1. If the criminal didn't have the gun in the first place, then he could not have shot the guy
|
"If."
Ask him about successful examples of prohibitions.
Laws in general (including gun control laws) only affect the behavior of law-abiding people, who don't pose a threat anyway.
He doesn't trust law-abiding people? Too bad.
My firearms are only a danger to those who would harm me and my family.
2. Look at the video closely, if the clerk had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference, he had no opportunity to pull it out, if he had tried the guy would have shot him before he got it out. Also in that situation he would probably not have tried to fire back, he would have had no idea the criminal was going to shoot, most hold up situations end with the clerk handing over the money and the criminal leaving. The clerk would have assumed he wasn't going to be shot.
|
Sometimes the crook gets the drop on the intended victim. However, it's false to use this to say guns are useless for defense.
Ask him if he'd rather be empty-handed or have the means to return fire when his own life is being threatened. Of course, his reply probably won't be based on anything we recognize as reality.
for the most part guns are useless in a self defence situation. Letting people have guns for "self defence" only lets people like the criminal get their hands on a gun to attack someone.
|
So sad he has so little confidence in his own abilities. Nice little sheep.
The FBI bases its statistics on facts, not opinions. The facts show approximately 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. With a gun ban that would have been 2.5 million more successful crimes and defenseless victims.
He can take his "The government will protect me" attitude and pound all the sand in the Outback with it.