说说为什么美国禁枪不现实

[malta]

你全家永远也没匪徒愿意抢劫，匪徒也怕传染弱智。

我只知道没有任何罪犯会愿意先捡硬柿子捏，都是优先去找软的。

[malta]

还有智商不行的，比如你，有损江湖声誉。

逻辑这么简单，你都搞不明白。jhe123根本不需要自己一个人战胜五个劫匪，他只需要让劫匪们觉得这家可能不好惹，或者动手之后发现真不好惹，那就行了，千里打劫只为财，没谁为了复仇来得。谁都是柿子是先捡软的捏。你家是满门弱鸡傻逼，那行了，被人盯上只能等死，看劫匪心情决定生死。

[wokao]

讨论的是禁枪拥枪对好人哪个安全，不是给定不禁枪好人是否拥枪

你从一个前提跳到另一个前提，显示逻辑混乱了

因此你要把自己的枪给禁了？这个逻辑是啥？

[YouHi]

澳大利亚说禁就禁了，犯罪率直接跳水，狗屁党的话术只能骗自己。

你拿事实讲道理，肛男根本不理解。

[malta]

讨论的是禁枪拥枪对好人哪个安全，不是给定不禁枪好人是否拥枪

你从一个前提跳到另一个前提，显示逻辑混乱了

改变不了社会的前提下只能是改变自己去适应社会。争论回字几种写法，哪个好哪个坏，什么意义都没有

[wokao]

那你去找楼主说去

是他提出来“假设”的

“最后假设一下，美国政府威武，首先花若干年把近三亿支民间的枪支收缴上来，再花若干年把所有源头都禁了，罪犯终于再也拿不到任何黑枪了。那么第一，罪犯能肯定守法公民没有枪了，所以罪犯不用费劲搞黑枪了，只要拎一根棒球棒，或一把 匕首，那么守法公民在警力遥遥无期的情况下面对两三个这样的罪犯有什么办法呢？（一个手无寸铁的码农如何对付三四名壮汉？）更低的犯罪门槛很可能使更多的罪犯出现。”

改变不了社会的前提下只能是改变自己去适应社会。争论回字几种写法，哪个好哪个坏，什么意义都没有

[YouHi]

肛男最大的梦想就是政府你离我远远的，最好税也不要收。

当然肛男遇到公路坏掉，电力供应出问题，垃圾没被收，还是要出来抱怨的。

肛男笃信的就是“只进不出，索取索取索取。”

[fortyNiner]

Facts, facts, facts!
Whenever a gun is used for defense, about 50 people are injured or killed by guns, not to mention the even larger number of crimes committed with guns without anybody getting hurt.
The fact is, guns are used by criminals at least 100 times more often then they are used for defense.

武器效率越高，数量差别越不重要。而犯罪分子一般都是拥有人数优势的，所以武器越高级，对好人越有利。如果都是普通人，都是赤手空拳一个对两三个，你连给对方造成严重伤害的可能都没有，但对方可以把你活活打死；都拿冷兵器，对方不怕你，你也许能打伤一个但绝对没有胜算。都拿枪，大部分罪犯基本望风而逃，个别悍匪和你死磕，你的胜算也比双方都没有枪的时候大得多。

[jhe123]

Facts, facts, facts!
Whenever a gun is used for defense, about 50 people are injured or killed by guns, not to mention the even larger number of crimes committed with guns without anybody getting hurt.
The fact is, guns are used by criminals at least 100 times more often then they are used for defense.

呵呵，你有禁枪国家这种数据的对比没有？任何一个国家，不管有枪没枪，被罪犯杀死的受害者数量，都超过平民自卫时杀死的罪犯的数量。你起码得有禁枪国的同样数据，才能发表意见。现在纯粹就是在宣泄你对枪支无意义的恐惧而已。

[fortyNiner]

Right, but due to the high lethality of guns, with guns it's like 10k killed and 100 saved. Without guns, it's like 1k killed and 10 saved. So there are 9k more deaths with guns. (Don't take the numbers too literally. Seems common reasonable assumptions might be too much for you.)

[jhe123]

Right, but due to the high lethality of guns, with guns it's like 10k killed and 100 saved. Without guns, it's like 1k killed and 10 saved. So there are 9k more deaths with guns. (Don't take the numbers too literally. Seems common reasonable assumptions might be too much for you.)

你这种弱智的臆想就不要拿出来丢人了。

[fortyNiner]

Calling someone 弱智 seems to be your strongest argument. Yeah, stick with it, just like sticking with your bluffing and bragging.

你这种弱智的臆想就不要拿出来丢人了。

[jhe123]

Calling someone 弱智 seems to be your strongest argument. Yeah, stick with it, just like sticking with your bluffing and bragging.

看来还得教训你一下你才会明白，你前面的臆想不过是枪多犯罪就多的谬论又重复了一遍而已。这个谬论早就被批臭了。

[fortyNiner]

>>>早就被批臭了
With lies, day-dreaming, bragging and bluffing?

看来还得教训你一下你才会明白，你前面的臆想不过是枪多犯罪就多的谬论又重复了一遍而已。这个谬论早就被批臭了。

[tiantian2000]

劫匪索财，你就给他财，家里也没金条 LOL
劫匪要命，你一个人，也挡不住
你拿命护财，值得吗？