|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
ID: Doctor: Guns Kill People
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Safety is one of the most considered aspects of day to day living. It is always better to be safe than sorry. In ensuring that you are safe, it is recommended that you should learn how to use any kind of an item for the purpose of self defense. There has been a notion that you need to learn martial arts in order to enhance your self-defense techniques. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(10/12/2017)
|
| Hey Doc's, how many of your patients die each year due to errors, neglect etc. Quite a few. So can it on guns. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/12/2017)
|
Again the meme that a gun in the house is more of a danger than a help. Yet between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people use guns to defend themselves each year.
Years ago a study "proved" a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill or injure a home owner or family member than be used on a intruder. The methodology used to obtain this was dishonest in the extreme and required the inclusion of gang houses, drug runners homes, meth labs, suicides, and other avoidable criminal activities.
That lie is still circulating, like a bad penny.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
