"Of course, George Zimmerman did have a gun, and a boy is dead. When guns are on the scene, violence is more likely to become lethal violence. A fist fight becomes a trip to the morgue."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...had-a-gun.html
"Of course, George Zimmerman did have a gun, and a boy is dead. When guns are on the scene, violence is more likely to become lethal violence. A fist fight becomes a trip to the morgue."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...had-a-gun.html
GZ could be dead. TM could be dead still. Who knows? Dumb question in my opinion.
Also, What is the definition of a criminal?
So more guns laws would do what exactly?
Ivermectin Man
You obviously didnt read the article. First point was GZ would probably not had the strength of his conviction to begin the whole affair. As in, "stay in the car"
What will more gun laws do? Once again -- your insight is blinding
I read the article. It is a bunch of conjecture. This whole thing is. You don't know what would have happened. He could have run Trayvon over. Trayvon could have picked up a brick. That is useless conjecture and a waste of our time. I could write a whole article of questions that no one will ever be able to answer and call it journalism, but it would be polishing a terd.
My insight is that criminals don't obey laws. Guns are a part of this world, and me personally? id rather have one and not need it, than become someone that needed one and didn't. Restrict all guns and take them away. Who will have em? The criminals.
Ivermectin Man
More gun laws = more crime. These are point blank statistics that 57 refuses to accept. I am not sure why anyone engages him.
Sure, I understand. That was really more of a smartass comment than anything. The numbers are there, but there are certainly a lot of variables involved.
Last edited by Julio3000; 07-17-2013 at 02:46 PM. Reason: emphasizing hyperlink