid got killed because of a gun.

Tell that to the high school principle in Florida who pulled out his gun and subdued a gunman on
campus. How many people would have died had the principle not been armed??



>>Sure and how do you explain the gun homocide rates to be 2 to 10 times as else where in the >>world ??????

Again, how do you explain the lower crime rates in areas where there are less or no
restrictions against citizens owning guns?? You can't because your argument is baseless.


Not sure what crime rate you're referring to, but according to your beloved wikipedia, the US
is not at the top of the charts. It's in the middle chart. Not sure why you keep quoting this
as it doesn't contrubte to the argument against guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

Do try and get your facts straight. Alot of the countries at the low end of the chart are
dictatorships. That's why the have low crime rates. Russia has laws banning guns, and they
have a much higher crime rate than the US.

Your whole argument is premised on the assumption that if there were no guns, there would
be no murders, or even less murders. Well here's a historical factoid for you: People have
been killing each other since Cain & Able. It has always been, and always will be. Guns
are just the tool of the trade that criminals today choose to use. If you take them all
aways, they'll just pick up a baseball bat or knife. Do we ban all them too?

Guess that leaves you out of arguments, unless of course you're going to fabricate more 'facts'.